Libertarianism is stupid.

[bbqpenguin]

It doesn't work.

It doesn't work? Can you elaborate?

Because even the most die-hard capitalist will not refuse to help a poor old lady who is sick. Or for that matter, a little kid.

i agree. I'm more than willing to set aside a portion of my income for those who need it and give it to an organization of my choice that will be undoubtedly be more able than a bureaucracy-laden government to efficiently allocate that money and maximize its effects. however, i don't support the government forcibly taking my money and then giving it away to people or organizations i don't want to support. charity should be optional, not a requirement.

[mpjh]

Let's see the consequences of libertarianism:

no social security
no medicare
no FAA
no regulation of the nuclear industry
no regulation of food quality
no regulation of drug safety
no public schools
no public highways
no regulation of the transport of hazardous chemicals
etc. etc.

Not a world I want to live in.

[xelabale]

It doesn't work.

It doesn't work? Can you elaborate?

Because even the most die-hard capitalist will not refuse to help a poor old lady who is sick. Or for that matter, a little kid.

i agree. I'm more than willing to set aside a portion of my income for those who need it and give it to an organization of my choice that will be undoubtedly be more able than a bureaucracy-laden government to efficiently allocate that money and maximize its effects. however, i don't support the government forcibly taking my money and then giving it away to people or organizations i don't want to support. charity should be optional, not a requirement.

Massively inefficient. If you want to help an old lady, fine. But if we assume most people want to help others by far the most efficient way is to collect a communal pot then divide it up = tax. Taxes don't just help old ladies, they help YOU.

[got tonkaed]

Libertarians are the kid who took his ball back home when they didnt like the way the rules didnt give them a competitive advantage in your game.

[bbqpenguin]

Let's see the consequences of libertarianism:

no social security
no medicare
no FAA
no regulation of the nuclear industry
no regulation of food quality
no regulation of drug safety
no public schools
no public highways
no regulation of the transport of hazardous chemicals
etc. etc.

Not a world I want to live in.

ok, that's not libertarianism you're describing, that's anarchy.

libertarians understand and respect the necessity of government and its role in protecting its country's citizens. i don't think any libertarian, or at least very few, would say that industries that have a direct affect on the public health should not have oversight and regulation. we need a government to protect us from domestic hazards the same way we need a military to protect us from foreign. the government is also essential in creating a nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, dams, sewage systems, etc. you're right about social security, medicare, and public school, though. all those things suck, badly. social security and medicare are bankrupting us, through inefficiency and corruption and they restrict personal freedom by taking money from me in order to pay for systems i don't want to use. public schools are failing us, they have no standards to live up to or motivations to excel, and our children are falling behind in worldwide education standards

[mpjh]

He was using the old lady example as an analogy. A modern society cannot function without a high degree of cooperation across many people, organization, territories. You can't do this with a communal pot.

There is a group in trailers just outside Taos NM. You might join them, do believe in self sufficiency and communal pots, but none a libertarians. What you describe is a hippy commune not a libertarian society.

[mpjh]

Let's see the consequences of libertarianism:

no social security
no medicare
no FAA
no regulation of the nuclear industry
no regulation of food quality
no regulation of drug safety
no public schools
no public highways
no regulation of the transport of hazardous chemicals
etc. etc.

Not a world I want to live in.

ok, that's not libertarianism you're describing, that's anarchy.

libertarians understand and respect the necessity of government and its role in protecting its country's citizens. i don't think any libertarian, or at least very few, would say that industries that have a direct affect on the public health should not have oversight and regulation. the government is also essential in creating a nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, dams, sewage systems, etc. you're right about social security, medicare, and public school, though. all those things suck, badly. social security and medicare are bankrupting us, through inefficiency and corruption and they restrict personal freedom by taking money from me in order to pay for systems i don't want to use. public schools are failing us, they have no standards to live up to or motivations to excel, and our children are falling behind in worldwide education standards

Actually these are exactly the proposals of libertarians, including Rom Paul, as described during their interviews by Scott Horton on Anti-War radio.

[xelabale]

He was using the old lady example as an analogy. A modern society cannot function without a high degree of cooperation across many people, organization, territories. You can't do this with a communal pot.

There is a group in trailers just outside Taos NM. You might join them, do believe in self sufficiency and communal pots, but none a libertarians. What you describe is a hippy commune not a libertarian society.

I was using an old lady as an analogy as well. I think you misunderstand. Taxes ARE the communal pot. I'm not describing a libertarian society I'm arguing for taxes, against libertarianism. I agree with what you're saying

[bbqpenguin]

Let's see the consequences of libertarianism:

no social security
no medicare
no FAA
no regulation of the nuclear industry
no regulation of food quality
no regulation of drug safety
no public schools
no public highways
no regulation of the transport of hazardous chemicals
etc. etc.

Not a world I want to live in.

ok, that's not libertarianism you're describing, that's anarchy.

libertarians understand and respect the necessity of government and its role in protecting its country's citizens. i don't think any libertarian, or at least very few, would say that industries that have a direct affect on the public health should not have oversight and regulation. the government is also essential in creating a nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, dams, sewage systems, etc. you're right about social security, medicare, and public school, though. all those things suck, badly. social security and medicare are bankrupting us, through inefficiency and corruption and they restrict personal freedom by taking money from me in order to pay for systems i don't want to use. public schools are failing us, they have no standards to live up to or motivations to excel, and our children are falling behind in worldwide education standards

Actually these are exactly the proposals of libertarians, including Rom Paul, as described during their interviews by Scott Horton on Anti-War radio.

if this is true, then I can't argue with you that some libertarians, including the (in)famous Ron Paul, are more extreme than others. I can't speak for Mr. Paul, however, he can't speak for me. his idea of the way things should be must differ from the way he views them, even if we both identify ourselves as libertarians. I think a more moderate approach to libertarianism is probably the most commonly popular

[thegreekdog]

Libertarians are the kid who took his ball back home when they didnt like the way the rules didnt give them a competitive advantage in your game.

Actually, Libertarians are the kids who bring their own ball to the game, let the other kids play, and then protests when the teacher makes him give his ball to the other kids without proper compensation. Libertarians are also the kids who don't have a ball and don't want the teacher to make the other kid give them the ball.

Libertarians share and are charitable. They just don't want the government telling them where they should give, who they should give to, and how much they should give. Libertarianism is not about being selfish, it's about being independent. We don't want to give up money to the government, but we don't want to get money from the government either.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ron Paul supports and has voted for better education and more help for low income families for college.

He is against the federal superhighway though.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is not about any of that.

[bbqpenguin]

He was using the old lady example as an analogy. A modern society cannot function without a high degree of cooperation across many people, organization, territories. You can't do this with a communal pot.

There is a group in trailers just outside Taos NM. You might join them, do believe in self sufficiency and communal pots, but none a libertarians. What you describe is a hippy commune not a libertarian society.

i'm confused also, unless you meant to say you can't do this without a communal pot

[got tonkaed]

Libertarians are the kid who took his ball back home when they didnt like the way the rules didnt give them a competitive advantage in your game.

Actually, Libertarians are the kids who bring their own ball to the game, let the other kids play, and then protests when the teacher makes him give his ball to the other kids without proper compensation. Libertarians are also the kids who don't have a ball and don't want the teacher to make the other kid give them the ball.

Libertarians share and are charitable. They just don't want the government telling them where they should give, who they should give to, and how much they should give. Libertarianism is not about being selfish, it's about being independent. We don't want to give up money to the government, but we don't want to get money from the government either.

thats not even a realistic analogy, school children certaintly dont expect teachers to pay them for using their ball at recess. Libertarians apparently are also people who make up absurd analogies.

[thegreekdog]

So people are no longer confused, here is the platform of the US Libertarian party:

http://www.lp.org/platform

If we're going to debate, let's at least debate about Libertarianism and not anarchy or communes.

[thegreekdog]

thats not even a realistic analogy, school children certaintly dont expect teachers to pay them for using their ball at recess.

Ok... here is a better analogy - The Libertarian is the kid who brings his ball, LETS THE KIDS PLAY WITH IT, and then, when it's time to go home, let's the other kids play with it. Then, on the next day, he says he needs his ball back, but the teacher doesn't give it back to him.

Here, I'll explain - the kid with the ball is me, the kids without the ball are other people, the teacher is the government.

Libertarians apparently are also people who make up absurd analogies.

[mpjh]

Let me give one example of a leading libertarian argument on the FAA. We should do away with the FAA and let the airlines take responsibility for airline safety. If there is a crash, the families of the dead can sue the airline. That will make the airlines operate safely. As heard in a radio interview.

[got tonkaed]

You cant make tax dollars reappear, you are not a magician!

Enough of the luls though, I have tried for quite some time now to encapsulate what i dont exactly like about libertarianism, but its remained unpossible.

