or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 3

post #81 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK good, that's what I would expect you to choose. So how do you explain jazzguru's response?

I do my best to not speak for others or to go too far trying to read their minds. You'll have to ask him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I ask because I wonder if his position is common amongst L's.

I think you'd have to poll a large number of libertarians.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It is also telling that he values the potential need or want of his children for these programs that he's willing to help extend there life, (though admittedly it would be purely voluntary) at least in comparison to you.

Huh? Are you suggesting I'm not concerned about my children's welfare or lives?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #82 of 735
From what jazzguru just posted, it looks like our positions are pretty similar.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. These services can and should all be provided in private, voluntary markets. All revenue can and should be garnered by voluntary exchange for services voluntarily offered.

Does that clarify things?

Don't you see what we have here?

One Libertarian (you) taking away the wants of another Libertarian (jazzguru) to have the choice for his children when they're old enough to buy into a host of government run programs.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #84 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Don't you see what we have here?

One Libertarian (you) taking away the wants of another Libertarian (jazzguru) to have the choice for his children when they're old enough to buy into a host of government run programs.

Read my previous post.

Either your original question wasn't clear, or you're misunderstanding my original response.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #85 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Huh? Are you suggesting I'm not concerned about my children's welfare or lives?

No, of course not. Re-read my post.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #86 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Read my previous post.

Either your original question wasn't clear, or you're misunderstanding my original response.

I agree. There seems to be something behind the proposition that I'm missing also. Perhaps an unspoken presupposition.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Votes? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Are we allowed to opt out of government programs or are we eliminating them altogether? I would prefer to eliminate them altogether and let free market solutions take their place.

If I am allowed to choose to opt out of government programs and not have those taxes deducted from my paycheck, why shouldn't my children be allowed to make that choice for themselves once they start earning paychecks of their own?

Now if this is a one time deal that would affect my posterity forever, I would still opt out. I would teach my children that getting a group of people to rob my neighbor on my behalf is just as wrong as robbing him myself.

I want basically the same things you want, Hands. I want a good life for my children, affordable healthcare, safe streets, peaceful relations with other nations, a clean environment, renewable sustainable energy, a decent retirement, etc.

But I don't want to steal from you or anyone else to make that happen for me. And I don't want you to steal from me to make that happen for you.


OK, I missed this post, but still, you wanted your children to be able to choose for themselves when I offered up the deal/question, and yet you would vote to end those programs entirely, thereby voting away your children's right to choose. How do you explain that? I really can't understand your thinking.



I don't doubt you care for a host of things as much or more than the next person.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #88 of 735
What's the free market solution to a poor person who can't afford cancer treatments? Still waiting on that one.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #89 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I agree. There seems to be something behind the proposition that I'm missing also. Perhaps an unspoken presupposition.

Care to explain?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #90 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK, I missed this post, but still, you wanted your children to be able to choose for themselves when I offered up the deal/question, and yet you would vote to end those programs entirely, thereby voting away your children's right to choose. How do you explain that? I really can't understand your thinking.



I don't doubt you care for a host of things as much or more than the next person.

If it is your assumption that if the government doesn't provide these services nobody will, it is simply not true.

I have already taken steps to provide for my own retirement using free market alternatives available to me. I do not expect Social Security to exist by the time I retire, at least not in its present form.

If the government got entirely out of the picture, it would INCREASE my children's right to choose because more options would be available and prices would be lower due to increased competition in an open and free market.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #91 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

What's the free market solution to a poor person who can't afford cancer treatments? Still waiting on that one.

In a free market, competition would lower costs.

In addition, private charity would be an excellent resource for this individual.

Would you steal from your neighbor to give money to this cancer patient? If not, why are you perfectly fine with getting a group of people to steal money from your neighbor to give to the cancer patient?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #92 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

In a free market, competition would lower costs.

In addition, private charity would be an excellent resource for this individual.

Would you steal from your neighbor to give money to this cancer patient? If not, why are you perfectly fine with getting a group of people to steal money from your neighbor to give to the cancer patient?

Private charity exists now. Churches are tax exempt. Many still can't afford treatments.

