Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
I'll take that challenge.
(And I'll note first that I agree with a great deal of the libertarian stances and that it is the Democrats that are being called hypocrits for, basically, not being hard-core libertarians.)
Libertarians, despite being so pro-gun, won't let me 'choose' to kill someone for no reason. They won't let me 'choose' to strangle my newborn infant and, at least some of them, won't let a woman 'choose' to abort a pregnancy.
So could someone explain this 'hypocrisy'? Or we could sidestep the unhelpful rhetoric and accept that dealing with how your rights affect other people's rights (and when and where the line is drawn between those who have rights and those that don't e.g. vegetative coma victims or people who haven't even been concieved yet) is a difficult question that still hasn't been answered.
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed.
Because they're fabricating the motivations of the people they're arguing against. Some people, apparently like you, really want to believe these fabricated motivations. So you, like the article, throw logic out the door and ignore reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
That's the big flaw in their argument too.
So if Libertarians are truly for choice, why push for choice in contributing to Social Security? Why not just the choice to pay or not to pay taxes at all? That would be true 'Libertarian' choice. Instead we have people focusing on small pieces of the bigger picture. This group is against a choice in this instance so they're the devil!
Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to have a breast implant is against choice. Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to use dangerous substances in a breast implant is not against choice because of this argument. The Cato article is focusing on the latter example and pretending it's in the former.
sure it is. read the one rule you have to apply as a libertarian. spline posted it at the beginning of this thread. add that to your example of such tricky situations and you'll see the answer is still quite simple.
Quote:
I'm for equality. You're not.
quite possibly the lamest thing i've read in weeks. what exactly is that supposed to mean?
if everyone has no rights they're still equal. is that a good thing? no.
equal rights ≠ good by default.
besides which, how in the world do you get the idea that a libertarian would somehow have unequal rights? they're the least restrictive of all.
right now you'er supporting a massive system of unequal rights, if you can't see that you're blind.
so qualify what you mean when you say "i'm for equality"
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety of women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
There are plenty of doubts about the safety of abortion. There are even the same criticisms, in that most of the research and evidence is done and presented by abortion clinics and providers. Do you think women are really clearly informed about the large increase in ectopic pregnancies and infertility among women who have had abortions? NOW won't even endorse provisions of informed consent, waiting periods, or anything else like that. I call that coddling, you can call it what you want. They want the decision made, the procedure done and they don't care what the woman knows.
Silicone breast implants, and if you do any sort of search at NOW's site you will see they doubt the safety of ALL breast implants (including saline) requires much more information be given and the woman makes an informed choice regarding that information. These women know about the complications and the possible need for additional surgeries later, etc. They make an informed choice between them and their doctor. They know the risks. NOW seeks to deny them choice.
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
Two, the SS we pay isn't for us, it's for the current generation of elderly. So putting it in a 401K for the future isn't helpful, it's harmful. I'm 100% in favor of people saving and such, and I'm not in favor of the government doing it for me. I am in favor of the the government helping the elderly though. They've already contributed more than we have and should get some payback as well.
I can understand your disagreement with BR there. People shouldn't be able to opt out of government programs. However you should also understand the motivations of those who wish to create more choices for people under federal government programs since one size does not fit all.
As for the SS, first do me a favor. Please go repeat this to Shawn. He and I had a chat via AIM/iChat one night because he didn't believe SS was pay as you go. He certainly doubts me as a source on this matter, but I know he would believe you.
Secondly SS being a pay as you go system really is a big pyramid scheme that will collapse someday. To continue such a dishonesty in the name of "fairness" is wrong. We should do what we can for those in the system, and allow the future to start taking portions of their contributions and doing something with them besides throwing them down a hole where they are immediately spent with no return for the future.
You have to endorse some change in SS don't you? It is the most regressive tax we have and since there is nothing to leave on, or no return, it hurts the poorest most since it takes the full 13% from them and they have to find a way to invest for their retirement BEYOND that 13%.
quite possibly the lamest thing i've read in weeks. what exactly is that supposed to mean?
I think some of you have short term memory problems, or you're just not reading all of the posts.
[aside]You can attack me, but why didn't you quote BR's oversimplification that I was responding to? Why single me out instead of the person I responded to? Better yet, why not just read what we were talking about so you could fill in the blanks?[/aside]
BR suggested making Social Security a "choice" for tax payers. I said this wasn't necessarily a good idea so he says I'm not for choice. If you don't think this is "quite possibly the lamest thing [you've] read in weeks" it's because you haven't been reading the thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
if everyone has no rights they're still equal. is that a good thing? no.
equal rights ≠ good by default.
Using you're example, the scenario BR described would have been some people getting all the rights (those that want to opt-out of SS) while some getting none (those that want to opt-out of more programs than just SS.) I would say equal none for all before unequal all for some.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
besides which, how in the world do you get the idea that a libertarian would somehow have unequal rights? they're the least restrictive of all.
BR's SS example. Allowing people to opt-out of SS while not allowing them to opt-out of all government programs is not equal, and not even Libertarian.
Again, it's people here focusing on a small piece of the overall picture.
If you don't want the choice to opt-out of SS, you're against choice. That's a stupid oversimplification, grade school play ground tactics. The true Libertarian argument would be not about a specific program like SS, but of ALL government programs. Are you for or against the ability to choose what programs your tax dollars fund?
BR says no, he's for limiting that choice to just SS. I say don't limit it to SS, open it to all programs. Give us all the ability to opt our tax dollars out of any program we choose. That's more Libertarian and more equal.
This stupid article is using the same grade school play ground tactics to try and make a point. If you don't let people get implants with silicone you're against choice. No, that's just not true and it takes someone being willfully blind (or woefully ignorant) to believe that it is true.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
right now you'er supporting a massive system of unequal rights, if you can't see that you're blind.
so qualify what you mean when you say "i'm for equality"
what do you mean by that, exactly
Why don't you explain what massive system of unequal rights I'm supporting. You're so far off base you're not making much sense here. Seriously, please. I'm not sure what system you're referring to, but I'll be more than happy to clarify and support my case.
The Cato institute article attacks a Democratic politician, not NOW. We're not discussing NOW, we're discussing the article. The 'Libertarian' who wrote the article is full of crap. His point would be pointless if he were attacking NOW, as you are here. His point is to attack an opposing political party, not a non-political entity.
Let's focus your same argument on the politician instead of NOW. You'll see that your point doesn't hold water. The politician isn't pushing for the end of breast implants, or for limiting access to information about the dangers of abortions. The politician is against a specific procedure she (right or wrong) believes to be dangerous.
And by dangerous, it's dangerous like smoking is dangerous. Correct usage of an implant can be hazardous to your health. A properly done abortion is (roughly) as safe as any surgical procedure.
I can understand your disagreement with BR there. People shouldn't be able to opt out of government programs. However you should also understand the motivations of those who wish to create more choices for people under federal government programs since one size does not fit all.
I'm all for it. The thing is, I bet defense spending would drop to under 10% if we implimented a plan like this. I'd do it, but I know most people that advocate for making Social Security optional would not support a system that also allowed defense spending to drop. So, leave both alone is what I say.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the SS, first do me a favor. Please go repeat this to Shawn. He and I had a chat via AIM/iChat one night because he didn't believe SS was pay as you go. He certainly doubts me as a source on this matter, but I know he would believe you.
Secondly SS being a pay as you go system really is a big pyramid scheme that will collapse someday. To continue such a dishonesty in the name of "fairness" is wrong. We should do what we can for those in the system, and allow the future to start taking portions of their contributions and doing something with them besides throwing them down a hole where they are immediately spent with no return for the future.
You have to endorse some change in SS don't you? It is the most regressive tax we have and since there is nothing to leave on, or no return, it hurts the poorest most since it takes the full 13% from them and they have to find a way to invest for their retirement BEYOND that 13%.
Nick
First, careful with the rhetoric. If it's a pyramid, that doesn't mean it's going to collapse. Second, it's not a hole, the money is going to help the elderly. That's an investment in and of itself. We do have a throw away society, us a TV for a year, buy a newer bigger one. Lease a car, get a new one. Etc. But I don't think that's how we should treat our eldery.
I don't view the world as pay now, what do I get in return. I'm looking at the overall picture. Sure the elderly aren't ever going to move back into the workplace and be productive, but they've already been productive and are getting their just rewards. As a society, we relied on them to push us forward. Now it's time to pay them back some. And it's not about giving them SS so they can give back now. They've already given, and we're paying them back for what they've done.
So I kind of resent the idea that SS is a 'hole', or 'worthless', or whatever. It's not a direct relationship. We're paying now for work already done. My grandparents already propped this country up on their shoulders and even though they can't do much more for advancing us, that doesn't me we all aren't in debt to them for what they've already done.
This isn't a business where you hire someone, pay them, then fire them and hire a newer, younger, cheaper employee. The government and country was built by these people and we owe them. Just as our grandchildren will owe us when we pass our society on to them.
That said, I do support an improvement on the program. Take more from the rich and less from the poor. Don't let the rich folks take from SS in retirement because they take the most from the system and need it the least. There are plenty of discussions we could have about how to improve it, but I think the focus of the program needs to remain the same. I'm paying now the previous generation to survive.
There are plenty of doubts about the safety of abortion.
No. Legal abortion is significantly safer than illegal abortion. Hence NOW's practical support of the right to the procedure (in addition to the philosophical/ideological reasons). There really is no doubt that illegal abortion harms women.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There are even the same criticisms, in that most of the research and evidence is done and presented by abortion clinics and providers.
Did you just make that up?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you think women are really clearly informed about the large increase in ectopic pregnancies and infertility among women who have had abortions?
That's irrelevant because the risks of abortion are clearly known whereas the long-term risks of silicone breast implants are unknown.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
NOW won't even endorse provisions of informed consent, waiting periods, or anything else like that. I call that coddling, you can call it what you want.
You're right. It's an example of anti-abortion advocates coddling women who want an abortion. They want women to jump through a million hoops for a relatively safe procedure with known consequences. So instead of even having the decision between a woman and her doctor, the state wants her parents informed, makes a woman wait regardless of her decision with her doctor, and other things like that.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They want the decision made, the procedure done and they don't care what the woman knows.
Somehow, I find your argument that the National Organization of Women is somehow anti-women less than compelling. Gee, I wonder why?
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Silicone breast implants, and if you do any sort of search at NOW's site you will see they doubt the safety of ALL breast implants (including saline) requires much more information be given and the woman makes an informed choice regarding that information. These women know about the complications and the possible need for additional surgeries later, etc. They make an informed choice between them and their doctor. They know the risks. NOW seeks to deny them choice.
You're right. None are meant to be permanent and all require additional surgery. We do know that saline breast implants break, but they release only saline fluid into the body. What happens when silicone breast implants break? It's not pretty when any implant breaks, but we just don't know if silicone is safe in the long run.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They know the risks.
Exactly! They know the risks of abortion or saline breast implants. They don't know the risks of silicone breast implants. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I think some of you have short term memory problems, or you're just not reading all of the posts.
[aside]You can attack me, but why didn't you quote BR's oversimplification that I was responding to? Why single me out instead of the person I responded to? Better yet, why not just read what we were talking about so you could fill in the blanks?[/aside]
BR suggested making Social Security a "choice" for tax payers. I said this wasn't necessarily a good idea so he says I'm not for choice. If you don't think this is "quite possibly the lamest thing [you've] read in weeks" it's because you haven't been reading the thread.
Using you're example, the scenario BR described would have been some people getting all the rights (those that want to opt-out of SS) while some getting none (those that want to opt-out of more programs than just SS.) I would say equal none for all before unequal all for some.
BR's SS example. Allowing people to opt-out of SS while not allowing them to opt-out of all government programs is not equal, and not even Libertarian.
Again, it's people here focusing on a small piece of the overall picture.
If you don't want the choice to opt-out of SS, you're against choice. That's a stupid oversimplification, grade school play ground tactics. The true Libertarian argument would be not about a specific program like SS, but of ALL government programs. Are you for or against the ability to choose what programs your tax dollars fund?
BR says no, he's for limiting that choice to just SS. I say don't limit it to SS, open it to all programs. Give us all the ability to opt our tax dollars out of any program we choose. That's more Libertarian and more equal.
This stupid article is using the same grade school play ground tactics to try and make a point. If you don't let people get implants with silicone you're against choice. No, that's just not true and it takes someone being willfully blind (or woefully ignorant) to believe that it is true.
Why don't you explain what massive system of unequal rights I'm supporting. You're so far off base you're not making much sense here. Seriously, please. I'm not sure what system you're referring to, but I'll be more than happy to clarify and support my case.
You can't seriously believe this. Social Security is a retirement fund. It doesn't work. People should have the choice to manage their own retirement fund instead of leaving it up to the inept government.
Now, you say "well derr if you can opt-out SS why can't I opt-out of paying for the military?"
That's a retarded question. The military, like it or not, agree with the policy of the president or not, is for the protection of ALL citizens. Whether your want to admit it or not, whether you pay your share or not, you still benefit from it. Same goes with fire, police, and public emergency rooms.
Can you name another program you would like to opt-out of that you don't still benefit from if you don't contribute to the system? Instead of screaming and crying "BR DOESN'T WANT EQUALITY BECAUSE HE ISN'T FOR OPTING OUT OF OTHER PROGRAMS WAHHHHH MY CAT'S BREATH SMELLS LIKE CAT FOOD!" try bringing up a concrete example of a program you want to opt-out of and I'll give you my opinion on it.
Since you seem to be incapable of doing so, I'll get it started. Medicare. If one chooses to not pay their share of Medicare, they will simply never be allowed to take advantage of it. However, if they are one day old and poor and need medical assistance from the government, they won't get it. They made the choice. They have to live with the consequences.
That's the problem with our society. Everyone is willing to make plenty of choices but we keep preventing them from feeling the consequences of those decisions. If people would be forced to deal with the consequences of their choices, we would see a lot fewer dumb choices.
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed. (which as far as I can tell IS what's happening in certain cases). From a purely logical standpoint that article is incredibly solid. Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
Its a challenge to discuss philosophical issues with lay politicos. Most of the political "reasoning" in currency is based on little more than group identity and particular self-interests.
After reading the article, I thought that it would be useful to offer a quote:
>>>And this month we've learned that the most vocal feminist advocates of "choice" don't believe a woman should have the right to choose silicone breast implants.
I'd like to hear a presidential candidate say, "I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have a child. I believe in a woman's right to choose any job someone will hire her for. I believe in a woman's right to choose to own a gun. I believe in a woman's right to choose the school she thinks is best for her child, public or private. I believe in a woman's right to choose to drive a cab, even if she doesn't have a taxi medallion. I believe in a woman's right to choose the employees she wants for her business, even if they don't fit some government quota. I believe in a woman's right to choose the drugs she prefers for recreation, whether she chooses Coors or cocaine. I believe in a woman's right to choose how to spend all of her hard-earned money, without giving half of it to the government."<<<
Everyone has a right to choose which school to send their child to.
Everyone has a right to choose how their retirement fund will be managed.
Everyone has a right to ingest whatever they want.
Everyone has a right to fvck with their body however they want.
That right there is equality. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for equality. That's just being dishonest.
I want freedom of choice for all of my taxes and government programs. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for choice. That's just being dishonest.
You can't seriously believe this. Social Security is a retirement fund. It doesn't work. People should have the choice to manage their own retirement fund instead of leaving it up to the inept government.
Look, the reason Gore liked his 'lockbox' is because the money that goes into Social Security doesn't all go to pay for Social Security. When Bush had a surplus, he spent it on other things.
That means you and I are not guaranteed a retirement fund from Social Security. That means it's not a retirement fund for you and I so much as it is a fund for the current elderly and the potential of a fund for both you and I.
People can manage their own retirement funds. Among other things, Social Security considers itself a potential supplement to your own retirement funds if necessary.
I want freedom of choice for all of my taxes and government programs. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for choice. That's just being dishonest.
You are forgetting that your rights end as soon as they begin to encroach upon that of another. You are also forgetting that in cases where you directly benefit from the government services regardless of your contribution, such a service must be paid for by all citizens (if determined that the service is necessary in the first place).
You are bullshitting everyone about this freedom of choices for all of your taxes. That's inane. Fire, police, military, the post office, and many other services benefit EVERYONE no matter what they pay into the system. You can't just pull your funds out saying it's freedom of choice. It doesn't apply when you still receive the benefits. If someone paints your house, you see them painting your house, and you don't stop them, you still owe them the money for painting your house. You benefited from the service. You owe the money.
Don't be a dillhole and respond to this with the same two-liner. I have shown a lot of patience with your disrespectful, purposefully obtuse replies. Enough is enough. Grow up or get the fvck out.
Look, the reason Gore liked his 'lockbox' is because the money that goes into Social Security doesn't all go to pay for Social Security. When Bush had a surplus, he spent it on other things.
That means you and I are not guaranteed a retirement fund from Social Security. That means it's not a retirement fund for you and I so much as it is a fund for the current elderly and the potential of a fund for both you and I.
People can manage their own retirement funds. Among other things, Social Security considers itself a potential supplement to your own retirement funds if necessary.
I agree that we can't leave the eldery hanging out to dry. All those currently eligible to receive it should still get it.
The point is this. The elderly ALREADY paid their money into the system. The government mismanaged it. The government lost it. The government now expects ME to cover their ass for their mistake. Sorry. Too bad. There are plenty of spending cuts that can be made that would keep SS afloat while still allowing people to opt-out from having the government mismanage their retirement funds.
Extremely limited corporate welfare. Extremely limited personal welfare. Extremely limited government welfare.
The government needs to be taken off welfare once and for all. They've abused it way too long.
Because they're fabricating the motivations of the people they're arguing against. Some people, apparently like you, really want to believe these fabricated motivations. So you, like the article, throw logic out the door and ignore reality.
That's the big flaw in their argument too.
So if Libertarians are truly for choice, why push for choice in contributing to Social Security? Why not just the choice to pay or not to pay taxes at all? That would be true 'Libertarian' choice. Instead we have people focusing on small pieces of the bigger picture. This group is against a choice in this instance so they're the devil!
Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to have a breast implant is against choice. Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to use dangerous substances in a breast implant is not against choice because of this argument. The Cato article is focusing on the latter example and pretending it's in the former.
It's crap.
You're not making a lot of sense with the first paragraph. there's just not enough context and its hard to follow. All I have to say in return is that I think you're the one who doesn't understand.
Generally speaking, the difference between the capitalists and the socialists I know is that the capitalists tend to be good at math and sound in logic. From a mathematic point of view, capitalism is ALWAYS the optimal way. Take econ 101 to learn more. (and yes, capitalism is another example of a system with perfect choice.) I don't believe that the world is part of a demonic mystery that we need to defend oursleves from. The motivations mentioned in this article aren't fabricated unless the world is demonic and our five senses and powers of observation are inherently flawed.
What I find so amazing is that you just don't get it, but I really don't want to bark up that tree because I already know why. Libertarians don't want taxes at all. Go to a Harry Browne shindig sometime and find this out for yourself. The only reason why we push for reform is because we realize that, as they say, rome wasn't built in a day.
As for the part about implants, I should be able to do what I want to do to my own body, so long as I'm not somehow violating the property of others (the abortion debate). That's choice. Granted I'm not a woman or the kind of guy who gets breast implants, I don't see how breast implants harm the property of others.
As for stupider like a fox: One rule that I have said over 100 times in AO. . . respect private property. A life is property.
What I find so amazing is that you just don't get it, but I really don't want to bark up that tree because I already know why. Libertarians don't want taxes at all. Go to a Harry Browne shindig sometime and find this out for yourself. The only reason why we push for reform is because we realize that, as they say, rome wasn't built in a day.
Of course I 'get it,' but this article isn't 'it,' it's partisan crap. If the article was about how both parties are crap and like to limit our choices in many different ways I'd have to argument with it. As it stands it's pure partisan crap.
I agree that we can't leave the eldery hanging out to dry. All those currently eligible to receive it should still get it.
The point is this. The elderly ALREADY paid their money into the system. The government mismanaged it. The government lost it. The government now expects ME to cover their ass for their mistake. Sorry. Too bad. There are plenty of spending cuts that can be made that would keep SS afloat while still allowing people to opt-out from having the government mismanage their retirement funds.
Extremely limited corporate welfare. Extremely limited personal welfare. Extremely limited government welfare.
The government needs to be taken off welfare once and for all. They've abused it way too long.
As I said, its pretty difficult to get too abstract with convential politicos...nice try.
In the mean time, I suppose you've read "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Nozick the best single source I've read on minimal state theory ? Loved it...
As for stupider like a fox: One rule that I have said over 100 times in AO. . . respect private property. A life is property.
Is it really that simple to you? I still don't understand what you mean, so maybe I'm just being dumb.
A 'life' is property apparantly, so when does life begin - with sperm and eggs, when a sperm and a egg meet, 1 month later, 3 months, birth?
Answer the damn question. The question that every honest person, whether pro-choice or pro-life, finds hard to answer. Or at least admit it is difficult. You can't just claim it's simple and leave it at that.
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
I'll take that challenge.
(And I'll note first that I agree with a great deal of the libertarian stances and that it is the Democrats that are being called hypocrits for, basically, not being hard-core libertarians.)
Libertarians, despite being so pro-gun, won't let me 'choose' to kill someone for no reason. They won't let me 'choose' to strangle my newborn infant and, at least some of them, won't let a woman 'choose' to abort a pregnancy.
So could someone explain this 'hypocrisy'? Or we could sidestep the unhelpful rhetoric and accept that dealing with how your rights affect other people's rights (and when and where the line is drawn between those who have rights and those that don't e.g. vegetative coma victims or people who haven't even been concieved yet) is a difficult question that still hasn't been answered.
It's really not "so damn simple".
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed.
Because they're fabricating the motivations of the people they're arguing against. Some people, apparently like you, really want to believe these fabricated motivations. So you, like the article, throw logic out the door and ignore reality.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
That's the big flaw in their argument too.
So if Libertarians are truly for choice, why push for choice in contributing to Social Security? Why not just the choice to pay or not to pay taxes at all? That would be true 'Libertarian' choice. Instead we have people focusing on small pieces of the bigger picture. This group is against a choice in this instance so they're the devil!
Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to have a breast implant is against choice. Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to use dangerous substances in a breast implant is not against choice because of this argument. The Cato article is focusing on the latter example and pretending it's in the former.
It's crap.
It's really not "so damn simple".
sure it is. read the one rule you have to apply as a libertarian. spline posted it at the beginning of this thread. add that to your example of such tricky situations and you'll see the answer is still quite simple.
I'm for equality. You're not.
quite possibly the lamest thing i've read in weeks. what exactly is that supposed to mean?
if everyone has no rights they're still equal. is that a good thing? no.
equal rights ≠ good by default.
besides which, how in the world do you get the idea that a libertarian would somehow have unequal rights? they're the least restrictive of all.
right now you'er supporting a massive system of unequal rights, if you can't see that you're blind.
so qualify what you mean when you say "i'm for equality"
what do you mean by that, exactly
Originally posted by ShawnJ
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety of women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
There are plenty of doubts about the safety of abortion. There are even the same criticisms, in that most of the research and evidence is done and presented by abortion clinics and providers. Do you think women are really clearly informed about the large increase in ectopic pregnancies and infertility among women who have had abortions? NOW won't even endorse provisions of informed consent, waiting periods, or anything else like that. I call that coddling, you can call it what you want. They want the decision made, the procedure done and they don't care what the woman knows.
Silicone breast implants, and if you do any sort of search at NOW's site you will see they doubt the safety of ALL breast implants (including saline) requires much more information be given and the woman makes an informed choice regarding that information. These women know about the complications and the possible need for additional surgeries later, etc. They make an informed choice between them and their doctor. They know the risks. NOW seeks to deny them choice.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
Two, the SS we pay isn't for us, it's for the current generation of elderly. So putting it in a 401K for the future isn't helpful, it's harmful. I'm 100% in favor of people saving and such, and I'm not in favor of the government doing it for me. I am in favor of the the government helping the elderly though. They've already contributed more than we have and should get some payback as well.
I can understand your disagreement with BR there. People shouldn't be able to opt out of government programs. However you should also understand the motivations of those who wish to create more choices for people under federal government programs since one size does not fit all.
As for the SS, first do me a favor. Please go repeat this to Shawn.
Secondly SS being a pay as you go system really is a big pyramid scheme that will collapse someday. To continue such a dishonesty in the name of "fairness" is wrong. We should do what we can for those in the system, and allow the future to start taking portions of their contributions and doing something with them besides throwing them down a hole where they are immediately spent with no return for the future.
You have to endorse some change in SS don't you? It is the most regressive tax we have and since there is nothing to leave on, or no return, it hurts the poorest most since it takes the full 13% from them and they have to find a way to invest for their retirement BEYOND that 13%.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
quite possibly the lamest thing i've read in weeks. what exactly is that supposed to mean?
I think some of you have short term memory problems, or you're just not reading all of the posts.
[aside]You can attack me, but why didn't you quote BR's oversimplification that I was responding to? Why single me out instead of the person I responded to? Better yet, why not just read what we were talking about so you could fill in the blanks?[/aside]
BR suggested making Social Security a "choice" for tax payers. I said this wasn't necessarily a good idea so he says I'm not for choice. If you don't think this is "quite possibly the lamest thing [you've] read in weeks" it's because you haven't been reading the thread.
Originally posted by alcimedes
if everyone has no rights they're still equal. is that a good thing? no.
equal rights ≠ good by default.
Using you're example, the scenario BR described would have been some people getting all the rights (those that want to opt-out of SS) while some getting none (those that want to opt-out of more programs than just SS.) I would say equal none for all before unequal all for some.
Originally posted by alcimedes
besides which, how in the world do you get the idea that a libertarian would somehow have unequal rights? they're the least restrictive of all.
BR's SS example. Allowing people to opt-out of SS while not allowing them to opt-out of all government programs is not equal, and not even Libertarian.
Again, it's people here focusing on a small piece of the overall picture.
If you don't want the choice to opt-out of SS, you're against choice. That's a stupid oversimplification, grade school play ground tactics. The true Libertarian argument would be not about a specific program like SS, but of ALL government programs. Are you for or against the ability to choose what programs your tax dollars fund?
BR says no, he's for limiting that choice to just SS. I say don't limit it to SS, open it to all programs. Give us all the ability to opt our tax dollars out of any program we choose. That's more Libertarian and more equal.
This stupid article is using the same grade school play ground tactics to try and make a point. If you don't let people get implants with silicone you're against choice. No, that's just not true and it takes someone being willfully blind (or woefully ignorant) to believe that it is true.
Originally posted by alcimedes
right now you'er supporting a massive system of unequal rights, if you can't see that you're blind.
so qualify what you mean when you say "i'm for equality"
what do you mean by that, exactly
Why don't you explain what massive system of unequal rights I'm supporting. You're so far off base you're not making much sense here. Seriously, please. I'm not sure what system you're referring to, but I'll be more than happy to clarify and support my case.
Originally posted by trumptman
NOW seeks to deny them choice.
The Cato institute article attacks a Democratic politician, not NOW. We're not discussing NOW, we're discussing the article. The 'Libertarian' who wrote the article is full of crap. His point would be pointless if he were attacking NOW, as you are here. His point is to attack an opposing political party, not a non-political entity.
Let's focus your same argument on the politician instead of NOW. You'll see that your point doesn't hold water. The politician isn't pushing for the end of breast implants, or for limiting access to information about the dangers of abortions. The politician is against a specific procedure she (right or wrong) believes to be dangerous.
And by dangerous, it's dangerous like smoking is dangerous. Correct usage of an implant can be hazardous to your health. A properly done abortion is (roughly) as safe as any surgical procedure.
Originally posted by trumptman
I can understand your disagreement with BR there. People shouldn't be able to opt out of government programs. However you should also understand the motivations of those who wish to create more choices for people under federal government programs since one size does not fit all.
I'm all for it. The thing is, I bet defense spending would drop to under 10% if we implimented a plan like this. I'd do it, but I know most people that advocate for making Social Security optional would not support a system that also allowed defense spending to drop. So, leave both alone is what I say.
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the SS, first do me a favor. Please go repeat this to Shawn.
Secondly SS being a pay as you go system really is a big pyramid scheme that will collapse someday. To continue such a dishonesty in the name of "fairness" is wrong. We should do what we can for those in the system, and allow the future to start taking portions of their contributions and doing something with them besides throwing them down a hole where they are immediately spent with no return for the future.
You have to endorse some change in SS don't you? It is the most regressive tax we have and since there is nothing to leave on, or no return, it hurts the poorest most since it takes the full 13% from them and they have to find a way to invest for their retirement BEYOND that 13%.
Nick
First, careful with the rhetoric. If it's a pyramid, that doesn't mean it's going to collapse. Second, it's not a hole, the money is going to help the elderly. That's an investment in and of itself. We do have a throw away society, us a TV for a year, buy a newer bigger one. Lease a car, get a new one. Etc. But I don't think that's how we should treat our eldery.
I don't view the world as pay now, what do I get in return. I'm looking at the overall picture. Sure the elderly aren't ever going to move back into the workplace and be productive, but they've already been productive and are getting their just rewards. As a society, we relied on them to push us forward. Now it's time to pay them back some. And it's not about giving them SS so they can give back now. They've already given, and we're paying them back for what they've done.
So I kind of resent the idea that SS is a 'hole', or 'worthless', or whatever. It's not a direct relationship. We're paying now for work already done. My grandparents already propped this country up on their shoulders and even though they can't do much more for advancing us, that doesn't me we all aren't in debt to them for what they've already done.
This isn't a business where you hire someone, pay them, then fire them and hire a newer, younger, cheaper employee. The government and country was built by these people and we owe them. Just as our grandchildren will owe us when we pass our society on to them.
That said, I do support an improvement on the program. Take more from the rich and less from the poor. Don't let the rich folks take from SS in retirement because they take the most from the system and need it the least. There are plenty of discussions we could have about how to improve it, but I think the focus of the program needs to remain the same. I'm paying now the previous generation to survive.
Originally posted by trumptman
There are plenty of doubts about the safety of abortion.
No. Legal abortion is significantly safer than illegal abortion. Hence NOW's practical support of the right to the procedure (in addition to the philosophical/ideological reasons). There really is no doubt that illegal abortion harms women.
Originally posted by trumptman
There are even the same criticisms, in that most of the research and evidence is done and presented by abortion clinics and providers.
Did you just make that up?
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you think women are really clearly informed about the large increase in ectopic pregnancies and infertility among women who have had abortions?
That's irrelevant because the risks of abortion are clearly known whereas the long-term risks of silicone breast implants are unknown.
Originally posted by trumptman
NOW won't even endorse provisions of informed consent, waiting periods, or anything else like that. I call that coddling, you can call it what you want.
You're right. It's an example of anti-abortion advocates coddling women who want an abortion. They want women to jump through a million hoops for a relatively safe procedure with known consequences. So instead of even having the decision between a woman and her doctor, the state wants her parents informed, makes a woman wait regardless of her decision with her doctor, and other things like that.
Originally posted by trumptman
They want the decision made, the procedure done and they don't care what the woman knows.
Somehow, I find your argument that the National Organization of Women is somehow anti-women less than compelling. Gee, I wonder why?
Originally posted by trumptman
Silicone breast implants, and if you do any sort of search at NOW's site you will see they doubt the safety of ALL breast implants (including saline) requires much more information be given and the woman makes an informed choice regarding that information. These women know about the complications and the possible need for additional surgeries later, etc. They make an informed choice between them and their doctor. They know the risks. NOW seeks to deny them choice.
You're right. None are meant to be permanent and all require additional surgery. We do know that saline breast implants break, but they release only saline fluid into the body. What happens when silicone breast implants break? It's not pretty when any implant breaks, but we just don't know if silicone is safe in the long run.
Originally posted by trumptman
They know the risks.
Exactly! They know the risks of abortion or saline breast implants. They don't know the risks of silicone breast implants. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you for choice for one, or choice for all? I'm for equality. You're not. Thanks, but no thanks.
Everyone has a right to choose which school to send their child to.
Everyone has a right to choose how their retirement fund will be managed.
Everyone has a right to ingest whatever they want.
Everyone has a right to fvck with their body however they want.
That right there is equality. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for equality. That's just being dishonest.
Originally posted by bunge
I think some of you have short term memory problems, or you're just not reading all of the posts.
[aside]You can attack me, but why didn't you quote BR's oversimplification that I was responding to? Why single me out instead of the person I responded to? Better yet, why not just read what we were talking about so you could fill in the blanks?[/aside]
BR suggested making Social Security a "choice" for tax payers. I said this wasn't necessarily a good idea so he says I'm not for choice. If you don't think this is "quite possibly the lamest thing [you've] read in weeks" it's because you haven't been reading the thread.
Using you're example, the scenario BR described would have been some people getting all the rights (those that want to opt-out of SS) while some getting none (those that want to opt-out of more programs than just SS.) I would say equal none for all before unequal all for some.
BR's SS example. Allowing people to opt-out of SS while not allowing them to opt-out of all government programs is not equal, and not even Libertarian.
Again, it's people here focusing on a small piece of the overall picture.
If you don't want the choice to opt-out of SS, you're against choice. That's a stupid oversimplification, grade school play ground tactics. The true Libertarian argument would be not about a specific program like SS, but of ALL government programs. Are you for or against the ability to choose what programs your tax dollars fund?
BR says no, he's for limiting that choice to just SS. I say don't limit it to SS, open it to all programs. Give us all the ability to opt our tax dollars out of any program we choose. That's more Libertarian and more equal.
This stupid article is using the same grade school play ground tactics to try and make a point. If you don't let people get implants with silicone you're against choice. No, that's just not true and it takes someone being willfully blind (or woefully ignorant) to believe that it is true.
Why don't you explain what massive system of unequal rights I'm supporting. You're so far off base you're not making much sense here. Seriously, please. I'm not sure what system you're referring to, but I'll be more than happy to clarify and support my case.
You can't seriously believe this. Social Security is a retirement fund. It doesn't work. People should have the choice to manage their own retirement fund instead of leaving it up to the inept government.
Now, you say "well derr if you can opt-out SS why can't I opt-out of paying for the military?"
That's a retarded question. The military, like it or not, agree with the policy of the president or not, is for the protection of ALL citizens. Whether your want to admit it or not, whether you pay your share or not, you still benefit from it. Same goes with fire, police, and public emergency rooms.
Can you name another program you would like to opt-out of that you don't still benefit from if you don't contribute to the system? Instead of screaming and crying "BR DOESN'T WANT EQUALITY BECAUSE HE ISN'T FOR OPTING OUT OF OTHER PROGRAMS WAHHHHH MY CAT'S BREATH SMELLS LIKE CAT FOOD!" try bringing up a concrete example of a program you want to opt-out of and I'll give you my opinion on it.
Since you seem to be incapable of doing so, I'll get it started. Medicare. If one chooses to not pay their share of Medicare, they will simply never be allowed to take advantage of it. However, if they are one day old and poor and need medical assistance from the government, they won't get it. They made the choice. They have to live with the consequences.
That's the problem with our society. Everyone is willing to make plenty of choices but we keep preventing them from feeling the consequences of those decisions. If people would be forced to deal with the consequences of their choices, we would see a lot fewer dumb choices.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
So succinct.
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed. (which as far as I can tell IS what's happening in certain cases). From a purely logical standpoint that article is incredibly solid. Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
Its a challenge to discuss philosophical issues with lay politicos. Most of the political "reasoning" in currency is based on little more than group identity and particular self-interests.
After reading the article, I thought that it would be useful to offer a quote:
>>>And this month we've learned that the most vocal feminist advocates of "choice" don't believe a woman should have the right to choose silicone breast implants.
I'd like to hear a presidential candidate say, "I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have a child. I believe in a woman's right to choose any job someone will hire her for. I believe in a woman's right to choose to own a gun. I believe in a woman's right to choose the school she thinks is best for her child, public or private. I believe in a woman's right to choose to drive a cab, even if she doesn't have a taxi medallion. I believe in a woman's right to choose the employees she wants for her business, even if they don't fit some government quota. I believe in a woman's right to choose the drugs she prefers for recreation, whether she chooses Coors or cocaine. I believe in a woman's right to choose how to spend all of her hard-earned money, without giving half of it to the government."<<<
Originally posted by BR
Everyone has a right to choose which school to send their child to.
Everyone has a right to choose how their retirement fund will be managed.
Everyone has a right to ingest whatever they want.
Everyone has a right to fvck with their body however they want.
That right there is equality. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for equality. That's just being dishonest.
I want freedom of choice for all of my taxes and government programs. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for choice. That's just being dishonest.
Originally posted by BR
You can't seriously believe this. Social Security is a retirement fund. It doesn't work. People should have the choice to manage their own retirement fund instead of leaving it up to the inept government.
Look, the reason Gore liked his 'lockbox' is because the money that goes into Social Security doesn't all go to pay for Social Security. When Bush had a surplus, he spent it on other things.
That means you and I are not guaranteed a retirement fund from Social Security. That means it's not a retirement fund for you and I so much as it is a fund for the current elderly and the potential of a fund for both you and I.
People can manage their own retirement funds. Among other things, Social Security considers itself a potential supplement to your own retirement funds if necessary.
Originally posted by bunge
I want freedom of choice for all of my taxes and government programs. I don't see how you can say that I'm not for choice. That's just being dishonest.
You are forgetting that your rights end as soon as they begin to encroach upon that of another. You are also forgetting that in cases where you directly benefit from the government services regardless of your contribution, such a service must be paid for by all citizens (if determined that the service is necessary in the first place).
You are bullshitting everyone about this freedom of choices for all of your taxes. That's inane. Fire, police, military, the post office, and many other services benefit EVERYONE no matter what they pay into the system. You can't just pull your funds out saying it's freedom of choice. It doesn't apply when you still receive the benefits. If someone paints your house, you see them painting your house, and you don't stop them, you still owe them the money for painting your house. You benefited from the service. You owe the money.
Don't be a dillhole and respond to this with the same two-liner. I have shown a lot of patience with your disrespectful, purposefully obtuse replies. Enough is enough. Grow up or get the fvck out.
Originally posted by bunge
Look, the reason Gore liked his 'lockbox' is because the money that goes into Social Security doesn't all go to pay for Social Security. When Bush had a surplus, he spent it on other things.
That means you and I are not guaranteed a retirement fund from Social Security. That means it's not a retirement fund for you and I so much as it is a fund for the current elderly and the potential of a fund for both you and I.
People can manage their own retirement funds. Among other things, Social Security considers itself a potential supplement to your own retirement funds if necessary.
I agree that we can't leave the eldery hanging out to dry. All those currently eligible to receive it should still get it.
The point is this. The elderly ALREADY paid their money into the system. The government mismanaged it. The government lost it. The government now expects ME to cover their ass for their mistake. Sorry. Too bad. There are plenty of spending cuts that can be made that would keep SS afloat while still allowing people to opt-out from having the government mismanage their retirement funds.
Extremely limited corporate welfare. Extremely limited personal welfare. Extremely limited government welfare.
The government needs to be taken off welfare once and for all. They've abused it way too long.
Originally posted by bunge
Because they're fabricating the motivations of the people they're arguing against. Some people, apparently like you, really want to believe these fabricated motivations. So you, like the article, throw logic out the door and ignore reality.
That's the big flaw in their argument too.
So if Libertarians are truly for choice, why push for choice in contributing to Social Security? Why not just the choice to pay or not to pay taxes at all? That would be true 'Libertarian' choice. Instead we have people focusing on small pieces of the bigger picture. This group is against a choice in this instance so they're the devil!
Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to have a breast implant is against choice. Anyone arguing that you should never be allowed to use dangerous substances in a breast implant is not against choice because of this argument. The Cato article is focusing on the latter example and pretending it's in the former.
It's crap.
You're not making a lot of sense with the first paragraph. there's just not enough context and its hard to follow. All I have to say in return is that I think you're the one who doesn't understand.
Generally speaking, the difference between the capitalists and the socialists I know is that the capitalists tend to be good at math and sound in logic. From a mathematic point of view, capitalism is ALWAYS the optimal way. Take econ 101 to learn more. (and yes, capitalism is another example of a system with perfect choice.) I don't believe that the world is part of a demonic mystery that we need to defend oursleves from. The motivations mentioned in this article aren't fabricated unless the world is demonic and our five senses and powers of observation are inherently flawed.
What I find so amazing is that you just don't get it, but I really don't want to bark up that tree because I already know why. Libertarians don't want taxes at all. Go to a Harry Browne shindig sometime and find this out for yourself. The only reason why we push for reform is because we realize that, as they say, rome wasn't built in a day.
As for the part about implants, I should be able to do what I want to do to my own body, so long as I'm not somehow violating the property of others (the abortion debate). That's choice. Granted I'm not a woman or the kind of guy who gets breast implants, I don't see how breast implants harm the property of others.
As for stupider like a fox: One rule that I have said over 100 times in AO. . . respect private property. A life is property.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
What I find so amazing is that you just don't get it, but I really don't want to bark up that tree because I already know why. Libertarians don't want taxes at all. Go to a Harry Browne shindig sometime and find this out for yourself. The only reason why we push for reform is because we realize that, as they say, rome wasn't built in a day.
Of course I 'get it,' but this article isn't 'it,' it's partisan crap. If the article was about how both parties are crap and like to limit our choices in many different ways I'd have to argument with it. As it stands it's pure partisan crap.
Originally posted by BR
I agree that we can't leave the eldery hanging out to dry. All those currently eligible to receive it should still get it.
The point is this. The elderly ALREADY paid their money into the system. The government mismanaged it. The government lost it. The government now expects ME to cover their ass for their mistake. Sorry. Too bad. There are plenty of spending cuts that can be made that would keep SS afloat while still allowing people to opt-out from having the government mismanage their retirement funds.
Extremely limited corporate welfare. Extremely limited personal welfare. Extremely limited government welfare.
The government needs to be taken off welfare once and for all. They've abused it way too long.
As I said, its pretty difficult to get too abstract with convential politicos...nice try.
In the mean time, I suppose you've read "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Nozick the best single source I've read on minimal state theory ? Loved it...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
As for stupider like a fox: One rule that I have said over 100 times in AO. . . respect private property. A life is property.
Is it really that simple to you? I still don't understand what you mean, so maybe I'm just being dumb.
A 'life' is property apparantly, so when does life begin - with sperm and eggs, when a sperm and a egg meet, 1 month later, 3 months, birth?
Answer the damn question. The question that every honest person, whether pro-choice or pro-life, finds hard to answer. Or at least admit it is difficult. You can't just claim it's simple and leave it at that.