The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[RandomGuy]

From A Non-Libertarians FAQ (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html)

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a dessert topping!" "No, it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."

This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.

Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.

...

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT

Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?

There are some common counterarguments for which libertarians have excellent rebuttals. Arguments that government is the best or only way to do something may fail: there are many examples of many government functions being performed privately. Some of them are quite surprising. Arguments based on getting any services free from government will fail: all government services cost money that comes from somewhere. Arguments that we have a free market are patently untrue: there are many ways the market is modified.

There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point. These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc. Please feel free to suggest other concepts for this list.

One way to bring about a large volume of argument is to cross-post to another political group with opposing ideas, such as alt.politics.radical-left. The results are quite amusing, though there is a lot more heat than light. Let's not do this more often than is necessary to keep us aware that libertarianism is not universally accepted.

...

LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs) generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.


The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
The Declaration Of Independence says...
Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
Taxation is theft.
If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.
her misc. claims denying the social contract.
Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract?
Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?


(list goes on, full list and rebuttals here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html )


---------------------------------------

The more I read up on whatever "Libertarianism" is, the more it looks to me like a quasi-religion, ala 9-11 Truth movement and so forth.

Here is another link:
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid (http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php)

Libertarian logic is an axiomatic system that bears very little resemblance to standard deductive thought - which is in part why it's so debilitating to people. It's a little like one of those non-Euclidean geometries, internally valid results can be derived from the postulates, but they sound extremely weird when applied to the real world.

I have several Libertarian or semi-libertarian friends, and they think I am just as silly, I suppose. They aren't too hard core into it, so I don't get the overbearing attempts to convert me, but they do make for some interesting discussions.

I offer this as a critique and counterbalance to the constant stream of Libertarian evangelicism.

Given the quasi-religious nature of Libertarianism, I also don't expect a civil conversation about it. Most Libertarians on the internet tend to be fanatics, and fanatics really hate it when you are skeptical of their dogma.

Regards,
RG the Heretic

P.S. The next book on my reading list:
Are Capitalism, Objectivism, And Libertarianism Religions?
Yes!: Greenspan And Ayn Rand Debunked (http://www.amazon.com/Are-Capitalism-Objectivism-Libertarianism-Religions/dp/1434808858)

[coyotes_geek]

One could just as easily make an evangelistic case about liberalism, conservatism or any idealism. But why let that little tidbit get in the way of this piece filled with self rightousness and arrogance?

Regards,
CG the zealot

[Parker2112]

Libertarians in general have super-conservative fiscal beliefs (end international bankings influence on currency, downsize govt, bring the boys home), very liberal social values (legalize it, end the war on drugs, save the money instead of locking up millions of folks on minor drug charges, true race neutral views on everything) and we believethat government is the worst place to try and solve society's ills.

With the rampant corruption that we now see, I think Libertarian values would suit the situation just fine.

Is that so hard to define? Maybe if you dont know shit about the party. Which apparently you dont, since you had to result to other peoples take on such matters rather than give your own.

And for all your effort up there in the OP, I find it laughable and completely unsuprising that you bash the party as being head-in-the-clouds and hopeless, YET YOU NEVER TOUCH ON THE ACTUAL PLATFORM.

You have no understanding of that which you fear.

You need to look at the reasons why you fear libertarianism, and when you can actually cite valid point/counterpoint reactions to the actual party platform (not just "Libertarians are all over the place"), then you at least you will find yourself informed. For now, you are no ignorant and fearful, which makes for one of the worst combinations poosible.

Instead of starting with generalized, uninformed attacks on an entire political party (completely dishonorable engagement, which is your MO 24-7), Start here: http://www.lp.org/platform.

And when you differ with these generalized stances stated by the party, instead of citing them as pie-in-the-sky aspirational fodder (which I already see coming, because thats the way you roll), take some time and research how major candidates have applied these principles to the issues. Then you can start the criticism.

For now, you are just bashing that which you dont know.

And I find it hilarious that the FAQ you cite (:lmao) starts by saying Libertarians are hard to pin down, then follows by pinning them down. WTF?

[Parker2112]

And some Libertarians (not all) believe that when you are born into this world, you arent born into debt. you are born free, and you dont owe anyone anything. And when you work to acheive something, its yours unequivocally. And that any other system weakens society. And that people should give through charity and not as a result of govt coercion.

This comes from the underlying belief that people are put on the earth to realize their potential and others shouldnt put a cap on that potential just to benefit third partys.

I dont agree with this totally, but I think its a pretty solid argument, and I absolutely think its something that we should all reckon our own beliefs with, even if you dont agree.

Because I guarantee the folks who founded this country wanted an enlightened society which would allow citizens to pursue their own potential to the fullest. And the place we are at is not that society, right or wrong.

And the founders dont have to warrant a biblical reverence. We can simply reflect on the aims of our founders and try and pull our govt mechanisms closer to those altruistic goals that were set in place at our inception. Nothing fanatical about that.

[RandomGuy]

One could just as easily make an evangelistic case about liberalism, conservatism or any idealism. But why let that little tidbit get in the way of this piece filled with self rightousness and arrogance?

Regards,
CG the zealot

Heh, feel free to make the case for those. I would genuinely be interested in reading it/them. Please do. I think it might be good for everybody to poke holes in a few dogmas.

One of the hard parts about making those cases is reflected here, in that there are a lot of flavors of those other -isms too.

[DarrinS]

def. Irrational -- anyone who doesn't agree with a progressive

[RandomGuy]

Libertarians in general have super-conservative fiscal beliefs (end international bankings influence on currency, downsize govt, bring the boys home), very liberal social values (legalize it, end the war on drugs, save the money instead of locking up millions of folks on minor drug charges, true race neutral views on everything) and we believethat government is the worst place to try and solve society's ills.


I think the closest thing to a Libertarian utopia on the planet currently is Somalia. No government taxes, no red tape on starting businesses, no nothing.

When I get some time, I think I will flesh that out. I think I can make a fair case for drawing some parallels.

[RandomGuy]

def. Irrational -- anyone who doesn't agree with a progressive

No, irrational as in illogical.

(edit)

I needed something of an emotional hook to get people in. Mea Culpa. It is the limitation of the medium, that sometimes one needs to get people invested in something to get them talking. Wasn't the first time I tagged a thread title that way, won't be the last.

What I do know of the Libertarian platform I do find irrational though, but we will get around to that soon enough.

[RandomGuy]

And for all your effort up there in the OP, I find it laughable and completely unsuprising that you bash the party as being head-in-the-clouds and hopeless, YET YOU NEVER TOUCH ON THE ACTUAL PLATFORM.

For now, you are just bashing that which you dont know.


All in due time. I will admit that my current ability to recite the Libertarian party platform is limited. One of the reasons I created the thread was to learn a bit first hand.

Why don't you play the role of educator/expert and post a few things, so I/we can learn a little?

[DarrinS]

No, irrational as in illogical.


Like passing a bill to find out what's in it?

[Parker2112]

All in due time. I will admit that my current ability to recite the Libertarian party platform is limited. One of the reasons I created the thread was to learn a bit first hand.

Why don't you play the role of educator/expert and post a few things, so I/we can learn a little?

Its as simple as my first paragraph of text.

[Parker2112]

Also, instead of reading things that confirm your already-existing beliefs, why dont you try out some books from the other side?

Otherwise you box yourself into a corner of awareness where you know everything there is to know about everything you care to know about. Which is exactly where your at.

[RandomGuy]

Instead of starting with generalized, uninformed attacks on an entire political party (completely dishonorable engagement, which is your MO 24-7), Start here: http://www.lp.org/platform.


We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Interesting way to start off, i.e by viewing people that disagree as a "cult".

I said in my OP I find the philosophy to be quasi-religious. First point in support of that statement.

[Parker2112]

I think the closest thing to a Libertarian utopia on the planet currently is Somalia. No government taxes, no red tape on starting businesses, no nothing.

When I get some time, I think I will flesh that out. I think I can make a fair case for drawing some parallels.

Your like a fucking devil RG. You twist the truth at every available turn.

Libertarian principles rival the aims of our forefathers. Freedom to pursue life without interference. Would their aims result in current day Somalia?

You continue to cite the contention that our country could be comparable to a third-world country under the right circumstances. Boutons has me covered on this one: RG, you are fucked and unfuckable.

[coyotes_geek]

Heh, feel free to make the case for those. I would genuinely be interested in reading it/them. Please do. I think it might be good for everybody to poke holes in a few dogmas.

One of the hard parts about making those cases is reflected here, in that there are a lot of flavors of those other -isms too.

Considering your OP, I doubt your sincerity in having an actual discussion about actual libertarian concepts. No, this was just a bait thread, probably designed to snag parker. You got me too. Well done.


I think the closest thing to a Libertarian utopia on the planet currently is Somalia. No government taxes, no red tape on starting businesses, no nothing.

When I get some time, I think I will flesh that out. I think I can make a fair case for drawing some parallels.

:lol

Somalia huh? Now I know you're not serious.

[Parker2112]

Interesting way to start off, i.e by viewing people that disagree as a "cult".

I said in my OP I find the philosophy to be quasi-religious. First point in support of that statement.

I saw this coming. Second sight again. :wakeup


And when you differ with these generalized stances stated by the party, instead of citing them as pie-in-the-sky aspirational fodder (which I already see coming, because thats the way you roll), take some time and research how major candidates have applied these principles to the issues. Then you can start the criticism.

[RandomGuy]

Also, instead of reading things that confirm your already-existing beliefs, why dont you try out some books from the other side?

Otherwise you box yourself into a corner of awareness where you know everything there is to know about everything you care to know about. Which is exactly where your at.

Feel free to suggest a title or two, but don't expect me to spend money on it. :p:

[Parker2112]

I'm done dude. I dont have all day to circle jerk with you. You dont shoot straight, and I might get hit in the eye.

If you lay out some specific differences or questions in the thread, I will do my best to get back to them later.

[MannyIsGod]

Libertarianism requires a smarter general public to work. I basically feel Libertarianism has the highest ceiling of any ideology but it also is by far the most demanding.

[Parker2112]

UWHEcIbhDiw

[RandomGuy]

Your like a fucking devil RG.

Further proof of my theory that Libertarianism is quasi-religious.

Between fighting the "cult" of big government, and accusing skeptics of being the "devil", I think the underlying language used is rather telling.

[RandomGuy]

Also, instead of reading things that confirm your already-existing beliefs, why dont you try out some books from the other side?

Instead of reading things that confirm your already-existing beliefs, why don't you try to read the two links I posted?

[RandomGuy]

I saw this coming. Second sight again. :wakeup


RG, you are fucked and unfuckable.


Your like a fucking devil RG. You twist the truth at every available turn.

I saw this coming. Second sight again. :wakeup


I also don't expect a civil conversation about it.

I guess we are even.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's always interesting seeing which posters piss which posters off.

[RandomGuy]

Considering your OP, I doubt your sincerity in having an actual discussion about actual libertarian concepts. No, this was just a bait thread, probably designed to snag parker. You got me too. Well done.

:lol

Somalia huh? Now I know you're not serious.

For the most part, you are correct. The thought of Parker's apoplectic spittle-flecked invective does amuse greatly.

BUT

I am completely genuine about discussing Libertarianism's strengths and weaknesses. I find it overall to be an idea that sounds good on paper, but is ill-suited to reality, much like communism. There is much I find appealing about it.

As I noted previously, I do occasionally put out emotional "hooks" in OPs to "get people in the door", but am willing to have grown up conversations about it.

If you can assume that I am not a "devil", I will assume you are a rational human being, and we can have a decent conversation. Deal?

As for Somalia, it is far from a Libertarian ideal, having no functioning court system. I will readily admit that the comparison is fairly flawed. It is still closer than any other country to the Libertarian ideal than any other I can think of.

Offer up something closer if you want. What country comes closest to the Libertarian ideal in your opinion?

[RandomGuy]

It's always interesting seeing which posters piss which posters off.

The Great Game, writ small. :lol

[RandomGuy]

you are born free, and you dont owe anyone anything. And when you work to acheive something, its yours unequivocally.

This is one of my main problems. You cannot seperate an individual from a society, anymore than you can seperate an individual cell from a larger organism.

When you work to achieve something, you benefit a myriad of things that have nothing to do with your personal efforts.

If you hire someone, you benefit from their education. If you buy something, you benefit from the road it was shipped to your location on, and a host of other things that went into it.

Are we not all interconnected?

[DarrinS]

RG exemplifies why the left just got hammered in these elections. It's one thing to say those with opposing views are wrong and then expain why. It's quite another to say they are idiots, bigots, deniers, etc.

[RandomGuy]

RG exemplifies why the left just got hammered in these elections. It's one thing to say those with opposing views are wrong and then expain why. It's quite another to say they are idiots, bigots, deniers, etc.

???

I have outlined why those with opposing views are wrong and have started explaining why.

Are you saying this is what lost the election?

Or are you saying that the left lost the election because they sling insults around to those who disagree?

Your statement is somewhat incoherent.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's funny... I thought the Dems lost because they were such ineffective and polite pussies. Live and learn.

[RandomGuy]

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

We can start here.

Sounds good in theory.

Let's put it to a practical example, to show what I think are the ultimate limitations of the theory.

Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.

Without "using force" or government, how do you stop this? Do you stop this? Do you simply accept that the company will pollute without restriction?

[RandomGuy]

That's funny... I thought the Dems lost because they were such ineffective and polite pussies. Live and learn.

Yeah, we need our own demogogues. :depressed

Ick.

I would LOVE for Libertarians to get their own state. Pick one, and let them all move there to try their own social experiment, just to see if it works.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah, we need our own demogogues. :depressed

Ick.

I would LOVE for Libertarians to get their own state. Pick one, and let them all move there to try their own social experiment, just to see if it works.