Your theft premise is tired and not applicable. As a society, we should make one of our inalienable rights the free access to healthcare. Yes, that costs money. Yes, everyone should chip in. Living in a healthy, educated society has its benefits--whether you directly make use of said access or not.

Anyway, insurance companies, by their for-profit nature, are obliged to maximize profits to their shareholders. They make more money by withholding as much care as possible while charging the highest rates possible. If a competitor suddenly starts doling out more treatment, sure they'll get more subscribers, but they also will be paying out a lot more. Healthcare should simply NOT be a for-profit enterprise.

Death panels already exist in the cubicles of insurance companies.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #93 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If it is your assumption that if the government doesn't provide these services nobody will, it is simply not true.

I have already taken steps to provide for my own retirement using free market alternatives available to me. I do not expect Social Security to exist by the time I retire, at least not in its present form.

If the government got entirely out of the picture, it would INCREASE my children's right to choose because more options would be available and prices would be lower due to increased competition in an open and free market.

Do you believe people who have a history of not paying there medical bills should be denied care, even for there children?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #94 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Care to explain?

I'm not trying accuse you of anything if that's what you're asking. We just seem to have been missing your point and I was wondering if there was some assumption behind the questions that we weren't getting and that might clarify things.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 735
How many cancer sufferers could get treatment if the LDS church didn't make such disgustingly opulent displays of false-piety through constructing their behemoth castles? Why can't the LDS folks go pray in more humble buildings while they actually DO SOME REAL GOOD FOR SOCIETY.

Also, fuck the LDS church for ruining the Boy Scouts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #96 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Private charity exists now. Churches are tax exempt. Many still can't afford treatments.

Your theft premise is tired and not applicable. As a society, we should make one of our inalienable rights the free access to healthcare. Yes, that costs money. Yes, everyone should chip in. Living in a healthy, educated society has its benefits--whether you directly make use of said access or not.

Anyway, insurance companies, by their for-profit nature, are obliged to maximize profits to their shareholders. They make more money by withholding as much care as possible while charging the highest rates possible. If a competitor suddenly starts doling out more treatment, sure they'll get more subscribers, but they also will be paying out a lot more. Healthcare should simply NOT be a for-profit enterprise.

Death panels already exist in the cubicles of insurance companies.

Would you yourself take money from your neighbor under threat of violence and give that money to the cancer patient?

If not, why are you okay with having a group of people - on your behalf - take money from your neighbor under threat of violence and give that money to the cancer patient?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #97 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Do you believe people who have a history of not paying there medical bills should be denied care, even for there children?

I believe that a truly free market could accommodate such people without coercion or force from government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #98 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you yourself take money from your neighbor under threat of violence and give that money to the cancer patient?

If not, why are you okay with having a group of people - on your behalf - take money from your neighbor under threat of violence and give that money to the cancer patient?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #99 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Do you believe people who have a history of not paying there medical bills should be denied care, even for there children?

I would want to know the specifics of the situation here. If a person goes to another person for a product or service and makes a promise to pay but repeatedly does not...what is the reason? Have they fallen onto hard times? Are they simply a liar and a thief? What is the situation. I suspect these two different examples can and should be handled differently. It might also depend on the services that were provided. Some service providers may show mercy for the first case but less so for the second.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I believe that a truly free market could accommodate such people without coercion or force from government.

And this is where you allow someone to enter your ability to believe in other fantasy bullshit into the record to argue that your beliefs don't have a solid foundation in reality.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #101 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How many cancer sufferers could get treatment if the LDS church didn't make such disgustingly opulent displays of false-piety through constructing their behemoth castles? Why can't the LDS folks go pray in more humble buildings while they actually DO SOME REAL GOOD FOR SOCIETY.

Also, {expletive} the LDS church for ruining the Boy Scouts.

When all else fails, make it personal, eh? Attack the man's religion. That'll show him.

Take some time to cool off and then come back so we can continue our discussion.

In the meantime, here's some reading for you on how we do some real good for society.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I believe that a truly free market could accommodate such people without coercion or force from government.

What a charity for people who won't pay? Won't that just encourage more people not to pay but to rely on charity, or had you something else in mind, if so what?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #103 of 735
Jazz, you opened the door talking about the virtues of private charity. It's wonderful that there are mormons who go out and do nice things. It's also ABHORRENT that they build these gigantic displays of avarice when they could be putting that money to real, charitable use.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And this is where you allow someone to enter your ability to believe in other fantasy bullshit into the record to argue that your beliefs don't have a solid foundation in reality.

These personal attacks really contribute nothing of value to the discussion. You know that, right?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #105 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

These personal attacks really contribute nothing of value to the discussion. You know that, right?

Objection.

Goes to credibility of the witness.

Overruled, I'll allow it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #106 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What a charity for people who won't pay? Won't that just encourage more people not to pay but to rely on charity, or had you something else in mind, if so what?

I'm sure it depends on the charity, of course.

My church has always taken the position of helping people help themselves to the greatest degree possible and discouraging dependence on others.

Granted, there are people who are truly dependent on others for their survival and daily living, and we help them to the extent we can, as well.

My point is, government need not coerce or force people to be charitable. If it is compulsory, it ceases to be charity at all.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #107 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What a charity for people who won't pay? Won't that just encourage more people not to pay but to rely on charity, or had you something else in mind, if so what?

You are correct to point out a potential moral hazard issue. But then we have that today.

I think people often underestimate two things:

1. The market's ability to drive prices down and quality and options up through competition. We see lots of this in various market sectors largely unmolested by government. This reality would make much of healthcare significantly more affordable for many more people.

2. The charitable nature of most people and their increased capacity for charity in a free market system that makes everyone materially better off. This charity, properly administered and funded and focused either by geography or specific need, will help cover those that might otherwise fall by the wayside.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

My church has always taken the position of helping people help themselves to the greatest degree possible and discouraging dependence on others.

And that is the right approach. Inappropriate dependency is a poverty of a different kind. Sadly, this is one form of poverty that government tends to increase.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #109 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Objection.

Goes to credibility of the witness.

Overruled, I'll allow it.

I think they speak more to your own credibility than to mine.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #110 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I think they speak more to your own credibility than to mine.

You say charity helps.

I point out that churches go around influencing politics and displaying avarice.

You cry foul.

You make certain claims about how the free market will behave without any evidence.

I point out that you also believe other wild claims also with a dearth of evidence.

You cry foul.

Seems to me you just don't like the flaws in your argument and your character exposed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #111 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And that is the right approach. Inappropriate dependency is a poverty of a different kind. Sadly, this is one form of poverty that government tends to increase.

Interestingly enough, Rothbard wrote about our welfare program at length in For a New Liberty, holding it up as an example of how a proper welfare program can be run without government:

Quote:
While a strict deterrent is far better than an open welcome and a preachment about the recipients' "rights," the libertarian position calls for the complete abolition of governmental welfare and reliance on private charitable aid, based as it necessarily will be on helping the "deserving poor" on the road to independence as rapidly as possible. There was, after all, little or no governmental welfare in the United States until the Depression of the 1930s, and yet in an era of a far lower general standard of living there was no mass starvation in the streets. A highly successful private welfare program in the present-day is the one conducted by the three-millon-member [over 14 million as of April 2011] Mormon Church. This remarkable people, hounded by poverty and persecution, emigrated to Utah and nearby states in the nineteenth century, and by thrift and hard work raised themselves to a general level of prosperity and affluence. Very few Mormons are on welfare; Mormons are taught to be independent, self-reliant, and to shun the public dole. Mormons are devout believers and have therefore successfully internalized these admirable values. Furthermore, the Mormon Church operates an extensive private welfare plan for its members based, again, on the principle of helping their members toward independence as rapidly as possible.

Note, for example, the following principles from the "Welfare Plan" of the Mormon Church. "Ever since its organization in 1830, the Church has encouraged its members to establish and maintain their economic independence; it has encouraged thrift and fostered the establishment of employment-creating industries; it has stood ready at all times to help needy faithful members." In 1936, the Mormon Church developed a "Church Welfare Plan, . . . a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership." Mormon social workers in the program are instructed to act accordingly: "Faithful to this principle, welfare workers will earnestly teach and urge Church members to be self-sustaining to the full extent of their powers. No true Latter-Day Saint will, while physically able, voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Almighty and with his own labors, he will supply himself with the necessities of life." The immediate objectives of the welfare program are to: "1. Place in gainful employment those who are able to work. 2. Provide employment within the Welfare Program, in so far as possible, for those who cannot be placed in gainful employment. 3. Acquire the means with which to supply the needy, for whom the Church assumes responsibility, with the necessities of life." Insofar as possible, this program is carried on in small, decentralized, grass-roots groups: "Families, neighbors, quorums and wards and other Church organizational units may find it wise and desirable to form small groups for extending mutual help one to the other. Such groups may plant and harvest crops, process foods, store food, clothing and fuel, and carry out other projects for their mutual benefit."

Specifically, the Mormon bishops and priesthood quorums are enjoined to aid their brethren to self-help: "In his temporal administrations the bishop looks at every able-bodied needy person as a purely temporary problem, caring for him until he can help himself. The priesthood quorum must look at its needy member as a continuing problem until not alone his temporal needs are met but his spiritual ones also. As a concrete example a bishop extends help while the artisan or craftsman is out of work and in want; a priesthood quorum assists in establishing him in work and tries to see that he becomes fully self-supporting and active in his priesthood duties." Concrete rehabilitation activities for needy members enjoined upon the priesthood quorums include: "1. Placing quorum members and members of their families in permanent jobs. In some instances through trade school training, apprenticeships, and in other ways, quorums have assisted their quorum members to qualify themselves for better jobs. 2. Assisting quorum members and their families to get established in businesses of their own . . . ."

The prime objective of the Mormon Church is to find jobs for their needy. To this end, "The finding of suitable jobs, under the Welfare Program, is a major responsibility of priesthood quorum members. They and members of the Relief Society should be constantly on the alert for employment opportunities. If every member of the ward welfare committee does well his or her work in this respect, most of the unemployed will be placed in gainful employment at the group or ward level." Other members are rehabilitated as self-employed, the church may aid with a small loan, and the member's priesthood quorum may guarantee repayment from its funds. Those Mormons who cannot be placed in jobs or rehabilitated as self-employed "are to be given, in so far as possible, work at productive labor on Church properties . . . ." The Church is insistent on work by the recipient as far as possible: "It is imperative that people being sustained through the bishops storehouse program work to the extent of their ability, thus earning what they receive . . . . Work of an individual on welfare projects should be considered as temporary rather than permanent employment. It should nevertheless continue so long as assistance is rendered to the individual through the bishops storehouse program. In this way the spiritual welfare of people will be served as their temporal needs are supplied. Feelings of diffidence will be removed . . . ." Failing other work, the bishop may assign welfare recipients to aid individual members who are in need of help, the aided members reimbursing the Church at prevailing wage rates. In general, in return for their assistance, the welfare recipients are expected to make whatever contributions they can to the Church welfare program, either in funds, produce, or by their labor.

Complementary to this comprehensive system of private aid on the principle of fostering independence, the Mormon Church sternly discourages its members from going on public welfare. "It is requested that local Church officers stress the importance of each individual, each family and each Church community becoming self-sustaining and independent of public relief." And: "To seek and accept direct public relief all too often invites the curse of idleness and fosters the other evils of dole. It destroys one's independence, industry, thrift and self-respect."

There is no finer model than the Mormon Church for a private, voluntary, rational, individualistic welfare program. Let government welfare be abolished, and one would expect that numerous such programs for rational mutual aid would spring up throughout the country.

The inspiring example of the Mormon Church is a demonstration that the major determinant of who or how many people go on public welfare is their cultural and moral values rather than their level of income.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #112 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I would want to know the specifics of the situation here. If a person goes to another person for a product or service and makes a promise to pay but repeatedly does not...what is the reason? Have they fallen onto hard times? Are they simply a liar and a thief? What is the situation. I suspect these two different examples can and should be handled differently. It might also depend on the services that were provided. Some service providers may show mercy for the first case but less so for the second.


Many people fall on hard times, often repeatedly.

They may have fallen ill and had there claim denied like 50% of claims are denied in California. That could cause them to lose there good paying job, through illness.

They then may find themselves in an exceptionally low wage job because the employer figured there job only required sitting down and standing was nearly impossible after 5 mins so employs them (no minimum wage remember) and work 16 hour days (no time limits set by the government remember).