[thegreekdog]

You cant make tax dollars reappear, you are not a magician!

Enough of the luls though, I have tried for quite some time now to encapsulate what i dont exactly like about libertarianism, but its remained unpossible.

Was this directed at me? If so, I don't understand the first statement and the term "luls"

[bbqpenguin]

Let me give one example of a leading libertarian argument on the FAA. We should do away with the FAA and let the airlines take responsibility for airline safety. If there is a crash, the families of the dead can sue the airline. That will make the airlines operate safely. As heard in a radio interview.

I don't see anything in the official libertarian website about the FAA, but then again i might have missed it. even so, think about it. it is in an airline's best interest to regulate itself and maintain good safety standards because a) if it gets people killed, their families will sue for millions of dollars and b) no one will even fly on an airline with a reputation for unsafe planes or pilots. now, while i personally support the FAA and appreciate the job it's done, I can certainly understand the argument that it's unneccessary.

back for more after class

[got tonkaed]

You cant make tax dollars reappear, you are not a magician!

Enough of the luls though, I have tried for quite some time now to encapsulate what i dont exactly like about libertarianism, but its remained unpossible.

Was this directed at me? If so, I don't understand the first statement and the term "luls"

well its just sketchy in terms of the analogy. If we assume libertarians want the ball back, the ball is presumably some type of control over tax dollars if not the dollars themselves. This in terms of budgetary practice seems impossible. Luls means im just messing around as evidenced by the facrt that i cannot make a serious post on this topic, and im usually a pretty serious business type of poster.

[Juan_Bottom]

Let me give one example of a leading libertarian argument on the FAA. We should do away with the FAA and let the airlines take responsibility for airline safety. If there is a crash, the families of the dead can sue the airline. That will make the airlines operate safely. As heard in a radio interview.

Here's a qoute that I heard from a liberal.
"I need smore crack; where's my welfare check?"

And here's one from a conservative;
"I'm a judge and the ten commandments have standing in my courtroom."

[thegreekdog]

well its just sketchy in terms of the analogy. If we assume libertarians want the ball back, the ball is presumably some type of control over tax dollars if not the dollars themselves. This in terms of budgetary practice seems impossible. Luls means im just messing around as evidenced by the facrt that i cannot make a serious post on this topic, and im usually a pretty serious business type of poster.

Yeah, it's a bad analogy. That's why I "LOLed" at your statement that Libertarians make bad analogies. Maybe I should say, the kid lets the other kids play with the ball, but at the end of the day he wants it back, and the teacher shouldn't make him give it back. In other words, it's not necessarily about giving the tax dollars back (although, you can do this via credits and refunds), but it's about not taxing the dollars in the first place (or taxing less of the dollars).

[got tonkaed]

Its the last part that i sort of disagreement but have a hard time encapsulating. Seemingly the entire foundation of the social contract is set upon the negotiation of obligations related to tax dollars. Even the nations forefathers, in whom so much of current libertarian thought poaches from, the understanding of the necessity of appropriate taxation was understood. While its ultimately unprovable, it seems just as likely as not that those individuals would have understood the differences in terms of the government aims they established and the ones that are required today.

[thegreekdog]

Its the last part that i sort of disagreement but have a hard time encapsulating. Seemingly the entire foundation of the social contract is set upon the negotiation of obligations related to tax dollars. Even the nations forefathers, in whom so much of current libertarian thought poaches from, the understanding of the necessity of appropriate taxation was understood. While its ultimately unprovable, it seems just as likely as not that those individuals would have understood the differences in terms of the government aims they established and the ones that are required today.

I agree completely with your statement. The only issue that comes up is the last phrase "ones that are required today." A Libertarian would argue (and I would argue as well) that there are a lot of government aims and government programs that are not "required" today.

To put this in terms of the social contract, the federal government is doing a host of things that Libertarians do not feel are part of the social contract. In other words, the government is adding terms to the contract that we don't want.

[got tonkaed]

And theres nothing at all wrong with the refining process of what is and isnt required. But i tend to wonder, to what end, in more diverse arrangements with difficult to define spaces (the problem of a fair amount of governmental policy) taking the ideological approach of no does to serve that social contract. Assuredly there are situations in which doing nothing is a reasonable and perhaps a preferential approach, but ideologically it seems an increasingly unreasonable proposition. Especially out of the context in which i think most libertarian thought comes from, i find it to be an increasingly distasteful intellectual position.

But thats just me.