The Dems didn't need demagogues, just the courage (or, more likely, desire) to deliver the policy reforms they ran on. They had opposition from the GOP, sure, but they had the majority, and they had the political capital to do a good job of finance reform, or at very least reverse fucked-up, vestigial neo-con policies regarding privacy and endless money-pit wars. Ah... don't get me started.

As for the thought experiment, I take your drift, but it also smacks of the polarized zealotry you're mocking. While there are babbling morons who conceive of libertarianism in the most cartoonish, economically oblivious terms, so are there "libtards," and "republican fucktards," and on, who fare no better. Pure libertarianism would almost necessarily cause a state to recede into the stone age in some ways, but it would have a balanced budget and individual liberty and might just suit them fine. Certainly no more utopian than the Progressive agenda or whatever it is that the GOP stands for nowadays. Go pluralism, I say. To quote Wino: "burp."

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know how financial libertarianism doesn't lead directly to corporate control of everything.

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't know how financial libertarianism doesn't lead directly to corporate control of everything.

Well, it doesn't flat-out give them infrastructure for free, for one thing. Might not even allow for providing them tax-breaks. That would be entertaining.

[Wild Cobra]

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.We can start here.

Sounds good in theory.

Let's put it to a practical example, to show what I think are the ultimate limitations of the theory.

Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.

Without "using force" or government, how do you stop this? Do you stop this? Do you simply accept that the company will pollute without restriction?
Single items do not stand alone. Look especially at 2.1:

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know how financial libertarianism doesn't lead directly to corporate control of everything.

Exactly.

Remove government from the picture, and you get a HUGE disparity in resources between large corporations and individuals or even groups of individuals.

Hell, some of the larger corporations, especially the larger banks that Parker is not fond of, could easily almost buy some state governments.

The same goes for large multi-national criminal organizations, something completely unimagined by our founding fathers.

How would a Libertarian nation handle such a criminal cartel?

[RandomGuy]

Single items do not stand alone. Look especially at 2.1:

Without "using force" or government, how do you stop this? Do you stop this? Do you simply accept that the company will pollute without restriction?


Now what?

You have not given me a concrete policy answer, based on these tenets? What is the mechanism of redress here? Lawsuit? Armed Posse? Bake Sale?

I read the other sections. I am merely asking for a solution within the proposed framework. I understand pollution is bad, and against what Libertarians stand for.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, sorry you don't understand that a legal system will still be in place. I'm not going to explain it farther. It's there if you read and comprehend.

[RandomGuy]

environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

... and if it fails?

"effective" does not equate to "guaranteed not to". A boat is an effective way to cross an ocean, but they occasionally sink.

What is the fall back if a company ignores "social pressure"? What if they effectively surpress "social pressure" and keep polluting?

[RandomGuy]

Random, sorry you don't understand that a legal system will still be in place. I'm not going to explain it farther. It's there if you read and comprehend.

So you have a lawsuit, that is what I was asking.

What if they ignore the result? It happens all the time in civil cases.

[RandomGuy]

Random, sorry you don't understand that a legal system will still be in place. I'm not going to explain it farther. It's there if you read and comprehend.

I understand all too well. Claiming I don't does not absolve you of providing simple explanations.

That is a dodge, and you know it.

[Wild Cobra]

I understand all too well. Claiming I don't does not absolve you of providing simple explanations.

That is a dodge, and you know it.
I'm not playing your game. It clearly states freedom until it interferes with others, and wrongdoers pay. If you refuse to see the protections of one persons freedoms from another persons freedom in there, then I will not take the time playing your games.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not playing your game. It clearly states freedom until it interferes with others, and wrongdoers pay. If you refuse to see the protections of one persons freedoms from another persons freedom in there, then I will not take the time playing your games.

This isn't "my game".

If you institute this form of government, it will happen.

Either you can tell me what will happen if polluters ignore courts or "public pressure", or you can't.

If you can't spell it out simply, then we MUST assume you can't do it at all.

Are you saying you can't explain your own belief system?

[Wild Cobra]

This isn't "my game".

If you institute this form of government, it will happen.

Either you can tell me what will happen if polluters ignore courts or "public pressure", or you can't.

If you can't spell it out simply, then we MUST assume you can't do it at all.

Are you saying you can't explain your own belief system?
Laws would be based on those beliefs. To pollute public waters would be a clear violation of others rights. It would be actionable, like today.

You have the same concerns I did about it becoming anarchy. The language was cleaned up slightly to prevent that, forcible by legal rights.

What stops polluters today? Are you asking how it will correct an existing problem? It has recourse applied in principle, enforceable in the courts.

Please read those sections again.

[RandomGuy]

Laws would be based on those beliefs. To pollute public waters would be a clear violation of others rights. It would be actionable, like today.

You have the same concerns I did about it becoming anarchy. The language was cleaned up slightly to prevent that, forcible by legal rights.

What stops polluters today? Are you asking how it will correct an existing problem? It has recourse applied in principle, enforceable in the courts.

Please read those sections again.

Once again, I will ask:

How do you enforce the court orders? The company is ignoring the court judgment against it, as happens sometimes in civil cases.

Please state your proposed mechanism for enforcing court judgments consistant in a manner with the principles of Libertarianism as you understand it.

The conventional mechanism would be to use the police, and their guns. Police paid for by taxes and working for the government. This seems to not be feasible.

Would you use the police? Or something else? Private security?

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, I will ask:

How do you enforce the court orders? The company is ignoring the court judgment against it, as happens sometimes in civil cases.

Please state your proposed mechanism for enforcing court judgments consistant in a manner with the principles of Libertarianism as you understand it.

The conventional mechanism would be to use the police, and their guns. Police paid for by taxes and working for the government. This seems to not be feasible.

Would you use the police? Or something else? Private security?
Bye asshole. It's explained in my earlier post. I don't have time for these idiotic three threads you guys are baiting me on.

[clambake]

this dumbass thinks a civil ruling guarantees payment.

[RandomGuy]

Bye asshole. It's explained in my earlier post. I don't have time for these idiotic three threads you guys are baiting me on.

So you cannot spell out a method for enforcing court orders consistant with your beliefs.

I must then conclude that if, given the form of government you want, court orders are unenforcable againt people or entities that ignore them, negating the justice system entirely.

That is, by any reasonable account, anarchy. No government of any measure, and no functioning legal system.

[RandomGuy]

this dumbass thinks a civil ruling guarantees payment.

It doesn't. Even with todays big bad government, it is hard to enforce civil judgments.

If you de-criminalize pollution in order to remove intrusive government from the process, then you force that into the area of civil actions.

QED

[RandomGuy]

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer.

Now it could be argued using this aim that some pollution would be made criminal, although this seems to contradict the section 2.2 on the environment that says that "social pressure" is the preferred method.

Since we don't have a functioning legal system that can enforce "social pressure" or civil judgments, would it then be assumed under this platform that recalitrant or powerful corporations would be subject to criminal procedings under this princple?

What would they be cited for?
Failure to abide by the civil court? Criminal pollution laws?

Setting aside for a moment that the former would mean that only those with $$$ get any justice, because big corporations can outlast with money any group of concerned citizens in a lawsuit, that would simply force the pollution suits back into the criminal realm, creating de facto pollution laws by court precedent.

The latter... is what we have now.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty fucking water if that was the case.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll tell you this much: A properly educated society live in a democracy will naturally gravitate towards libertarianism. The fact that we don't is an indicator we can't have it.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty fucking water if that was the case.I'm for it; I could dump all the fluoride I wanted into the aquifer.

[RandomGuy]

I'm for it; I could dump all the fluoride I wanted into the aquifer.



Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.

:angel

You could create tons of hotspots of people with fewer cavities.

[Parker2112]

We can start here.

Sounds good in theory.

Let's put it to a practical example, to show what I think are the ultimate limitations of the theory.

Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.

Without "using force" or government, how do you stop this? Do you stop this? Do you simply accept that the company will pollute without restriction?

Injunction, tort litigation, criminal charges, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Sounds like legal regulation to me.

[z0sa]

The environment is one glaring hole in libertarian philosophy. RG's scenario is much easier to solve than one where the pollution may be "hidden" or not easily detected. With little government regulation, and the secretive nature of corporations, there'd be an open door for them to pollute to the max until it bothered - or hurt or killed - someone. Even if the government eventually came down on them, the damage done could be deadly and irreparable.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty fucking water if that was the case.

See you just don't get it. It would be in the interest of a private individual or corporation to care of the land they own and they would do a better job of it than the government. So if our national parks, take Yosemite for example, were returned to private ownership then it would be kept even more pristine because that would generate more tourism/profits. Well unless they realized they could just flood it like it's sister valley Hetch Hetchy and make more money selling the water to Califorinia. But they wouldn't be able to do that because it's public land, no wait it's private, no wait it's....


RG, the correct description of libertarians is "politically irrelevant". Why spend time arguing with them?

[MannyIsGod]

The environment is one glaring hole in libertarian philosophy. RG's scenario is much easier to solve than one where the pollution may be "hidden" or not easily detected. With little government regulation, and the secretive nature of corporations, there'd be an open door for them to pollute to the max until it bothered - or hurt or killed - someone. Even if the government eventually came down on them, the damage done could be deadly and irreparable.

Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.

[baseline bum]

Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.

I don't agree. Lots don't seem to give a crap that air pollution from inefficient vehicles is a carcinogen and effectively a socialized tax on them.

[Winehole23]

RG, the correct description of libertarians is "politically irrelevant". Why spend time arguing with them?Because so many Republicans are hunkered down in the libertarian foxhole, afraid to speak their own names.

Tea Party, much?

[Parker2112]

you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't agree. Lots don't seem to give a crap that air pollution from inefficient vehicles is a carcinogen and effectively a socialized tax on them.

I think thats kinda what I've been saying.

[MannyIsGod]

you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.

You sure seem to be advocating regulation.

[Parker2112]

"Handle it in the courts" is not "regulation"

The difference is the solution is not subject to partisan fail and the cost is only borne by those with damages/interest in the case.

[Parker2112]

Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.

Thats the hole point. Let those parties with specific interests at stake be the ones to fund the argument.

There are arguments against the libertarian take (hanlde enviro issues in court), but I havent seen them argued here yet.

[RandomGuy]

you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.

As I have stated before it is entirely possible that civil court rulings get ignored, it happens today.

If a company decides to dump industrial waste of one sort or another into a small community's water table, then ignores a court ruling, then what?

Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.

Further consider the disparity of resources between a large company and a small community.

Do you think a small group of activists is going to prevail versus a billion-dollar+ company? What if that company hires all sorts of scientists to "prove" their "waste" isn't harmful?

[RandomGuy]

"Handle it in the courts" is not "regulation"

The difference is the solution is not subject to partisan fail and the cost is only borne by those with damages/interest in the case.

Exxon is STILL dragging out the court settlements decades after the Valdez oil spill to the community there.

Handling it in the courts would lead to companies making the calculation that it is far cheaper to pay lawyers to endlessly litigate something than to pay out the costs of a settlement. Large corporations easily outlive people. That is especially true if the pollution tends to increase mortality, such as asbestos etc.

Do you find this acceptable?

[RandomGuy]

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Here is a juicy bit.

What do you do with insurance regulation? What is the Libertarian stance on this?

What if you choose to live in state A with all of state A's insurance laws that you fully approve of.
BUT
You decide to buy from a company in another state. They have different laws and standards.

Which state's laws apply?

How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

How do you regulate health insurance? Do you? If a company decides it won't cover something, and you feel it is actually a covered risk, what then?

[angrydude]

Here is a juicy bit.

What do you do with insurance regulation? What is the Libertarian stance on this?

What if you choose to live in state A with all of state A's insurance laws that you fully approve of.
BUT
You decide to buy from a company in another state. They have different laws and standards.

Which state's laws apply?

How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

How do you regulate health insurance? Do you? If a company decides it won't cover something, and you feel it is actually a covered risk, what then?


These are legal questions the courts can easily handle. This is not a good argument.

[angrydude]

And the applicable jurisdiction would be in the insurance contract.

[RandomGuy]

These are legal questions the courts can easily handle. This is not a good argument.

How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

Sue the company? Again, one must go back to the question of disparity resources. If a company uses dishonest recission against you, and it is fully within their interests NOT to pony up for the expensive cancer treatment or so forth, they know they can outwait and out-litigate you.

[RandomGuy]

And the applicable jurisdiction would be in the insurance contract.

Honest enough answer, and a fair solution.

Handling differences in state to state laws can be tricky, especially when they conflict. Often states sign "memos of understanding" or so forth.

The problem with this though is the "race to the bottom". Companies will gravitate to the state with the weakest laws and least oversight.

When your out-of-state health insurer decides not to pay, and the laws of that state say that is ok, then you are screwed.

"don't buy from them" you say. Caveat emptor.

I guess we all must become insurance law experts to be able to judge whether a policy is ok, yes?

[Parker2112]

As I have stated before it is entirely possible that civil court rulings get ignored, it happens today.

If a company decides to dump industrial waste of one sort or another into a small community's water table, then ignores a court ruling, then what?

1st: What prevents them from doing that now? And many do pollute when the cost of fines is less than the cost of compliance.

2nd: The same rules can exist for environmental compliance as exist today, but if Libertarians ran the show, two things would be necessary: 1. private right of action for any and all environmental claims, and 2. less stringent procedural requirements so that any citizen could bring that suit.

As it stands, you may or may not meet procedural requirements to bring suit, and many times the government restricts the scope of regs/statutes so that only govt agencies can enforce them. Also, standing requirements in a court of law restrict right of action to only those directly affected, such as those with riparian rights or those that actually make use of the affected area.

Imagine the effect of opening up the spigot and allowing environmental watchdog groups to sue without having to meet standing requirements? This would also allow environmental advocates to funnel support to these corporations to protect the environment through ongoing PRIVATE monitoring/litigation vs polluting corps.

Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.


Further consider the disparity of resources between a large company and a small community.

Do you think a small group of activists is going to prevail versus a billion-dollar+ company? What if that company hires all sorts of scientists to "prove" their "waste" isn't harmful?

The above would offset that balance I think. But this is my largest concern as well.

But also, lets be truthful: we have no voice as it is. Citizens cried out against Corexit, the govt claimed to direct BP not to use it, and yet our gulf is awash in dispersant. We are NOT better off with the govt at the helm. Fed govt is political, corrupt and ineffective.

These problems are not relegated to fed gov either. Look at how Rick Perry has made the TCEQ a joke.

By opening up our courts for private enforcement, you would give the citizens teeth to actually PRIVATELY pursue environmental violators.

The other thing: allow increased CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THOSE IN VIOLATING CORPS WHO ACTUALLY ORDER POLLUTION. Aggressive prosecution and jail time would make corp officers think twice about avoiding the law for the bottom line.

Now tell me: Wouldnt this private pursuit of environmental enforcement actually have the potential to TIGHTEN enforecement, RG?

[Parker2112]

Here is a juicy bit.

What do you do with insurance regulation? What is the Libertarian stance on this?

What if you choose to live in state A with all of state A's insurance laws that you fully approve of.
BUT
You decide to buy from a company in another state. They have different laws and standards.

Which state's laws apply?

How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

How do you regulate health insurance? Do you? If a company decides it won't cover something, and you feel it is actually a covered risk, what then?

This is already on the books. Nothing would need to change. Interstate contracts/transactions happen every day, and libertarian views would not change this area.

The law breaks it down by asking questions like: where was the contract executed? what was the intent of the parties? are the parties preempted from claiming the aws of one jurisdiction or another?

Bottom line: courts try to find the most fair jurisdiction based on the circumstances. And that law is in place.

[Parker2112]

going without a strong central federal power is scary, but not nearly as impossible as advocates of big govt would have you believe.

The fed gov has grown into something like training wheels. We used to be able to ride a two wheel bike, and now we need this burdensome, clunk entity to govenr our lives from afar.

But really, we could learn to run our own lives at a state level. We can once again learn to ride a two wheeler. Will we scrape a knee? Maybe. But as it is, we are getting our knees skinned to the bone by the federal gov. So I think overcoming our fear/scepticism would be a great place to regain the freedom AND RESPONSIBILTY we once had over OUR OWN WELFARE. This would AMOUNT TO EMPOWERMENT, not handicap.

And it might reverse the trend of the populous to withdraw into vid games and TV, and to step in and get involved in politics when the power came back home from high up on that distant Mountain in Washington DC, where lobbyists and politicians reign.

http://www.tolkienforums.com/Mount_Doom.jpg

[Parker2112]

One more thing RG:
1. You asked me about some books. I would recommend two: Ron Paul: the revolution/ a manifesto, and the federalist papers.

if you are informed enough to swim on your own, you should be able to come away from Ron Pauls works with your own criticisms and possibly some agreements, but definitely a better understanding of the libertarian movement.

2. Since we are talking about hard issues I feel comfortable engaging you once again. When we stray into dismissing each other completely based on already-existing attitudes and inherent personal bias, this engagement serves no purpose and I will be forced to make my exit.

If you really do have it pegged, put it to the honest test. Dont reduce arguments to dismissive "conspiracy" claims. If they are so transparent, shoot them down with ease.

[RandomGuy]

1st: What prevents them from [ignoring civil judgments] now?
And many do pollute when the cost of fines is less than the cost of compliance.

Nothing does. That is my point.

The cost of fines being less than the cost of compliance does bring us back to the calculus involved in corporate decisions.

The implication of your second statement is:

Companies comply when fines are greater than the cost of compliance.

This is an admission that if one were to remove the criminal fines, it would simply reduce the incentive to NOT pollute.

It is not my assertion that companies do not pollute now. It is my assertion that many don't simply because of the criminal penalties involved.

A ten million dollar fine is a lot more of a deterrent than some poor farmer's lawsuit that can be defended for $50,000 over the course of a decade, is it not?

[RandomGuy]

2nd: The same rules can exist for environmental compliance as exist today, but if Libertarians ran the show, two things would be necessary: 1. private right of action for any and all environmental claims, and 2. less stringent procedural requirements so that any citizen could bring that suit.

"Rules for environmental compliance?"

What is that? Who decides what the rules are?

[RandomGuy]

2nd: The same rules can exist for environmental compliance as exist today, but if Libertarians ran the show, two things would be necessary: 1. private right of action for any and all environmental claims, and 2. less stringent procedural requirements so that any citizen could bring that suit.


"Private right of action"? Don't we already have that in the form of torts? What exactly do you mean?

(honestly don't know exactly what you are saying here)

[RandomGuy]

1st: What prevents them from doing that now? And many do pollute when the cost of fines is less than the cost of compliance.

2nd: The same rules can exist for environmental compliance as exist today, but if Libertarians ran the show, two things would be necessary: 1. private right of action for any and all environmental claims, and 2. less stringent procedural requirements so that any citizen could bring that suit.

As it stands, you may or may not meet procedural requirements to bring suit, and many times the government restricts the scope of regs/statutes so that only govt agencies can enforce them. Also, standing requirements in a court of law restrict right of action to only those directly affected, such as those with riparian rights or those that actually make use of the affected area.

Imagine the effect of opening up the spigot and allowing environmental watchdog groups to sue without having to meet standing requirements? This would also allow environmental advocates to funnel support to these corporations to protect the environment through ongoing PRIVATE monitoring/litigation vs polluting corps.

Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.



The above would offset that balance I think. But this is my largest concern as well.

But also, lets be truthful: we have no voice as it is. Citizens cried out against Corexit, the govt claimed to direct BP not to use it, and yet our gulf is awash in dispersant. We are NOT better off with the govt at the helm. Fed govt is political, corrupt and ineffective.

These problems are not relegated to fed gov either. Look at how Rick Perry has made the TCEQ a joke.

By opening up our courts for private enforcement, you would give the citizens teeth to actually PRIVATELY pursue environmental violators.

The other thing: allow increased CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THOSE IN VIOLATING CORPS WHO ACTUALLY ORDER POLLUTION. Aggressive prosecution and jail time would make corp officers think twice about avoiding the law for the bottom line.

Now tell me: Wouldnt this private pursuit of environmental enforcement actually have the potential to TIGHTEN enforecement, RG?

So... even though you are saying that environmental laws should be privately regulated, you advocate "criminal prosecution"?

How do you do that? Criminality is something that is decided by laws and governments.

That seems to be directly contradictory, unless you have private citizens bringing criminal torts in court. That would mean that corporations would be just as free to bring suit against their enemies for much the same reasons, using the same mechanisms.

It has the potential to tighten enforcement, if reality works exactly as you say it would.

As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?

I can imagine PETA bringing dozens of lawsuits against ranchers, zoos, meat packers, etc.

I can just as easily imagine a British Petroleum, with billions of dollars of profit filing counter-suits to the sierra club and such private watchdogs.

Do you really think that a privately funded watchdog group could possibly contend in court versus an industry group with hundreds of millions to spend on legal fees?

[Parker2112]

"Rules for environmental compliance?"

What is that? Who decides what the rules are?

Today, those are: Fed/state Satutes + Fed/state Administrative Regulations.

Written by legislators, interpreted by judges and ALJs, enforced by administrative bodies who have the responsibility of defining scientific limits sufficient to meet the legislative aims in the statutes.

I say "rules" because these rules of the road could theoretically be shifted from administrative bodies to statutes with private right of enforcement.

What this means is this: only some statutes allow for private citizens to initiate a lawsuit for noncompliance by a polluter.

Many laws only allow the federal govt to enforce. And thats my point...allow the people to jump in the fray. Let public groups become the enforcer when it comes to diligent environmental stewardship.

What this does is leave the issue/expense to the affected parties, and remove the need for taxation for these bloated and many times ineffective environmental agencies.

[Parker2112]

"Private right of action"? Don't we already have that in the form of torts? What exactly do you mean?

(honestly don't know exactly what you are saying here)

Tort law allows you to pursue damages. But what do you do if air quality suffers because of your neighbors smokestack, but you have yet to get sick?

Well, as it stands, you cant point to a federal statute that requires emissions under x parts per million as a way to make your neighbor stop, unless the law allows private parties to sue to enforce, which is not often the case. So you have to convince the govt to pursue enforcement, which theywont always do.

In my theoretical Libertarian scheme, you would open more of these laws up to private rights of action, which would allow watchdog groups to bring suit for injunction to stop the activity WHETHER OR NOAT ANYONE HAD COME DOWN SICK. Just because they were out of compliance with federal law. And the liberal public would be able to funnel funding to these groups to give them even more teeth.

[Parker2112]

So... even though you are saying that environmental laws should be privately regulated, you advocate "criminal prosecution"?

How do you do that? Criminality is something that is decided by laws and governments..

Not privately regulated. Privately litigated. Lawsuits. Put the burden on courts rather than administrative agencies. Put the cost burden on the interested parties rather than joe the taxpayer.

As for criminal prosecution, I am only saying we could criminalize more often, and make CEOs/Corporate officers subject to jailtime for polluting. Personalize the penalty a bit to discourage the act even more. And it would have to be done by government prosecutors. Private citizens can press charges for certain crimes, but they cant prosecute criminal infractions.





As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?

Yes it would, but you can counter frivolous lawsuits here the same as we do now in other areas: by making loser pay winners legal costs + fees, by making frivolous claimants pay punitive damages, etc


I can imagine PETA bringing dozens of lawsuits against ranchers, zoos, meat packers, etc.

I can just as easily imagine a British Petroleum, with billions of dollars of profit filing counter-suits to the sierra club and such private watchdogs.

Do you really think that a privately funded watchdog group could possibly contend in court versus an industry group with hundreds of millions to spend on legal fees?

Things can definitely be done to level the playing field: limiting the scope of discovery, limit appeals, etc. So it might require some fine tuning, but we might not be as far away from making this a workable option as you may think.

The main point: There is no need to think that the only way to protect the environment is through huge/inefficient/partisan/political/biased/lobbied/bough-and-paid-for federal govt. This is a fallacy of recent persuasion.

[Parker2112]

PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout, but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand. I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.

[Winehole23]

PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout...So true.

but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand.And such a valuable hypothetical. Thanks for stressing that.

I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.Pleading the bare possibility of counterfactuals. If you minaturize expectations any positive results at all will clear the bar.

(Miracle of miniaturization.)

[Parker2112]

So true.
And such a valuable hypothetical. Thanks for stressing that.
Pleading the bare possibility of counterfactuals. If you minaturize expectations any positive results at all will clear the bar.

(Miracle of miniaturization.)

For all the stuff I've posted, this is the only criticism you've got? The best you can do? Really?

Are you really so ignorant that this is all you can add to the discussion?

Or Are you just that insistent on the circle jerk of insults?

:rolleyes

[Parker2112]

either way, i dont want none.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.

I am unwilling to play your stupid game Chump. You act as if we would do away with things like the EPA, and that isn't necessarily so. I bring up the we have problems with your concerns with our current laws. All you do is keep throwing more shit. You refuse to listen to reason.

[Winehole23]

Or are you just that insistent on the circle jerk of insults?You feel insulted?

Pobrecito.

[Winehole23]

either way, i dont want none.Either way forum jackasses will continue to <rip> on you and you'll probably continue to cry about it.

[Winehole23]

-lh0Yy0Kd3k

[Winehole23]

Face it, Parker2112: if you came for the civil, rational tone, surely that's not why you're staying now.

[Winehole23]

I meant to <emphasize> the accuracy of your self-description and the bare plausibility of your other bs. You took that as an insult. :lol

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry you find your own self-characterization insulting, Parker. I'm not sure there's anything I can do about that.

[Winehole23]

as for my own faint praise, it speaks loud enough I think.

[Winehole23]

Be sore about that all you want. Your choice, Parker.

[RandomGuy]

As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?



Yes it would, but you can counter frivolous lawsuits here the same as we do now in other areas: by making loser pay winners legal costs + fees, by making frivolous claimants pay punitive damages, etc

The only effect this would have is further tilt the balance of power in favor of large corporations and large groups over smaller groups.

You would be creating a tyranny of corporations and interest group worse than anything you rail against today, IMO.

"Sure you can sue my billion dollar corporation, but I can afford dozens of expert witnesses, and years to litigate. When you lose, I will present you with a bill for $500,000 in legal costs."

One would have to VERY carefully reform that particular area of the law, and then define "frivolous".

[RandomGuy]

Not privately regulated. Privately litigated. Lawsuits. Put the burden on courts rather than administrative agencies. Put the cost burden on the interested parties rather than joe the taxpayer.

This would tend to ignore some fundamental principles of economics.

Consider:

Something where the pollution is fairly dilute and the effects are, per capita, pretty small, or some action has only a very minor effect on a large group of people, but benefits a small group, such as a corporation or group of corporations greatly.

The larger group could afford to spend a LOT pursuing its interests at the expense of the wider good, simply because the average person doesn't care enough to bother.

Are you really going to jump on a lawsuit where your interest in the matter is only three or four dollars?

All of this "let the courts decide" seems HIGHLY inefficient to me, and not only that, it seems to really shift the balance of power from flesh and blood people to large corporations.

Much of your "criminalize" this and that also seems to be essentially what we have today anyways.

Government isn't perfect, but it is fairly accountable to the public through elections, at least as much as abdicating all of our problems to lawyers and judges, in my opinion.

[RandomGuy]

PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout, but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand. I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.

Indeed.

The problem with that statement is that it can be used to justify any form of government.

The matter is whether it would be better than what we have now.

For your proposed system to work, it seems to me would require people to be a lot more educated, less apathetic, and take up a LOT of people's time.

If you want to compel a government to enforce, you can always sue for a writ of mandamus, and small special interest groups can do this today.

[RandomGuy]

The other problem with "government by lawsuit" is that many judges are elected.

Corporate donations to judges' election campaign are already problematic.

For that matter, how would such a society handle large organized crime organizations?

I can't imagine "small groups of concerned citizens" suing the Gotti family would get very far.

You then have to lean on big bad government to fight such things that were NEVER imagined by the venerable founding fathers in all their wisdom.

[RandomGuy]

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

"unconstitutional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle competition, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.

[Parker2112]

The only effect this would have is further tilt the balance of power in favor of large corporations and large groups over smaller groups.

You would be creating a tyranny of corporations and interest group worse than anything you rail against today, IMO.

"Sure you can sue my billion dollar corporation, but I can afford dozens of expert witnesses, and years to litigate. When you lose, I will present you with a bill for $500,000 in legal costs."

One would have to VERY carefully reform that particular area of the law, and then define "frivolous".

all these concepts already exists. do we already have a tyranny?

To some extent, I think so. But can we tweak the rules for a more desirable result?

I think so.

The thing is, the effect of $$$ in litigation can be neutralized. $$$ buys endless appeals, endless army of lawyers, etc. This can be limited, similar to the way Texas implemented tort reform to protect corps from big verdicts.

[Ignignokt]

I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bullshit. Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.

[Ignignokt]

Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

"unconstitutional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle competition, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.


Coercive Monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of Rail Road monopolies in the 19th century.

Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.

[Parker2112]

This would tend to ignore some fundamental principles of economics.

Consider:

Something where the pollution is fairly dilute and the effects are, per capita, pretty small, or some action has only a very minor effect on a large group of people, but benefits a small group, such as a corporation or group of corporations greatly.

The larger group could afford to spend a LOT pursuing its interests at the expense of the wider good, simply because the average person doesn't care enough to bother.

Are you really going to jump on a lawsuit where your interest in the matter is only three or four dollars?

All of this "let the courts decide" seems HIGHLY inefficient to me, and not only that, it seems to really shift the balance of power from flesh and blood people to large corporations.

Much of your "criminalize" this and that also seems to be essentially what we have today anyways.

Government isn't perfect, but it is fairly accountable to the public through elections, at least as much as abdicating all of our problems to lawyers and judges, in my opinion.

The lawsuit would stem from a polluter's actions exceeding legal limits. nothing wrong with enforcing those limits is there? amount of damages becomes becomes irrelevant.

Fed environmental protection is HIGHLY inefficient AND HIGHLY suspect at this point. So that is not a great argument.

Regulatory bodies are not highly accountable. They are unelected. By allowing private environmental protection groups to essentially sue to enforce federally set limits: 1. allows private actors to pursue pollutors, and 2. allows the public to funnel funding to groups of its choice, who have success taking corps to court and winning, and 3. move the expense of enforcement to interested parties (sierra club, edf, concerned citizens) instead of taxation to all.

[Parker2112]

Indeed.

The problem with that statement is that it can be used to justify any form of government.

The matter is whether it would be better than what we have now.

For your proposed system to work, it seems to me would require people to be a lot more educated, less apathetic, and take up a LOT of people's time.

If you want to compel a government to enforce, you can always sue for a writ of mandamus, and small special interest groups can do this today.

funnel resources to private watchdog groups better suited to spend tons of time.

Also, generally speaking you or I dont have standing to try and force the govt to do its job, unless the govt inaction is hurting you specifically.

[Parker2112]

The other problem with "government by lawsuit" is that many judges are elected.

Corporate donations to judges' election campaign are already problematic.

For that matter, how would such a society handle large organized crime organizations?

I can't imagine "small groups of concerned citizens" suing the Gotti family would get very far.

You then have to lean on big bad government to fight such things that were NEVER imagined by the venerable founding fathers in all their wisdom.

We are only talking the environment here. criminal prosecutions cant be privatized. It will have to remain an open public process. But that doesnt mean the criminal statutes cant be beefed up for added deterrence to CEOs.

[Parker2112]

Individuals are pefectly free to use commodities now as exchange. Nothing in our current system forbids barter.

"unconstitutional legal tender laws" is another opinion, contrary to established legal precedent, to my understanding, yet this states it as an unquestioned fact.

Perhaps we need more Enrons, WorldComs, and Bernie Madoffs, all of whom fully benefitted from a lack of oversight.

The problem with "free market" solutions is that they lead to things that stifle competition, such as complex derivitives, monopolies, and so forth, just as often as government regulation can create needless red tape.

You need to look into how the Federal Reserve itself propogated the boom in complex derivitaves through inflationary policies. When credit is cheap, people can gamble big.

And the problem isnt even oversight. There has been tons of criminal fraudulent behavior throughout this last bust stemming from the mortgage crisis, and yet there have been no prosecutions.

The big banks are tied into the very top tier of govt, they are bailed out by the taxpayer for pete sakes, and they are to not prosecuted for their wrongdoings. This happens in the light of day.

Is it lack of oversight, or is our govt bought and paid for?

And how do you get the people's voice back? By making a corrupt machine bigger? How can anyone clamour for more govt, when govt has turned its back on voters to favor dollars? Look at the bailouts. look at the election system. look at the Gulf of Mexico. look at the legislation that is being offerred up by lobbyists, and being passed by legislators without even being read.

I think you see my point. The sacred cow of big govt must die if people are going to get their voice back.

[Parker2112]

coercive monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of rail road monopolies in the 19th century.

Also, throughout the 19th century, standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.

+1000

[RandomGuy]

I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bullshit. Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.

Meh, I already admitted the OP was a bit over the top in tone. It was done purposefully, although I generally agree with a lot of it.

As for "not knowing" anything about Libertarianism, you have made the assumption that if I just learned I would agree with it.

That is a false assumption. I have read a good deal.

While I cannot quote Libertarian doctrine or party platform from memory, I feel I am familiar enough with it to come to some fair conclusions of my own.

That is the third instance of what I feel is a 'quasi' religious overture when discussing this.

"If you just read the Bible/Koran you would come to accept Jesus as the son of God/Mohammed as his prophet."

That statement bears a great deal of similarity to yours. Indeed, the scary thing is that same sentiment "if you just learned more, you would agree with me" is common among what I regard as another quasi-religion, 9-11 Truthdom.

Further, the fact that you try to discourage me to read something critical of the philosophy simply reinforces that assertion.

If an idea or proponents of an idea cannot withstand criticism that pushes it out of rationality and into dogma.

I have said I would be just as willing to read a book or two if a title is suggested by a supporter, and some were actually available. I will get around to it evenutually.

[Parker2112]

read ron paul revolution. then disagree.

[RandomGuy]

Coercive Monopolies are only possible because of govt. It was govt contracts that lead to the abuses and enlargement of Rail Road monopolies in the 19th century.

Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.

Defending monopolies now?

Monopolies are completely possible without any action by the government.

Coercive monopolies, a sub-category, are completely possible without any action by a government.

Any time you have a high barrier to entry, you will get consolidation and a potential for monopolies, existance of government or not.

I reject your assertion, and have just as much support for my statements as you have, in what amounts to a matter of opinion.

As for implying that monopolies are "good for the consumer", that fully contradicts the understanding modern economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly for more details. See the term "deadweight" loss.

Those consumers would most likely have been better off without Standard Oil's monopoly.

[RandomGuy]

read ron paul revolution. then disagree.

The full title:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519

I assume you mean this book?

[Parker2112]

yes.

[Parker2112]

Defending monopolies now?

Monopolies are completely possible without any action by the government.

Coercive monopolies, a sub-category, are completely possible without any action by a government.

Any time you have a high barrier to entry, you will get consolidation and a potential for monopolies, existance of government or not.

I reject your assertion, and have just as much support for my statements as you have, in what amounts to a matter of opinion.

As for implying that monopolies are "good for the consumer", that fully contradicts the understanding modern economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly for more details. See the term "deadweight" loss.

Those consumers would most likely have been better off without Standard Oil's monopoly.

Just because they are possible without govt doesnt mean the govt doesnt create them through its actions/policies.

otherwise you missed the point entirely. Hes not defending monopolies, hes saying GOVT CAUSES MONOPLIES. not all mind you, but some. And when we look to govt to protect us from gouging, isnt this completely unacceptable?

[RandomGuy]

The lawsuit would stem from a polluter's actions exceeding legal limits. nothing wrong with enforcing those limits is there? amount of damages becomes becomes irrelevant.

Fed environmental protection is HIGHLY inefficient AND HIGHLY suspect at this point. So that is not a great argument.

Regulatory bodies are not highly accountable. They are unelected. By allowing private environmental protection groups to essentially sue to enforce federally set limits: 1. allows private actors to pursue pollutors, and 2. allows the public to funnel funding to groups of its choice, who have success taking corps to court and winning, and 3. move the expense of enforcement to interested parties (sierra club, edf, concerned citizens) instead of taxation to all.

You're talking about "legal limits" again. We already have those.

Regulatory bodies are accountable in that the laws that they operate under are written by legislatures.

Take our friendly neighborhood state insurance departments, for example. There is no federal regulation of insurance, and it is all done on a state by state basis. In this way the power is devolved, precisely the way you advocate. The state insurance laws, written by elected officials, outline what it can and cannot do.

If one allows voluntary "public funding" to be the ONLY thing funding interest groups, they WILL BE BURIED in court by the businesses they attempt to oversee. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.

[RandomGuy]

The end result of this experiment would be massive amounts of inefficiency on the part of larger businesses trying to do business across state lines, and a rather measurable loss in consumer utility, as the ultimate purchaser of goods must pay for all the costs involved in making that good.

I don't see this as any different in ultimate effect from taxes. At least that is honest and up front.

[Wild Cobra]

I saw nothing in Random Guy's post that debunked Liberterianism. Nothing but ad hominem attacks and his perception from personal encounters.

Also, the conception that Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan agreed with each other is utter bullshit. Alan Greenspan was no longer an objectivist. Objectivist advocate the removal of the federal reserve and advocate the gold standard.

If you knew anything about what you're trying to criticize you wouldn't have desire to read that idiotic book.

And another thing, it's only mental midgets who try to equate a govt agency bureau to a court where you have the equal privelege to prove your case against the law.
That's RandomPropaganda for you.

[RandomGuy]

[Ignignokt was] not defending monopolies,

Respectfully I disagree.


Also, throughout the 19th century, Standard oils goods got cheaper and cheaper, this was better for the consumer.

The obvious implication is that the monopoly was "better for the consumer" than otherwise would have been the case.

(lunch hour over, gotta get going)

[Parker2112]

You're talking about "legal limits" again. We already have those.

Regulatory bodies are accountable in that the laws that they operate under are written by legislatures.

Take our friendly neighborhood state insurance departments, for example. There is no federal regulation of insurance, and it is all done on a state by state basis. In this way the power is devolved, precisely the way you advocate. The state insurance laws, written by elected officials, outline what it can and cannot do.

If one allows voluntary "public funding" to be the ONLY thing funding interest groups, they WILL BE BURIED in court by the businesses they attempt to oversee. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.

you still cant take the jump from inefficient govt enforcement to enforcement through litigation can you?

you still have no idea what a private right of action is?

you are still talking about what you know, and ignoring what you dont arent you?

[Parker2112]

Different groups will have different agendas in different states, and businesses will be forced to deal with 50 different laws and hundreds of different "mini-regulators". They will come screaming for uniform laws and government oversight should that happen, much as the insurance industry constantly pushes for Federal oversight, and for exactly the same reasons.

just maybe huge mega corporations arent such a good idea...ever think of that?

Maybe a diverse body of law throughout the states would set a cap on corporate greed. is that so bad?

[Parker2112]

The end result of this experiment would be massive amounts of inefficiency on the part of larger businesses trying to do business across state lines, and a rather measurable loss in consumer utility, as the ultimate purchaser of goods must pay for all the costs involved in making that good.

I don't see this as any different in ultimate effect from taxes. At least that is honest and up front.

there is a huge amount of difference in handicapping businesses with completely reasonable circumstances (diverse laws among states), and taking the property of the populous.

HHUUGGEE..

[FailureNotAnOption]

Libertarianism requires a smarter general public to work. I basically feel Libertarianism has the highest ceiling of any ideology but it also is by far the most demanding.

I would tend to agree with statements of this type.

Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

It would require a strong-willed work force, one that actively educated itself on many different principles and facets of the economy and government. Private watchdog groups would have great power and expectation vested in them.

Otherwise, said workforce would quickly find themselves governed by corporate money interests.

Libertarians are often loathe to point out that brutal fact of a near-regulation free capitalist market, in spite of it's elephant-in-the-roomness. It's really what stops libertarianism dead in its tracks. Most people prefer less liberty in exchange for less responsibility.

[RandomGuy]

there is a huge amount of difference in handicapping businesses with completely reasonable circumstances (diverse laws among states), and taking the property of the populous.

HHUUGGEE..

Ask the CEO of any large company that does business across more than one state line if your scenario would be "reasonable circumstances".

The ultimate aim of a free market system would be to maximize what economists call "utility".

With the example of the aforementioned insurance laws done at the state level, we have essentially federal regulation anyways.

The insurance comissioners get together and have written so-called "model laws" that are essentially passed word-for-word among the participating states' respective legislatures.

You have a base set of laws almost all states adhere to, and 48 or so different agencies enforcing those laws.

What then for the Libertarian viewpoint if a state rejects that model and voters pick to have the state agency to regulate within its borders, as opposed to "private interest groups"?

What if people decide that private interest groups don't work and WANT government agencies?

Would a ruling libertarian party allow that?

[RandomGuy]

Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

My assertion directly.

This model might be ok for a small town with an active civic life, but would be unworkable for a nation of 300,000,000+ that spans a continent.

Deference to the founding fathers is all well and good. They were educated men and thinkers.

But they were also aristocrats and men of their time. They made mistakes.