There work is dangerous (no, or likely lower safety standards remember (though you may deny this one).

After a few years there done in and now there children are sick, partly from all the frozen meals they've eaten whilst there parents are still out working in the evening, and may well die without the appropriate medical care.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #113 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You are correct to point out a potential moral hazard issue. But then we have that today.

I think people often underestimate two things:

1. The market's ability to drive prices down and quality and options up through competition. We see lots of this in various market sectors largely unmolested by government. This reality would make much of healthcare significantly more affordable for many more people.

2. The charitable nature of most people and their increased capacity for charity in a free market system that makes everyone materially better off. This charity, properly administered and funded and focused either by geography or specific need, will help cover those that might otherwise fall by the wayside.

There's definitely some truth to that, but it goes both ways. Sometimes things get better and sometimes things get worse and sometimes it's a mixed bad of both better for some and worse for others.

Certainly people are charitable, but there are often strings attached and it's not reliable, which IS really important when the bad stuff happens.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #114 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Many people fall on hard times, often repeatedly.

They may have fallen ill and had there claim denied like 50% of claims are denied in California. That could cause them to lose there good paying job, through illness.

They then may find themselves in an exceptionally low wage job because the employer figured there job only required sitting down and standing was nearly impossible after 5 mins so employs them (no minimum wage remember) and work 16 hour days (no time limits set by the government remember).

There work is dangerous (no, or likely lower safety standards remember (though you may deny this one).

After a few years there done in and now there children are sick, partly from all the frozen meals they've eaten whilst there parents are still out working in the evening, and may well die without the appropriate medical care.

It seems that, from your post, you assume absent government control there would be no mechanisms whatsoever to prevent employers from paying the lowest wages, allowing unsafe work conditions to exist and "forcing" employees to work long hours. And furthermore that the employer would have total, unrestricted control and freedom to do whatever they wanted to their employees and would do exactly that.

Am I understanding you correctly?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You say charity helps.

I point out that churches go around influencing politics and displaying avarice.

You cry foul.

You make certain claims about how the free market will behave without any evidence.

I point out that you also believe other wild claims also with a dearth of evidence.

You cry foul.

Seems to me you just don't like the flaws in your argument and your character exposed.

You can assume whatever you wish about me, of course. Carry on.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #116 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's definitely some truth to that, but it goes both ways. Sometimes things get better and sometimes things get worse and sometimes it's a mixed bad of both better for some and worse for others.

True enough, though I suspect things would get worse largely for government employees (or former government employees) and better for those in the productive sector of the economy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's definitely some truth to that, but it goes both ways. Sometimes things get better and sometimes things get worse and sometimes it's a mixed bad of both better for some and worse for others.

I don't think anyone who advocates libertarianism is claiming that it is the perfect solution.

Frankly, there is no perfect solution where imperfect human beings are involved.

We'd just rather err on the side of freedom instead of slavery.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 735
Err on the side of hyperbole, too. Shit, is there a term for extreme hyperbole? Hyperhyperbole?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #119 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It seems that, from your post, you assume absent government control there would be no mechanisms whatsoever to prevent employers from paying the lowest wages, allowing unsafe work conditions to exist and "forcing" employees to work long hours. And furthermore that the employer would have total, unrestricted control and freedom to do whatever they wanted to their employees and would do exactly that.

Am I understanding you correctly?

No of course your not, but the bottom of the barrel is going to be the bottom of the barrel, especially given that's how the business does well. The lure of cutting wages to the lowest point possible and yet still having a sizable pool of workers to pick from will be all the more true with no government safety net and no minimum wage laws. It really goes without saying.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #120 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No of course your not,

I'm glad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

but the bottom of the barrel is going to be the bottom of the barrel,

The "bottom of the barrel?" Are you speaking of people who are low skilled and with limited education and experience?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

especially given that's how the business does well.

No it isn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The lure of cutting wages to the lowest point possible and yet still having a sizable pool of workers to pick from will be all the more true with no government safety net and no minimum wage laws. It really goes without saying.

Actually it doesn't "go without saying" at all. It is simply and simplistic assumption on your part. It assumes that employers have no real competition for labor. It also assumes that lowering wages, reducing safety, etc. actually lowers costs for employers.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism