Libertarianism - Page 12

Look: Someone is having fun with caricatures again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Look: Someone is having fun with caricatures again.

Yup!

 Just following jazzy's lead!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I'd like to have a serious discussion with MJ and Jazzy on this. One issue I have is with the idea of privatization of security forces. I see this as a recipe for abuse and disaster.
How does it work? Is it supplementary to government police* or does it replace them altogether? If there is a rogue agency**, who polices the police? Gun owners? I'm not trying to be snarky but it sounds like the Wild West.

We should begin with why you see it as a recipe for abuse and disaster. Why do you assume this? What sort of abuse do you imagine? Is your standard for a private solution perfection while the government solution need not meet that same standard***?

***I ask this important question because I see this often with criticisms of private solutions: The assumption that it must be perfect for it to be successful while ignoring the obvious imperfections of government-based solutions, thus creating an unfair and biased standard.

It is important to understand your underlying presuppositions in order to address them well and to address why privatization of this function might work, on net, better than the socialized version.

Something that has been written on this is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "THE PRIVATE PRODUCTION OF DEFENSE". I'm guessing that this will address this question much better than either Jazz or I could in the medium of an internet forum. This may not address all of your questions or assumptions, and you may likely disagree with the author's logic and reasoning and assumptions. But it might be a decent starting place.

P.S. I appreciate you interest in having a serious discussion about this.

*We already have this situation in the present. We have private security agencies. These are, like private schools (and, perhaps, someday private medical practitioners) primarily affordable only by the rich. In large part because less costly services have essentially been crowded out by the state and, simultaneously, money taken that would be used for private services is unavailable to lower income individuals.

**We also have this today. We call it the "mafia" or the "mob" or even just ordinary street gangs.

Romanticizing Taxation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Romanticizing Taxation:

 

That's an excellent article.  I have noticed this romanticization of taxation over the past several months, though I never thought to label it as such.  I've got to hand it to the Democrats right now, though.  They really have a majority of people convinced that the problem is we don't steal enough of people's money.  A good number of people actually believe that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and that somehow the middle class is "paying for" the the tax "cuts" the rich want.  The stupidity and ignorance is amazing.  

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.

You're unlikely to ever see that under the electoral college system, especially with the level of campaign spending in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.

You're unlikely to ever see that under the electoral college system, especially with the level of campaign spending in the US.

I think we saw an example of that in previous years where people instead of voting against Bush they voted for the Green party instead. A noble effort that helped get us 4 more years of Bush.

Ah yes, not too busy to spam a thread without commenting, but too busy to cite the blog you plagiarized from in the other thread.

It sounds like you could not care who became the president of the U.S.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter 

I have some conservative viewpoints but most of them are economically conservative. Part of the reason why I voted for Gary Johnson is because I cannot stand social conservatism.
I am sure some of you are familiar with this Barry Goldwater quote.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TGjSSq2likc/TynVPdD67MI/AAAAAAAAEwk/Hzzs6aggXUY/s400/barry+goldwater+quote.jpg
You can call it a wasted vote and/or a vote for Obama and that's fine but in 2012, those who for strongly "protecting" marriage, "protecting" life, for so-called "morals and values", and trying to clean up things with the way the economy is are what is causing this country to decline.
I won't say the "liberals" are any better though, that's for sure.

First of all, preachers aren't in control of the GOP.

The party JUST finished nominating a Northeastern Moderate (and Mormon) to be its flag-bearer.

Secondly, people who claim to be economically conservative but socially liberal are probably nice people but are deeply confused.

The economic situation the U.S. finds itself in did not occur in a vacuum. People who cannot exercise restraint in areas of life such as sexual morality, diet or murder-for-gain will be unable to exercise any significant restraint in their economic judgment. Which is why America is crashing and burning today.

The foreclosure and debt crisis, along with a society rife with institutional corruption, is largely a product of the country's moral decline.

No amount of program-cutting by tea-partiers, tax-raising by liberals or government elimination by libertarians will save a fundamentally immoral country.

Economic conservatism can tweak the system a bit and buy some time. But that's all.

Moral decline?  Oh silly Christian.  Your times of oppressing the masses are ending and you just can't handle it.

Bring back Jesus he might help all of you with your problems that are plain nothing! You do not know what problems really are in life .
 

1. It's immoral to have sex without doing your best to enjoy it.

2. It's immoral not to have sex when it's something you both enjoy and want, as long as a) you've taken precautions against pregnancy and disease, and b) you're not hurting each other or someone else emotionally by doing it.

Go out and have fun! That's the moral thing to do.

If there's any aspect of our sexual behavior that's contributing to the decline of the US or any other nation, it's sticking your god damned noses into what other people enjoy doing safely and privately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter 


Define for me your view of sexual morality, diet, and murder for gain.

My apologies. I guess I didn't see the notification for this thread.

My point was that, regardless of your religious views, it can't be denied that Americans are indulging in risky sexual behaviours knowing fully well that many sexually transmitted diseases have no cures and are now resistant to medical treatment. In the same vein, it cannot be denied that there is a severe obesity crisis, where even young children in the U.S. are overweight.

Thirdly, we have a society that believes that killing one's unborn children so you can climb the corporate ladder or preserve your financial status is okay. (To say nothing of a President who thinks you can kill the inconvenient child right after he or she is born, if you can get away with it.)

Of course, abortion is so old school that progressives are now moving on to sanction the killing off of grandma, grandpa and anyone else who is perceived to be a long-term drain on their tax dollars.

In such a climate, 'economic conservatism' has no chance. If you won't 'balance' your sexual behaviours, your dietary intake or your ability to delay any personal gratification for the most serious concerns, it is pointless to expect the balancing of a checkbook.

The people will vote whatever they want from the treasury, society will slowly break down and authoritarianism will begin to take root.

Just as it has happened in other societies for thousands of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winter 

I have nothing against sex though I believe you should always use protection. Otherwise, the only way you avoid them is to not have sex at all and who wants to do that?

Avoid what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Government control is a poor (and dangerous) substitute for self control.

And clearly, since self control has served humanity so admirably throughout history, it is also quite unnecessary¡

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

We live in a society, and no man is an island.

No one is claiming differently. That's a straw man.

Furthermore, your statement seems to imply that the state and society are one and the same thing. This is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

If that means I have to follow the same rules as everyone else

No one is claiming any differently. That's a straw man.

Libertarianism, more than another other political philosophy  (e.g., Democrats & Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives, socialists, Marxists, fascist and statists of all flavors), demands that the same rules apply to everyone. Where these other groups often want special privileges and rights to certain groups and for certain rules to not apply or apply differently.

The simple, honest fact is that you don't actually want everyone to follow the same rules. Think carefully about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The thing you don't understand is that without enforcement of the rules, there are no rules.

I understand this perfectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Society alone is incapable of enforcing the rules without someone taking a leadership role.

This is almost certainly not true, but I'm willing to listen your logical support and defense of this claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

No matter what you choose to call the selection of that leadership, whether it's through strength of arms or through committee, that's the very definition of government.

Actually, it's not. The government/state is a unique entity within society that has unique properties, privileges, "rights" and powers. Chief among these is the monopoly on the use of initiative force and violence. That's what we're referring to when we refer to the government. NOTE: I'm not referring to the more general sense of governing. I am speaking of the government, the state. I hope that clarifies things.