Owing them some semi-religious deference ill-serves our needs 200+ years later. We are not a sparsely populated yeoman democracy, and stopped being that arguably almost a century ago.

[MannyIsGod]

I would tend to agree with statements of this type.

Libertarianism is certainly an utopian ideal, unfounded as of now, and maybe ever on any grand scale.

It would require a strong-willed work force, one that actively educated itself on many different principles and facets of the economy and government. Private watchdog groups would have great power and expectation vested in them.

Otherwise, said workforce would quickly find themselves governed by corporate money interests.

Libertarians are often loathe to point out that brutal fact of a near-regulation free capitalist market, in spite of it's elephant-in-the-roomness. It's really what stops libertarianism dead in its tracks. Most people prefer less liberty in exchange for less responsibility.

I agree. I also followed up with the fact that I think any society capable of libertarianism naturally gravitates to that end of the spectrum. If you're smart enough to want libertarianism you're likely smart enough to realize when you're getting a raw deal yet the fact that our country is so poor regarding civic knowledge I don't see how we could ever see them exist in a thriving libertarian society.

If they could handle it why aren't we there?

[Stringer_Bell]

I agree. I also followed up with the fact that I think any society capable of libertarianism naturally gravitates to that end of the spectrum. If you're smart enough to want libertarianism you're likely smart enough to realize when you're getting a raw deal yet the fact that our country is so poor regarding civic knowledge I don't see how we could ever see them exist in a thriving libertarian society.

If they could handle it why aren't we there?

Can people be super rich in a Libertarian society? Maybe it's just easier for people to get rich as it is now? This thread is kinda over my head, just wondering.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's RandomPropaganda for you.

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

[Yonivore]

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?
This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.

[admiralsnackbar]

This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.

If nobody defended their opinion with outside information, you'd have a point. But surprisingly, most worthwhile posters actually arrive at their opinions through research. As much as I appreciate WCs role on the board, I can't say I appreciate how seldom he can provide factual justification for his positions.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?


This should be a forum auto post that responds to just about everyone in here.



:elephant :flypig :flypig

:wow

Erk.... I agree... with... Yoni.... :smchode:

[RandomGuy]

That's RandomPropaganda for you.


Jesus, you're lazy, man...

Better to slander a poster that actually defends his points with substance than make a point or rebuttal, right?

He gave up here a while back. I think he is a tad out of his element.

Kudos to Parker for fighting the good fight. :toast

[MannyIsGod]

:elephant :flypig :flypig

:wow

Erk.... I agree... with... Yoni.... :smchode:

Why? There are a good deal of people who just make noise here and there are people who post actual information and defend their views based upon said information. I think the informed posters may not outnumber the bad ones but its not hard to filter out the garbage by knowing a poster's MO.

[Parker2112]

He gave up here a while back. I think he is a tad out of his element.

Kudos to Parker for fighting the good fight. :toast

I am very preoccupied. I also feel like I dont do the Libertarian view justice talking in hypos.

I also struggle with the wide-open free market theory, but I think it could work in theory. When I first heard the Libertarian angle, I had the same knee jerk you did RG. But its not as far fetched as you think.

BTW, I am through the firt chapter of Ron Paul's Revolution: A Manifesto. I will be getting back with you when its done. Also, dont let me speak for the party; search ron paul environment and look into more.

[RandomGuy]

I am very preoccupied. I also feel like I dont do the Libertarian view justice talking in hypos.

I also struggle with the wide-open free market theory, but I think it could work in theory. When I first heard the Libertarian angle, I had the same knee jerk you did RG. But its not as far fetched as you think.

BTW, I am through the firt chapter of Ron Paul's Revolution: A Manifesto. I will be getting back with you when its done. Also, dont let me speak for the party; search ron paul environment and look into more.

I will probably read the book this weekend at the library. I'll let you know.

[LnGrrrR]

A bit late to the party, but I'd say I'm libertarian when it comes to civil liberties issues and socially, and somewhere between libertarian and liberal when it comes to economics. (There's tension between my set of first ideal principles and national utilitarianism.)

[LnGrrrR]

RG, since you stated you were actually curious about libertarianism philosophy (and since I feel a good online debate could help strengthen/weaken my own ideas), a question:

Do you think taxation is morally correct? I think that's the true line that determines how libertarian one is.

[Parker2112]

RG, since you stated you were actually curious about libertarianism philosophy (and since I feel a good online debate could help strengthen/weaken my own ideas), a question:

Do you think taxation is morally correct? I think that's the true line that determines how libertarian one is.

[I'm not RG, but...] Its hard to justify tax rates above 10%, IMHO. Even then, I think thats too much. 2-5% would be excusable as incedental mandatory contributions, and rates that low would definitely cap wealth redistribution through govt.

And in reality, the wealthiest pay way less than that. from 2008...



Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GS:US), which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.
The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent

[Th'Pusher]

[I'm not RG, but...] Its hard to justify tax rates above 10%, IMHO. Even then, I think thats too much. 2-5% would be excusable as incedental mandatory contributions, and rates that low would definitely cap wealth redistribution through govt.

And in reality, the wealthiest pay way less than that. from 2008...

I find it amusing that you understand the banks are in complete control of the only government you have and your solution to deal with this is to give less money to the agency that exists in America to control and regulate them.

And the redistribution of wealth? The free market unfettered redistributes wealth upward. How do you suggest we deal with the Rothschilds? Shotguns?

[Parker2112]

I find it amusing that you understand the banks are in complete control of the only government you have and your solution to deal with this is to give less money to the agency that exists in America to control and regulate them.

And the redistribution of wealth? The free market unfettered redistributes wealth upward. How do you suggest we deal with the Rothschilds? Shotguns?

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

[Th'Pusher]

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

I agree all politics are local, but you do not seem to be grasping the depth or breadth of the problem. We're in a global economy centered around wealth controlled by very few.

The only way to address this is to continue to fight for the middle class through regulation and the redistribution of wealth through a centralized federal government. I can guarantee you that deregulation and tax cuts for the said few will only return more of the same and that's what you seem to be endorsing.

[Parker2112]

its not deregulation. its regulation at the state level. and as for redistribution of wealth, that usually ends up in bad news for middle/lower class. Whatever system you can put in place at a federal level, it will be corrupted/undermined.

[Th'Pusher]

its not deregulation. its regulation at the state level. and as for redistribution of wealth, that usually ends up in bad news for middle/lower class. Whatever system you can put in place at a federal level, it will be corrupted/undermined.

You're going to have to explain to me why giving states the right to fight the financial interests would be better than the federal government (even corrupt). We're in a global economy and you're suggesting the States control our financial interests? How is that competitive?

[Parker2112]

Sorry, but that would require me to be up for a while. And Im almost down for the count.

IMO, it can be done. But Im not expert enough to iron out the details of the effect of de-centralization on international economics.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry, but that would require me to be up for a while. And Im almost down for the count.

IMO, it can be done. But Im not expert enough to iron out the details of the effect of de-centralization on international economics.

Well when you are expert enough, explain it to us all. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the de-centralization of international economics.

[Parker2112]

Well when you are expert enough, explain it to us all. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the de-centralization of international economics.

are you in the US?

[Th'Pusher]

are you in the US?

Of course. Right here in Texas.

[Parker2112]

Of course. Right here in Texas.

All I will say is that looking to the federal govt for protection at this point is like the chicken going to the fox to protect it from the hounds.

If the hounds owned the foxes.

And if you can find an honest politician to send to Washington, they can be bought in less than the time it will take to do anything worthwhile. And they will.

We have long been led to believe that we NEED federal intervention in our lives for one reason or another. and yet our country was originally designed to be free from this very concentration of power, because the founding fathers knew that it resulted in the same type of tyranny that English kings had wielded over their subjects, and from which settlers had fled.

We dont need a mother in washington. we can govern ourselves, and if we are to retain our freedoms, we must.

[Th'Pusher]

All I will say is that looking to the federal govt for protection at this point is like the chicken going to the fox to protect it from the hounds.

If the hounds owned the foxes.

And if you can find an honest politician to send to Washington, they can be bought in less than the time it will take to do anything worthwhile. And they will.

We have long been led to believe that we NEED federal intervention in our lives for one reason or another. and yet our country was originally designed to be free from this very concentration of power, because the founding fathers knew that it resulted in the same type of tyranny that English kings had wielded over their subjects, and from which settlers had fled.

We dont need a mother in washington. we can govern ourselves, and if we are to retain our freedoms, we must.

I disagree. In this global economy, I believe we need a unified face in federal government. The federal government's sole job in my opinion is to foster an atmosphere that encourages innovation (like getting off oil which funds terrorists) while at the same time attempting to regulate a free market that has grown increasingly out of control in the last 30 years. It's grown out of control through years and years of policy promoting deregulation from democrats but more fundamentally republicans.

Talk about States rights all you want, but we are a unified nation in a global economy. The only way to address this is through international federal government.

[Parker2112]

there is no such thing as a trustworthy federal government though. no way over that hump.

[Th'Pusher]

there is no such thing as a trustworthy federal government though. no way over that hump.

Not if the electorate doesn't pay attention. My point is pay attention, but address the situation realistically. States rights are not realistic at this point in time and they never will be again. We've evolved past that.

Let's deal with reality here.

[Parker2112]

Not if the electorate doesn't pay attention. My point is pay attention, but address the situation realistically. States rights are not realistic at this point in time and they never will be again. We've evolved past that.

Let's deal with reality here.

it doesnt matter who you send to DC, they will be bought soon after. Thats the reality Im facing.

[LnGrrrR]

[I'm not RG, but...] Its hard to justify tax rates above 10%, IMHO. Even then, I think thats too much. 2-5% would be excusable as incedental mandatory contributions, and rates that low would definitely cap wealth redistribution through govt.

And in reality, the wealthiest pay way less than that. from 2008...

Why is taxation moral at 5% but not 15%?

[Parker2112]

2-5% would be excusable as incedental, IMO

Besides this is probably very close to what the ultra elite pay now, so may as well level the playing field for those that cant afford the best legal and accounting advice

[LnGrrrR]

2-5% would be excusable as incedental, IMO

Besides this is probably very close to what the ultra elite pay now, so may as well level the playing field for those that cant afford the best legal and accounting advice

What makes stealing 2 to 5% from people any more moral than stealing 15-20%?

[Wild Cobra]

Why is taxation moral at 5% but not 15%?
Sounds like Parker may actually have some religious background.

A 10% tithing is considered normal. The churches in old times used to take care of the old and indigent.

Now if everyone, I mean everyone, with no deductions, no exceptions, etc, were to pay 10% of their income. That would be enough to run this government on after about 5 years.

The wisdom of the churches should be listened to.

[LnGrrrR]

Sounds like Parker may actually have some religious background.

A 10% tithing is considered normal. The churches in old times used to take care of the old and indigent.

Now if everyone, I mean everyone, with no deductions, no exceptions, etc, were to pay 10% of their income. That would be enough to run this government on after about 5 years.

The wisdom of the churches should be listened to.

Do you think that taxation is moral at 5% but not 15%? (Talking about this from a MORAL standpoint, mind you, not a political/economic/productivity/etc etc standpoint)

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think that taxation is moral at 5% but not 15%? (Talking about this from a MORAL standpoint, mind you, not a political/economic/productivity/etc etc standpoint)
I have not set in my mind a moral level of taxation. Only that it be equal. It is definately immoral when some people pay a negative percentage, and there is a sliding scale.

I want to see equality. Not only in right, but in taxation. Everyone pays the same percentage.

[LnGrrrR]

I have not set in my mind a moral level of taxation. Only that it be equal. It is definately immoral when some people pay a negative percentage, and there is a sliding scale.

I want to see equality. Not only in right, but in taxation. Everyone pays the same percentage.

So a communist regime, say, where everyone gets taxed 75%, would be morally acceptable to you?

[Wild Cobra]

So a communist regime, say, where everyone gets taxed 75%, would be morally acceptable to you?
No.

Anything above 20% I would say is unreasonable. At what point below 20%... I haven't thought much on that.

If we allow a flat tax with a standard deduction and exemptions like many will insist on retaining, 17% taxation would probably be enough.

[LnGrrrR]

No.

Anything above 20% I would say is unreasonable. At what point below 20%... I haven't thought much on that.

If we allow a flat tax with a standard deduction and exemptions like many will insist on retaining, 17% taxation would probably be enough.

Why is taxation moral at a certain level (say 17%) and not moral at another level (say, 50%)?

The action does not change; you are still taking money from people to fund things they probably object to, after all.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is taxation moral at a certain level (say 17%) and not moral at another level (say, 50%)?

The action does not change; you are still taking money from people to fund things they probably object to, after all.
When it goes beyond the basic needs we share, it is too much. Yes, there is a huge gray area, and people will not agree where to draw the line.

17% may or may not be a good level, but 50% is definitely excessive. When anyone agrees to the concept that we get to keep what the government allows us to, we don't have freedom. Historically, I think the government taxation is 18.3% of GNP. That is already too large, and whenever it exceeds that figure, we have problems. We are now in excess of 22% spending, yet no matter what the government tries to do, long term revenue averages at or below 18.3%. Any temporary increase in revenue is followed by a decline in the economy.

[Marcus Bryant]

Libertarianism requires a smarter general public to work. I basically feel Libertarianism has the highest ceiling of any ideology but it also is by far the most demanding.

I'd say maturity is more important than intellect.

As for the libertarian ideal, it's certainly not Somalia. If anything, it's the unscripted life you lead everyday. And Rand's view is such a poor one wonders if she wasn't cynically trying to sabotage it.

[LnGrrrR]

When it goes beyond the basic needs we share, it is too much. Yes, there is a huge gray area, and people will not agree where to draw the line.

17% may or may not be a good level, but 50% is definitely excessive. When anyone agrees to the concept that we get to keep what the government allows us to, we don't have freedom. Historically, I think the government taxation is 18.3% of GNP. That is already too large, and whenever it exceeds that figure, we have problems. We are now in excess of 22% spending, yet no matter what the government tries to do, long term revenue averages at or below 18.3%. Any temporary increase in revenue is followed by a decline in the economy.

Are you talking about the MORALITY of taxation now, though? Seems like you're more getting into economic/government/etc arguments. Just want to make sure we don't get sidetracked here.

Is your argument that the only acceptable taxation, the only moral taxation, is for items that are specifically spelled out in our Constitution?

[RandomGuy]

read ron paul revolution. then disagree.


The full title:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519

I assume you mean this book?

Dang. Didn't get around to it this weekend. Had a wake to go to, and was sicker than a dog the next day.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you talking about the MORALITY of taxation now, though? Seems like you're more getting into economic/government/etc arguments. Just want to make sure we don't get sidetracked here.
Mostly, yes.

Is your argument that the only acceptable taxation, the only moral taxation, is for items that are specifically spelled out in our Constitution?
Not only, but when ever we use tax dollars for things outside the constitution, we must tread carefully.

[LnGrrrR]

Not only, but when ever we use tax dollars for things outside the constitution, we must tread carefully.

How then do you justify, morally speaking, paying for things that aren't explicitly outlined in our Constitution?

[RandomGuy]

How then do you justify, morally speaking, paying for things that aren't explicitly outlined in our Constitution?

Like, say, the Air Force? :D

If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.

The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.

They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.

[Parker2112]

Like, say, the Air Force? :D

If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.

The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.

They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.

defense says all we need to know. And if we dismantled the false war on drugs, we wouldnt be facing this at all.

[LnGrrrR]

Like, say, the Air Force? :D

If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.

The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.

They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.

Ha! Thankfully I'm not as strict a Constitutionalist as WC... when the Constitution says that people must be secure in their papers, I assume that electronic documents are equivalent. :lol

But that's why I'm curious which allowances WC makes.

[Wild Cobra]

How then do you justify, morally speaking, paying for things that aren't explicitly outlined in our Constitution?
First, it must be clearly desired by the people. It should be put to a national vote. SS and Medicare are programs wanted. Obamacare isn't. Would you agree with that?

[Wild Cobra]

If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.

The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.

That's why the Airforce started as an offshoot of the Army, and the Marines from the Navy.

[Wild Cobra]

Ha! Thankfully I'm not as strict a Constitutionalist as WC... when the Constitution says that people must be secure in their papers, I assume that electronic documents are equivalent. :lol

But that's why I'm curious which allowances WC makes.
What's not clear?

[LnGrrrR]

First, it must be clearly desired by the people. It should be put to a national vote. SS and Medicare are programs wanted. Obamacare isn't. Would you agree with that?

Well, representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So if enough representatives vote on something and it passes, one would argue that the will of the people was represented.

I think there would be some heavy logistical issues in forcing a national vote onto every piece of legislation, don't you?

[LnGrrrR]

That's why the Airforce started as an offshoot of the Army, and the Marines from the Navy.

I think you're missing his point, which is how literally you translate the Constitution. (ie. if the fourth amendment allows people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, that also logically extends to their cars, their electronic documents, etc etc, even though that's not literally spelled out in the amendment.)

[Wild Cobra]

Well, representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So if enough representatives vote on something and it passes, one would argue that the will of the people was represented.
If that were true, Obama care would have never passed.

I think there would be some heavy logistical issues in forcing a national vote onto every piece of legislation, don't you?
Not every piece of legislation. Congress shouldn't be making so much legislation anyway.

Do you really like the overreach of our government?

[Wild Cobra]

I think you're missing his point, which is how literally you translate the Constitution. (ie. if the fourth amendment allows people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, that also logically extends to their cars, their electronic documents, etc etc, even though that's not literally spelled out in the amendment.)
Anything not shared, yes. Thing is, most entities have you sign a third party waver, and even when you don't, where do you draw the line at probable cause.

We have argued probable cause before. We came to agreements on the black and white of it, just not the gray.

[LnGrrrR]

If that were true, Obama care would have never passed.

And yet, it did. Would you force representatives to vote exactly as their constituent would want? Or should representatives have the freedom, once voted into office, to vote how they wish?


Not every piece of legislation. Congress shouldn't be making so much legislation anyway.

How would you determine which legislation was important enough for a national vote?


Do you really like the overreach of our government?

Did I say I did?

[LnGrrrR]

Anything not shared, yes. Thing is, most entities have you sign a third party waver, and even when you don't, where do you draw the line at probable cause.

We have argued probable cause before. We came to agreements on the black and white of it, just not the gray.

You're overthinking this WC; RG was making a humorous comment that the Air Force and Marines are technically not explicitly outlined in the Constitution; only the Army and Navy are. (Implying that Marines/Air Force would only be acceptable if under their respective branches, and not their own independent ones.)

[ALVAREZ6]

Libertarianism is only for smart people.

[ALVAREZ6]

Smart man:

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-072907.jpg

[RandomGuy]

No.

Anything above 20% I would say is unreasonable. At what point below 20%... I haven't thought much on that.

If we allow a flat tax with a standard deduction and exemptions like many will insist on retaining, 17% taxation would probably be enough.

Oddly enough the debt panel convened by Obama came to many of the same conclusions. Their % was around 23% or so though.

[RandomGuy]

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

[RandomGuy]

Been browsing through the website:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com

Interesting guy who specializes in thinking about systems.

He also seems to think the US is heading for hyperinflation, and even quotes the same guy that Parker does.

Of course, he spends a lot of time skewering faulty Libertarian/Conservative reasoning as well.

It makes for intresting reading, even if the website seems slow.

[CosmicCowboy]

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

And state officials are a lot easier to arrest/prosecute/throw out of office.

[RandomGuy]

And state officials are a lot easier to arrest/prosecute/throw out of office.

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

[RandomGuy]

There's No Collective or Social Reality
by Bob Powell, 11/12/07


I sent out a column by Paul Krugman, Same Old Party (it's included at bottom), to my distribution with the preface below. I received a response from a libertarian that's worth considering, not because it makes sense, but because it illustrates how disconnected these people are from reality.

There's no talking to them and I have no illusion that anything I say or write will penetrate. This is for those who don't appreciate how they think and how dangerous they are to us all. They must be confronted, their insanity must be exposed, and their policies must be reversed.

Too many people buy into the simplistic libertarian nonsense that's destroying America.

Here's how I prefaced Krugman's column:


From: Bob Powell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, October 17, 2007 8:19 pm
To: Recipient list suppressed:;
Subject: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN

The combination of "conservative" (read libertarian) economics and authoritarian disregard of the Constitution is fascism, the combined government and corporate control of the nation.

On the purpose of the Republican, endless "war on terror", read the prophetic and insightful excerpts from the "War as Peace" section of #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell by Emmanuel Goldstein, The 'Book within a Book' from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four at Liberal Moment #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Here's the response from a libertarian.


Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:03:23 -0700
From: JW
Subject: RE: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN
To: Bob Powell <[email protected]>

Your pathological hatred and misdirection of Libertarianism as having mauch anything to do with "conservatism and its modern practice is becoming both boring and stupid.

Nothing in Krugman's article has anything to do with Libertarian thinking or economics/

JW


JW. Your pathological hatred and misdirection of Libertarianism as having mauch anything to do with "conservatism and its modern practice is becoming both boring and stupid.


RP. Congratulations. You're a perfect example of someone blinded by "ignorance is strength" doublethink.

Yes, I despise libertarianism because it leads to the destruction of a civil society and the very freedom libertarians claim to support. The reason I do is that I now have a real understanding of what's going on. Libertarians are sociopaths.

The end product of libertarianism is corporate control of government: fascism. Your defense of it is either ignorant and foolish or purely Orwellian.


JW: Your use of the term sociopath proves my point. Libertarians, by definition, are THE MOST respectful of others rights and feelings. Respect of others rights and property is paramount in the Libertarian philosophy. However, at the same time you seem to have little or no understanding of the meaning of the terms "laws of nature" or "nature's God" as used in the Declaration. There is no such thing as "social feelings," "social consciousness" or a "social being" or other such silly concepts. Tell me Bob, where does this common mind or entity exist in humans? It is a ridiculous creation of the socialist mind itself. No two people think the same on any issue even if they have some common area of agreement. Such common agreement is the lowest common denominator of agreement and typically represents the worst possible solution to any problem. Individuals find their own solutions, negotiate their own agreements and act on their own volition to solve their own problems. Tell me Bob, when was the last time you formed a committee to buy a house, a car, decide on how many kids to have, take a job or quit a job? What? Never? I'm shocked! You are the typical example of the common fool who believes such nonsense while actually practicing none of it.


RP: Here it is clearly. They believe:


There's no "social" anything. There is no collective. Only individuals have problems and individuals alone act on their own to solve them. Any idea of a collective reality is the ridiculous creation of a "socialist mind." Anyone who thinks otherwise is a common fool.

The problem with this is of course that there really is a collective dimension that's integral to reality. See What's Spirit Got to Do with It? and Problems: A Society's or An Individual's?

Ever hear that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?"

Well, that's literally true. because systems have "emergent properties." You can't cut an elephant in half and get two elephants; an elephant is the sum of its parts. A mind isn't in the parts of a brain; it's a manifestation of the whole of a brain and the interactions among its parts. There is society and culture that's made up of individuals, but is greater than the individuals themselves.

Here are examples of collectives that have a "mind of their own" and have a profound influence on our decisions, often without us being consciously aware of the influence:


Family. The reality that the family is a collective most directly drives a stake in the heart of libertarian belief.

Anyone who's familiar with the codependency model and has applied it to their own life knows this. When there's an addict in a family, the members of the family warp their behaviors in well-known, common ways to take on roles that help keep the family together. Roles: the enabler, hero, scapegoat, lost child, and mascot.

I once thought codependency had nothing to do with me, but that by attending a codependency workshop, I'd probably learn something anyway. To my great shock and dismay, I found my family members fit these roles exactly. And I'd thought I was too unique for that to be possible. I was too much of an individual to be so influenced. Oh, my.

Beyond this we know that maturity requires balancing between individual needs and family needs. Individuals can't just make their own decisions, independent of the family.

Unless, of course, they're juveniles ... teenagers ... libertarians. Teenagers and libertarians neglect responsibilities to the long-term and to the whole. They adopt a teenage, foot-stomping, "I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it" attitude. Immature, irresponsible. They're not responsible human beings.

Community. Boulder has different values than Colorado Springs. In Boulder they invest in infrastructure and restrict growth to be attractive by maintaining quality of life, but high taxes and higher home prices reduce the regions attractiveness. Colorado Springs tries to remain attractive with low taxes, but infrastructure backlogs grow which makes it less attractive.

In Colorado Springs, excessively influenced by libertarian, right-wing economic beliefs, they want a more "free market" economy that redistributes the costs of development onto the public at large ... cost-side socialism ... that leads to infrastructure backlogs, and they want low taxes that leads to even greater infrastructure backlogs.

Because of national-level policies, problems related to growth cannot be solved at the individual regional level. See the Growth Facts of Life for how regions can be individually logical, but collectively irrational. For other examples of the individually logical, but collectively irrational, see The Trade Deficit and the Fallacy of Composition.

Mob behavior. Mobs behave in ways the individuals in a mob would never behave on their own. The libertarian belief that individuals make their decisions on their own denies this can be.

Culture. There are common sets of beliefs that affect the behavior of individuals in a society. Anyone who's lived in a foreign country (I have) understands that they believe differently and behave differently because of those different beliefs. Every society has a culture that influences individual behaviors. The decisions we make are influenced by society. Even the information we take in is filtered through societal filters, through what our neighbors tell us and through the media. Europeans see the U.S. as dysfunctional and short-sighted, which of course we are. And conservatives quite readily demean Europeans, especially the French.

Soldiers. Soldiers on the battlefield come to understand that they need to look out for each other. They know that there but for the Grace of God go I. I've often heard that they stay with their units because their buddies depend on them ... they're part of their unit, their team, their ... uhh ... collective.

The same is true for each of us. When we see a homeless person on the street, "There but for the Grace of God go I." Some people can work their way out of poverty, but national policies condemn at least 12% of us to live in poverty. See There's no 'free market' for Labor for why.

Committees? No, we don't "form a committee." It's more subtle than that. We're heavily, and mostly subconsciously, influenced by the beliefs of our family, our community, and our culture. Even what we perceive gets to us through filters. These filters let some information through and not other information.

--------------------------------------------------------


JW. Nothing in Krugman's article has anything to do with Libertarian thinking or economics/


RP. This really proves you're either blind or can't read.

It's EXACTLY about that ... privatizing government functions into the hands of unaccountable corporations as contractors. Halliburton even moves to Dubai to escape scrutiny. These private corporations then use their profits to fund elections and control politicians ... creating fascism. That's why the occupation of Iraq, with more private contractors than troops, is so difficult to end ... tons of money are being made through "war profiteering."


JW: No Bob, it proves you can neither read nor think much without hurting yourself. Libertarians neither desire or condone use of the state by rent-seeking corporations to obtain benefit for themselves. Libertarians demand exactly the opposite. An end to state power exactly so corporations cannot seek influence or benefit from them. Without a huge sate apparatus in place to manipulate corporations live and die according to the free-market, not government induced influence through handing out power and benefits. this again proves your breath-taking misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy and practice.


RP: Now this is really telling. Corporations are fictional entities. They ONLY exist through the power of the state that defines them and the rules by which they operate: in the shareholder interest with limited liability. It's impossible to get rid of the state apparatus and have corporations.

The idea that there's a "huge state apparatus" that manipulates corporations ignores that it's the reverse. Corporations manipulate government to define the rules to serve their interests. These rules allow them to privatize the profits and socialize the costs onto the public through negative externalities.

Examples of negative externalities are pollution, injuries and deaths of employees, and increasing burden on infrastructure required to support their ability to sell and distribute their products. A smaller, less-powerful government that does not serve the public, the common, the collective interest only makes it possible for corporations to manipulate government more easily.

Libertarians would say that the individual should just sue the corporation to enforce their individual rights to recover damages. But when there's pollution, the cost to any given individual may be small and, on an individual basis, it won't be economically possible. If the pollution causes death, then each individual has to prove individually that the pollution caused the death; again this is not economically feasible.

This "you just don't understand Libertarian philosophy" is a recurring response to those who expose its flaws.


[indeed it is, a recurring theme in this thread as well--RG]

[RandomGuy]

Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2007

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don't know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism -- and Mr. Bush hasn't strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he's the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush's general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here's how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a "rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems" because "the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority -- so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government."

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that "under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds -- demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors."

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In "The Conscience of a Conservative," published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size."

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top -- who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons -- I've got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as "humiliating to the South."

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts -- which, for a time, were all too successful -- to intimidate the press. But this administration's media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh's apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon's media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater -- who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life -- staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail," and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after "consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal" -- presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: "Well, how did we get here?" They may tell themselves: "This is not my beautiful Right." They may ask themselves: "My God, what have we done?"

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism's true, loyal heir.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

*sigh*

We still have that shit in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

[LnGrrrR]

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

Because we didn't have a powerful federal entity :)

Let's face it, whoever at the top is tough to throw down. If you weaken fed to the amount that states have more power, it will be tougher to throw them in jail.

[Parker2112]

*sigh*

We still have that shit in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

the whole point, and nothing but the point :toast

[Parker2112]

RG, mind this quote, as it seeks to undermine libertarian philosophy:

It's impossible to get rid of the state apparatus and have corporations.


This overstates libertarians aim as wishing to completely dissolve government alltogether.

Overstating things a bit, dont you think? Also a common thread among opponents around here, dont you think?

Rivaling the republican tendency to claim anyone who supports health care reform is a socialist/communist, no?

This dude's take is the pits.

There is a huge difference in removing federal powers accumulated contrary to the constitution and returning them to the states, vs dissolving any and all semblance of organized society.

To avoid discussion of the former and focus on the latter is to engage in disengenious debate.

And Ihavent heard you even touch on states rights.

[Parker2112]

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

OK, so you did lay down this one conclusory statement.

Care to back that up?

Bonus Points: Care to touch on how much easier it is to monitor/hold your govt accountable at local/state level?

[MannyIsGod]

*sigh*

We still have that shit in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

Oh Really?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4714969&postcount=132


I know I really work at trying to be an informed voter but have to admit that in some of the small local races, especially for the boards, water districts, etc. I don't really have a clue...I will typically just not to vote in that election if I don't have an informed opinion.

[RandomGuy]

OK, so you did lay down this one conclusory statement.

Care to back that up?

Bonus Points: Care to touch on how much easier it is to monitor/hold your govt accountable at local/state level?

I will offer as evidence every single statement you have made about how corporations affect our government through campaign contributions and other methods. Do I need anything further? If you like, I can mine your posts for quotes to support my assertion.

As for "bonus points":
Sure.

The answer is I don't really know for certain one way or ther other, having no direct experience. However, I do find it eminently plausible that it easier, and would accept that assertion as reasonable.

Bonus points: Name your governor, the top three legislative leaders, any two members of your state's supreme court, and your state attorney general, and the heads of the three largest state agencies by budget, without looking any of them up.

Care to touch on whether it is really feasible in the real world to depend on people to do that monitoring?

One of the main criticisms of Libertarianism is that it is vastly unrealistic for larger political entities.

If you can't answer my bonus points quiz, what makes you think things will magically change if we accepted the Libertarian form of government you advocate?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh Really?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4714969&postcount=132

Your point?

You obviously went to a lot of trouble to make it...

[MannyIsGod]

Local political information is not higher than it is at the state and federal levels. The higher you go the more people are involved and the more they pay attention. Take a look at turnout for local elections not pinned with those of higher offices and you'll see turnout at about 10% on most of them.

[CosmicCowboy]

Local political information is not higher than it is at the state and federal levels. The higher you go the more people are involved and the more they pay attention. Take a look at turnout for local elections not pinned with those of higher offices and you'll see turnout at about 10% on most of them.

I'm not saying that everyone gets excited about the local dog catcher election, but if the dogcatcher is fucking up it's a damn sight easier to get rid of him on a local level than it is a federal level.

[CosmicCowboy]

Local political information is not higher than it is at the state and federal levels. The higher you go the more people are involved and the more they pay attention. Take a look at turnout for local elections not pinned with those of higher offices and you'll see turnout at about 10% on most of them.

And strangely enough, you will find typically that the 10% that voted are also typically informed voters.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not saying that everyone gets excited about the local dog catcher election, but if the dogcatcher is fucking up it's a damn sight easier to get rid of him on a local level than it is a federal level.


And strangely enough, you will find typically that the 10% that voted are also typically informed voters.

Your second point is a good point. But anytime you make the oversight smaller it also allows things to be more easily corrupted.

More than size, I think proper oversight by the voters is what is necessary. I personally think most local politics affects day to day lives way more than the vast majority of federal issues but don't get enough attentionl

[RandomGuy]

101A asked about pollution and so forth. I think this was the thread I was looking for.

[vy65]

Maybe a little off-topic, but how would a libertarian deal with a situation where the government is the only institution that can protect minorities from a (racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc...) mob?

Would a libertarian think that Ike shouldn't have sent the 101st into Little Rock?

[RandomGuy]

That speaks to one of my largest criticisms of libertarianism and the kind of government that Ron Paul seems to favor.


The irrational worship of the founding fathers as infallible, and that the Constitution's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions.

The relatively homogenous, sparsely populated country of 5,000,0000 yeoman farmers that mostly live in the countryside, and has little integration with the rest of the world's trade networks requires a vastly different government from a post-industrial country of 300,000,000 city-dwellers and immigrants that is the world's largest economy.

There were no international criminal cartels in 1791 that entered into the thinking of the framers of the constitution, and that is just one example of the things that we have to deal with now, that were not a consideration in when the current constitution was drafted.

[boutons_deux]

"that the Constitution's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions."

hmm, that the Bible's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions.

What's with these primitive people who worship writing as if it were magically empowered?

[RandomGuy]

Bump. I have a feeling someone wants to revisit this.

PT, that's you.

[spursncowboys]

From A Non-Libertarians FAQ (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html)

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a dessert topping!" "No, it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."

This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.

Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.

...

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT

Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?

There are some common counterarguments for which libertarians have excellent rebuttals. Arguments that government is the best or only way to do something may fail: there are many examples of many government functions being performed privately. Some of them are quite surprising. Arguments based on getting any services free from government will fail: all government services cost money that comes from somewhere. Arguments that we have a free market are patently untrue: there are many ways the market is modified.

There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point. These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc. Please feel free to suggest other concepts for this list.

One way to bring about a large volume of argument is to cross-post to another political group with opposing ideas, such as alt.politics.radical-left. The results are quite amusing, though there is a lot more heat than light. Let's not do this more often than is necessary to keep us aware that libertarianism is not universally accepted.

...

LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs) generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.


The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
The Declaration Of Independence says...
Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
Taxation is theft.
If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.
her misc. claims denying the social contract.
Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract?
Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?


(list goes on, full list and rebuttals here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html )


---------------------------------------

The more I read up on whatever "Libertarianism" is, the more it looks to me like a quasi-religion, ala 9-11 Truth movement and so forth.

Here is another link:
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid (http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php)


I have several Libertarian or semi-libertarian friends, and they think I am just as silly, I suppose. They aren't too hard core into it, so I don't get the overbearing attempts to convert me, but they do make for some interesting discussions.

I offer this as a critique and counterbalance to the constant stream of Libertarian evangelicism.

Given the quasi-religious nature of Libertarianism, I also don't expect a civil conversation about it. Most Libertarians on the internet tend to be fanatics, and fanatics really hate it when you are skeptical of their dogma.

Regards,
RG the Heretic

P.S. The next book on my reading list:
Are Capitalism, Objectivism, And Libertarianism Religions?
Yes!: Greenspan And Ayn Rand Debunked (http://www.amazon.com/Are-Capitalism-Objectivism-Libertarianism-Religions/dp/1434808858)

Isn't that cute.

[RandomGuy]

Isn't that cute.

It is about as cute as allowing people to lie to you about gas prices, and sucking up those lies as facts.

[RandomGuy]

There's No Collective or Social Reality
by Bob Powell, 11/12/07


I sent out a column by Paul Krugman, Same Old Party (it's included at bottom), to my distribution with the preface below. I received a response from a libertarian that's worth considering, not because it makes sense, but because it illustrates how disconnected these people are from reality.

There's no talking to them and I have no illusion that anything I say or write will penetrate. This is for those who don't appreciate how they think and how dangerous they are to us all. They must be confronted, their insanity must be exposed, and their policies must be reversed.

Too many people buy into the simplistic libertarian nonsense that's destroying America.

Here's how I prefaced Krugman's column:


From: Bob Powell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, October 17, 2007 8:19 pm
To: Recipient list suppressed:;
Subject: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN

The combination of "conservative" (read libertarian) economics and authoritarian disregard of the Constitution is fascism, the combined government and corporate control of the nation.

On the purpose of the Republican, endless "war on terror", read the prophetic and insightful excerpts from the "War as Peace" section of #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell by Emmanuel Goldstein, The 'Book within a Book' from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four at Liberal Moment #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Here's the response from a libertarian.


Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:03:23 -0700
From: JW
Subject: RE: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN
To: Bob Powell <[email protected]>

Your pathological hatred and misdirection of Libertarianism as having mauch anything to do with "conservatism and its modern practice is becoming both boring and stupid.

Nothing in Krugman's article has anything to do with Libertarian thinking or economics/

JW









--------------------------------------------------------



[long series of quotes about the exchange not shown]






[indeed it is, a recurring theme in this thread as well--RG]

I may have to dredge this up for the current Libertarian Avenger to digest.

[Poptech]

Bump. I have a feeling someone wants to revisit this.

PT, that's you.
I'm not sure what you want me to say. You have a "FAQ" from a guy who apparently has read nothing on the subject. I searched the page for:

Ludwig von Mises = 0 time
Friedrich Hayek = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Murray Rothbard = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Milton Friedman = 3 times (In the critical references section he did not read)

I can tell immediately he has spent his time almost exclusively arguing with Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians and confused this when talking to Limited-Government Libertarians. This is deducted from the arguments he is listing and how they are presented. Anarcho-capitalists can be very dogmatic and difficult to reason with.


There are effectively two types of Libertarians,

L1. Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians (Rothbard)

- They want to eliminate government.

L2. Limited-Government Libertarians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman)

- They want to minimize government.

LC Libertarian-Conservatives (Sowell) *

- Not Libertarians but often confused as such due to many similar economic views.


There are effectively two Economic Schools,

E1. Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard)

E2. Chicago School (Friedman, Sowell)


Then there are Objectivists (Rand) - these are not Libertarians.


Some interesting notes: Rothbard despised Friedman, Rand despised Libertarians and Rothbard considers Objectivists a cult.


The FAQ author has not done even his basic home work to bother. If you want to really learn the history I suggest reading,

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Libertarian/dp/1586483501) (Brian Doherty, 2007)

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure what you want me to say. You have a "FAQ" from a guy who apparently has read nothing on the subject. I searched the page for:

Ludwig von Mises = 0 time
Friedrich Hayek = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Murray Rothbard = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Milton Friedman = 3 times (In the critical references section he did not read)

I can tell immediately he has spent his time almost exclusively arguing with Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians and confused this when talking to Limited-Government Libertarians. This is deducted from the arguments he is listing and how they are presented. Anarcho-capitalists can be very dogmatic and difficult to reason with.


There are effectively two types of Libertarians,

L1. Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians (Rothbard)

- They want to eliminate government.

L2. Limited-Government Libertarians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman)

- They want to minimize government.

LC Libertarian-Conservatives (Sowell) *

- Not Libertarians but often confused as such due to many similar economic views.


There are effectively two Economic Schools,

E1. Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard)

E2. Chicago School (Friedman, Sowell)


Then there are Objectivists (Rand) - these are not Libertarians.


Some interesting notes: Rothbard despised Friedman, Rand despised Libertarians and Rothbard considers Objectivists a cult.


The FAQ author has not done even his basic home work to bother. If you want to really learn the history I suggest reading,

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Libertarian/dp/1586483501) (Brian Doherty, 2007)

Civil.

So that is the way you want to play it, eh?

Two can play that game.

Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?

[Poptech]

Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?
What is "moral" is subjective and what is considered "moral" will change based on who you talk to, it will also change based on who the person is bleeding to death.

Two extreme examples,

1. A 5-year old child was hit by a drunk driver. No I do not believe it is moral to let the child bleed to death.

2. A drug addict, murderer, rapist who had just broken into my home, raped and murdered my ten year old daughter. Yes I believe it is moral to let this murderer, rapist bleed to death.

My preferred government is not involved in healthcare in anyway. There are no licensing or regulations for any doctor or hospital. This would ensure an ample supply of both, especially religious based hospitals that would offer charity care. Most doctors and nurses go into medicine to help people so the far majority are unlikely to let anyone bleed to death. From a pure business perspective, having people bleed to death because they could not pay is not good for business. Would you go to a hospital like this? I and most other people would not.

The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/anti-nationalized-health-care-resource.html)

[boutons_deux]

The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/anti-nationalized-health-care-resource.html)

... more proof that "libertarian" policies are nothing but shilling for unregulated predation by for-profit medical services. "Govt is the only problem" repeats St Ronnie's bullshit lie.

[Poptech]

... more proof that "libertarian" policies are nothing but shilling for unregulated predation by for-profit medical services. "Govt is the only problem" repeats St Ronnie's bullshit lie.
For profit medical services can only exist if they provide a service people want and are willing to pay for. By removing all licensing and regulation it would allow extensive competition from inexpensive medical services offering care from those with less than 11-years of medical training such as highly trained EMTs and Nurses.

[spursncowboys]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the title? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

[Poptech]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the title? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.
This helps him support his stereo typing and laziness in doing any research or understanding the actual positions of those he emotionally dislikes. The fact that his main source of information is some guy absolutely ignorant on the subject is testament to this.

[boutons_deux]

For profit medical services can only exist if they provide a service people want and are willing to pay for. By removing all licensing and regulation it would allow extensive competition from inexpensive medical services offering care from those with less than 11-years of medical training such as highly trained EMTs and Nurses.

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian fucktard ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.

[Poptech]

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian fucktard ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.
Randian's are Objectivists who are not Libertarians. Therefore I cannot be a Randian. I had no idea you were an evolution denier?

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy


Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?



What is "moral" is subjective and what is considered "moral" will change based on who you talk to, it will also change based on who the person is bleeding to death.

Two extreme examples,

1. A 5-year old child was hit by a drunk driver. No I do not believe it is moral to let the child bleed to death.

2. A drug addict, murderer, rapist who had just broken into my home, raped and murdered my ten year old daughter. Yes I believe it is moral to let this murderer, rapist bleed to death.

My preferred government is not involved in healthcare in anyway. There are no licensing or regulations for any doctor or hospital. This would ensure an ample supply of both, especially religious based hospitals that would offer charity care. Most doctors and nurses go into medicine to help people so the far majority are unlikely to let anyone bleed to death. From a pure business perspective, having people bleed to death because they could not pay is not good for business. Would you go to a hospital like this? I and most other people would not.


I will follow this up until a point. I don't think this will be overly productive, but hey, what the heck. I can click on the "view post" and follow this as long as it is civil and fair/honest.

So, yes, it is generally immoral to let someone bleed to death in an ER.

What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.

[RandomGuy]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the title? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

Yup. All ideologies tend to have spectrums of people who fit along a continuum. People rarely fit neatly into predefined categories.

[RandomGuy]

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian fucktard ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.

Yes. It is very easy to advocate a general ideology, and quite another to construct a real world functioning system. Ask communists how that has worked out for them. (it hasn't)

[Wild Cobra]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the title? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.
I agree we need to keep some regulations in place, by we do have way too many.

PopTech...

If you are talking about removing all restraints of a marketplace, I disagree. Do you realize you are appearing as the "anarchist" type libertarian?

[Wild Cobra]

What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.
Would you go to that hospital when you had a choice? How many other people would feel like you, and not do business with an establishment they despise?

Most things need not be regulated. The marketplace will work by alloying people to make the choices they want.

[RandomGuy]

Would you go to that hospital when you had a choice? How many other people would feel like you, and not do business with an establishment they despise?

Most things need not be regulated. The marketplace will work by alloying people to make the choices they want.

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.

[Wild Cobra]

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.
So instead, it appears you want to mandate that all hospitals have a higher price structure. That would be the effective outcome, wouldn't it?

[RandomGuy]

So instead, it appears you want to mandate that all hospitals have a higher price structure. That would be the effective outcome, wouldn't it?

What I "want" in this case is not really relevant as it turns out.

But:
I do happen to support denying life-saving care to people being made illegal.

FYI:


Sec. 311.022. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED IN DENIAL OF SERVICES; CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(a) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital may not deny emergency services because a person cannot establish the person's ability to pay for the services or because of the person's race, religion, or national ancestry if:

(1) the services are available at the hospital; and
(2) the person is diagnosed by a licensed physician as requiring those services.

(b) An officer or employee of a general hospital may not deny a person in need of emergency services access to diagnosis by a licensed physician on the hospital staff because the person cannot establish the person's ability to pay for the services or because of the person's race, religion, or national ancestry.

(c) In addition, the person needing emergency services may not be subjected to arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable discrimination based on age, sex, physical condition, or economic status.

(d) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital commits an offense if that person recklessly violates this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor, except that if the offense results in permanent injury, permanent disability, or death, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) An officer, employee, or medical staff member of a general hospital commits an offense if that person intentionally or knowingly violates this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor, except that if, as a direct result of the offense, a person denied emergency services dies, the offense is a felony of the third degree.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.311.htm

I am fairly sure all states have similar provisions.

If you do not want cost shifting, get rid of this law.

You must be prepared to accept that a hospital may decide to let someone bleed to death.

Are you ready to accept that might happen to be your child?

[Poptech]

So, yes, it is generally immoral to let someone bleed to death in an ER.
Morality is subjective so no determination can be made using this argument.


What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.
If a hospital does do that, then people will not wish to use that hospital. It is the same argument for food companies "poisoning" you without an FDA. There is a vast difference between refusing any treatment due to lack of ability to pay with letting someone bleed to death.

[Poptech]

I agree we need to keep some regulations in place, by we do have way too many.

PopTech...

If you are talking about removing all restraints of a marketplace, I disagree. Do you realize you are appearing as the "anarchist" type libertarian?
Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a constitutionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.

[RandomGuy]

Morality is subjective so no determination can be made using this argument.


If a hospital does do that, then people will not wish to use that hospital. It is the same argument for food companies "poisoning" you without an FDA. There is a vast difference between refusing any treatment due to lack of ability to pay with letting someone bleed to death.

Morality may be subjective, but does not prohibit populations from generally agreeing on what is, or is not, moral.

Indeed, we have to do this all the time. Determinations can, and are made, just because you might not like the implication, does not make it otherwise.

Your analogy does not hold in this case.

Poisoned food is directly incimal to life. Providing health care is directly supportive of life. A food company that sells cheap, but poisoned food, is not the same as a hospital that provides cheaper care, but refuses to treat people who can't pay.


So, determinations can be made, and your analogy fails.

Moving on...

[Poptech]

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.
That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

[RandomGuy]

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a constitutionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.

State governments have determined that this cost shifting takes place.

This is not the federal goverment, but rather state constitutions.

All 50 states have some version of this law.

Do you think they should be repealed to prevent this cost-shifting?

[RandomGuy]

That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

Ok, how would your system prevent cartels and monopolies?

Tell me how to solve resource asymetry.

[johnsmith]

That is not how a free market works as you are missing the important part of my argument which removes all licensing and regulation, allowing for competing facilities much more easily and more inexpensively. Your current system supports cartels and monopolies. My system would see many more low cost clinics and smaller hospitals. I would also abolish all taxation relating to providing and receiving healthcare.

You should bring your system to the people....they deserve to hear it....no more spurstalk.com, it's a waste of your intelligence.....scream it from the rooftop Poptech!!!!

[Poptech]

Morality may be subjective, but does not prohibit populations from generally agreeing on what is, or is not, moral.
You cannot have it both ways. If this "morality" is universally accepted why would the staff of hospitals which are part of this view of morality let people bleed to death? This false argument is made all the time. People like to present their specific view of "morality" which may share similarities to other's view but greatly differ on many issues as the only view or "morality".


Poisoned food is directly incimal to life. Providing health care is directly supportive of life. A food company that sells cheap, but poisoned food, is not the same as a hospital that provides cheaper care, but refuses to treat people who can't pay.
Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?

[RandomGuy]

You should bring your system to the people....they deserve to hear it....no more spurstalk.com, it's a waste of your intelligence.....scream it from the rooftop Poptech!!!!

For health care I am all about what works.

Our current system, does not.

Obamacare will not fix it, and neither, in my opinion, will pure free market solutions.

That said, if something can be shown to be reasonably possible and might work, I am for trying it.

[RandomGuy]

You cannot have it both ways. If this "morality" is universally accepted why would the staff of hospitals which are part of this view of morality let people bleed to death? This false argument is made all the time. People like to present their specific view of "morality" which may share similarities to other's view but greatly differ on many issues as the only view or "morality".


Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?

I don't think many doctors would allow someone to die if they had no money, regardless of whether it would be illegal.

I was wondering how much force of law should be put behind it.

Legal or not, doctors treating patients without being paid shifts costs.

This is, in essence, socialism.

One cannot fully escape the actions of others. It is imply not possible to run a functioning society where every individual is completely insulated from the bad actions of others.

This is why we have police, at the most basic level.

Meh. Whether it meets your defintion of moral is irrelevant. Doctors would do treat people anyway. Costs get shifted.

That isn't my argument.

How do you prevent the cost shifting?

A store selling bread has to charge paying customers for those who grab a loaf and make it out the door.

BAM! Cost shifting.

How would your system prevent this?

[Poptech]

Ok, how would your system prevent cartels and monopolies?

Tell me how to solve resource asymetry.
Cartels require government intervention to be maintained. Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies. Was just having the government enforced AT&T better than our current telecommunication choices? For a monopoly in the healthcare market to exist in a Laissez-faire system they have to be offering healthcare that is affordable and superior to anyone else. Without all the licensing and regulations that only benefit big business, smaller players have no restrictions entering the healthcare market.

Is it cheaper and easier for a small business or a large corporation to deal with licensing and regulations?

[RandomGuy]

FWIW:

I am an insurance expert here, and quite familiar with the subject.

[RandomGuy]

Cartels require government intervention to be maintained.

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?

[Poptech]

State governments have determined that this cost shifting takes place.

This is not the federal goverment, but rather state constitutions.

All 50 states have some version of this law.

Do you think they should be repealed to prevent this cost-shifting?
I believe all laws attempting to regulate markets should be repealed. I do not believe attempting to analyze a government distorted industry of cartels and monopolies can produce information that reflects upon anything but these distortions.

[johnsmith]

FWIW:

I am an insurance expert here, and quite familiar with the subject.

Are you really? I may have to start just IM'ing you because no one at my fucking company can answer any questions for me.

Oh, and just last week I had my first little Johnsmith, though it's a she, so I guess she's a janesmith....so I have a lot of fucking questions.

[Poptech]

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?
Sue for what? Provide an example of a cartel that was able to be maintained without government assistance.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies.

Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.

Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-competitive without any govermental regulation at all.

Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.
Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.

How would your system keep this from happening?

[RandomGuy]

Sue for what? Provide an example of a cartel that was able to be maintained without government assistance.

A sufficiently large company can pay a sufficiently talented lawyer to sue for just about anything.

I cannot provide an example, just as you cannot provide proof that cartels would not exist in whatever system you would propose. It seems reasonable to me that lawyers and courts would exist, and they would be abused if enough money was at stake. If you think this is not reasonable, tell me now it is not.

What system are you proposing, exactly?

[RandomGuy]

Are you really? I may have to start just IM'ing you because no one at my fucking company can answer any questions for me.

Oh, and just last week I had my first little Johnsmith, though it's a she, so I guess she's a janesmith....so I have a lot of fucking questions.

I am indeed, although this is the internet. Take my word for what you think it is worth. You have seen me here enough to have a decent measure, I would say.

Congrats! :toast

[RandomGuy]

Times' up.

Project deadline looming. Argh.

http://cdn.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2014/10/the_best_camouflage_ever______by_country67-d5ezj7p.jpg

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatiscamouflagefinial-140725053134-phpapp01/95/what-is-camouflage-16-638.jpg?cb=1406266338

https://www.colourbox.com/preview/4585358-white-color-exotic-moth-found-in-western-ghats-of-south-india-resting-on-a-stone-in-tropical-rain-forests-in-karnataka-india.jpg

[Poptech]

I don't think many doctors would allow someone to die if they had no money, regardless of whether it would be illegal.

I was wondering how much force of law should be put behind it.
I don't either and have seen no evidence of any such behavior being remotely common practice. Which is why I do not see the need for the law.


Legal or not, doctors treating patients without being paid shifts costs.

This is, in essence, socialism.
It is only socialism if it is government mandated. Charity hospitals providing these services for free is not socialism.


One cannot fully escape the actions of others. It is imply not possible to run a functioning society where every individual is completely insulated from the bad actions of others.

This is why we have police, at the most basic level.
With healthcare you are making me financially responsible for the bad lifestyle choices of my neighbor. With the police I am paying them to protect me from other's bad behavior.


Meh. Whether it meets your defintion of moral is irrelevant. Doctors would do treat people anyway. Costs get shifted.

That isn't my argument.

How do you prevent the cost shifting?

A store selling bread has to charge paying customers for those who grab a loaf and make it out the door.

BAM! Cost shifting.

How would your system prevent this?
Managing cost shifting is a part of doing business and in some cases can only be minimized. Medicare and Medicaid are a form of cost shifting that is making healthcare more expensive for everyone else,

Why is Medical Care so Expensive? (http://mises.org/daily/2285) (Hans F. Sennholz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

I would thus also eliminate medicare and medicaid.

[Poptech]

Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.
Your historic facts all involve government intervention. So I take it you also support the Post Office?


Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-competitive without any govermental regulation at all.
This is an economic fallacy.


Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.
Why would you want to prevent someone from getting a better job?


Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.
This is an economic fallacy. Can you provide an example?


How would your system keep this from happening?
I have no idea how to keep economic fallacies from happening.

[Poptech]

A sufficiently large company can pay a sufficiently talented lawyer to sue for just about anything.
There would have to be a law they could sue about. Large companies frequently sue using government regulations against their competition.


I cannot provide an example, just as you cannot provide proof that cartels would not exist in whatever system you would propose. It seems reasonable to me that lawyers and courts would exist, and they would be abused if enough money was at stake. If you think this is not reasonable, tell me now it is not.

What system are you proposing, exactly?
I do not claim cartels could not exist in a laissez faire system, rather they could not last long. What you are concerned with legal abuse though relates to a company using the regulatory environment against their competitors. Without these regulations they could only sue for things like theft.