Reply With Quote
You can't. Inherently the biggest problem with libertarianism.
You can't. Inherently the biggest problem with libertarianism.
It may be a consensus that a legitimate state has a monopoly on violence but saying that corporations have no forms of coercion because of that is simply non logical.
Some degree of world government is needed.
Do you think an anarcho-capitalist government would be sustainable in the long run? Desirable?
I do agree that decentralization of power is far more desirable to be completely honest. I don't think a world government with much power is something we should ever hope to see. In fact I think the United States is a great example of why power in the hands of local people is far better.
For one you get views represented more accurately. IE Medicinal Marijuana. On the federal level we'll never see it legalized, but on the state level we have tons of places where its legal. If it were up to municipalities I promise you there would be places like Amsterdamn in this country but the fact that the power is held at the federal level tends to this up.
I also think if defense responsibility was held at the local level then we would not be involved in so many foreign exercise and we would actually focus on DEFENSE.
I do wonder how corporations would fair in such an environment. There would be far more governments for them to worry about (as opposed to just the members of a national congress) but I wonder if they'd be able to enact more influence over them.
"I wonder if they'd be able to enact more influence over them."
Do you think health/medical insurers, auto insurers in TX don't already own the TX insurance regulators and TX legislature? State legislators and elected judges are even cheaper to buy than federal legislators.
How do you think tort reform occurred in TX? It certainly wasn't voted on by citizens who are denied access to the courts. It was the doctor and insurance lobbyists who bought enough legislators to obtain tort reform.
It strikes me as being more pointedly legalistic. Any untoward attribution to corporations can be bracketed as essentially unrelated to its formal raison d'etre. (As if regulatory capture and political venality were to be regarded as being activities strictly unrelated to a corporation's bottom line or rate of profit. Har har.)
Corruption pays, otherwise people wouldn't make the gamble, right mogrovejo?
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-07-2010 at 03:34 PM.
RG-Some degree of world government is needed.
Some degree of standardization and settlement of disputes.
Lunch hour is over, but I will expand on this later.
Some people call them treaties.
How is a world government going to enforce its will on a nation that doesn't want to agree to some arbitrary standard? How is a world government going to decide what is its will to be foisted on us?
Look at the disaster that's become of Europe since they've unionized; and, you want some form of that globally?
Nah, I like national sovereignty and a people's ability to forge their own nation based on self-interest and compromise with their neighbors. I think the chess board is set and we just need to work with like-minded countries to eliminate the rabble from the planet.
Any news on the Obama oil platform sabotage conspiracy, yoni?
in other words kill everyone who doesn't believe the USA is the best country that ever existed
Nope.
But, we could start by eliminating those that don't believe in individual's right to life. liberty, and property, who treat their women like cattle, their gays like pinatas, and their children like conscripts.
I'm pretty sure most Europeans don't believe the USA is the best country that ever existed and I don't advocate eliminating them. There are a least a half dozen 13th-Century Caliphate wanna-be countries out there with which we could start.
Is Yonivore volunteering to enlist to fight his own personal jihad?
Don't be shy. Please name them.
Did I hear correctly that they had the oil spill set afire after one or two days, but the government had them put the fire out?
wtf
someone let me know can't find out for sure.
Why? Because I'm an equal opportunity critic?
It was a reasonable, sensible post that seemed to understand the point I was making. Just not used to it is all.
You were in this thread anyway. Unfortunately, I would not label you in that way through most threads.
And I'm not used to you being reasonable from my perspective.It was a reasonable, sensible post that seemed to understand the point I was making. Just not used to it is all.
There are very few times I disagree so much with what Darrin or others say.
Very few. I disagree with you and others rather often.
That's one problem with the liberal mindset. They think equal opportunity requires quota's. I'm not about to count my criticisms and try to balance it in a quota fashion.
There are several people on this board I disagree with on a regular basis I believe are reasonable. You are not one of them. You are far more likely to assume unlikely conspiracies than you are an objective viewpoint.
But don't take my word for it, ask around.
That makes us even.
That's one problem with the conservative mindset. They use every opportunity to create ad hominem and strawmen arguments to make themselves feel superior to "lib s".
It boggles my mind at how much you have to rely on logically unsound arguments to make the cases you do. You are smart, but seemingly unable to objectively analyze anything.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions