Libertarian Solutions I'd Like to Understand

[miko]

My feeling is the old hack, "better the devil you know". I can live with it and at my place in life, I'm not anxious to change and go charging off blindly in new directions.

Right... You endorse/support the use of force against people who do not agress against you or anyone in order to steal their wealth and use it for your benefit. Why would you be anxious to change?...

(And just as you seem to have no concern for me or my stituation, I really don't care too much about yours.)

You are lying. You endorse sending armed thugs to break down my door if I refuse to pay for your schemes or if I engage in peacefull transactions with consentimg adults that you do not approve of.
I, on the other hand, do not insist on you doing anything or sacrificing anything as long as you do not agress against anyone. Quite a difference in our positions.

This statement does absolutely for your credence. (It almost sounds like you are readind from a "Little Red Book" or something similar) It just shows how much you don't know but are willing to spout off about. Insurance companies would love to get government out of their hair.

That's a load of BS. The last thing that big businesses want is to have competition from nimble and efficient upstarts. They are already big and on top - in competition they can only lose. Even if they retain their position, it will require much more effort on the part of the managers - a totally different skill set than shmoozing with lobbyists and politicians, so the cronyist, neportistic management will be out even if the companies survive.
So they would much rather buy government influence to stop the competition.

You think rates are high now? The "government" you seem to detest so much controls the rates that an insurance company can charge.

Which makes them way higher then they could be - as well as being unfair wealth-redistribution scheme rather than true insurance.

Got a bad driving record? You can still get insurance (albiet at a higher rate) because the nasty government says the insurance industry has to offer it. If the insurance company had their druthers, you wouldn't be insured.

You must be insane if you think that an example of me being forced to pay higher premuims so that an unsafe driver could have affordable insurance and continue endangering me at my expense would make me like that scheme.

They may say they'e "responsible" for their actions, but if they don't have any money or insurance, I'm going to be paying my hospital bills regardless of what happens to them.

I would either:
A) have my own insurance
B) drive only on the roads who's owners require/provide insurance

Neither option requires enslaving myself or anybody else.

If they spread thenselves all over the highway because they feel it's nobodys business if they wear a seatbelt or helmet, are we going to just leave them beside the road to die because they opted to not have insurance or don't have money?

The policy of acceptable safety gear, driving limits, insurance as well as disposal of remains will be up to the owner of the road.

miko

 

[budney]

deadin: I drive on socialized roads, attended universities, and have worked on contracts paid by the government before. I'm a thief too.

If we wanted to refuse any association with the fruits of crime, we'd have no choice but to stop driving on roads, stop attending any schools, stop listening to public radio, stop flying (government subsidies), stop taking trains (same problem), not to mention refusing government checks of any kind. It's not just "inconvenient" to cut off association with all those things; it's impossible.

The government, like any other mafia, sucks people into its criminal behavior by putting people in the position that they have no choice but to accept tainted money (or the equivalent in services or goods). And they do it on purpose. If you start suggesting that leviathan should be cut down to size, the first response you'll get will be, "Oh yeah? Then I hope you never attended college, and don't ever drive on roads..." It's no different than the Godfather saying, "I'm a criminal? Me? I'm a businessman. I collect money for services. And that money bought you that nice suit you're wearing... so if I'm a criminal, what are you?"

Sorry if it makes you mad--but don't fall into the trap of endorsing something just because you're connected with it. There are reasons that you're in the position you are in life, but many of them outside your control. If you say, "Calling uncle Sam a thief is calling me a thief!" then you're falling into their trap.

That goes double for your military service: career military that I've met have always acted for honorable motives. Your desire to serve and defend is praiseworthy. It isn't your fault that there's no way to serve and defend without drawing a government paycheck--that part is outside your control. I appreciate your service, and I think I can do that while at the same time criticizing the way that the armed forces are structured or funded today.

--Len.

 

[Beatnik]

Indeed, my wife and I are planning our future with the understanding that all of our social security "investments" are a fraud... and I urge all of you to do the same.

I don't want to derail this thread by talking about RP again, but I should point out something related to incremental change which I don't think gets enough consideration.

Even with things as bad as we consider them to be, there is still an awful lot of entrepreneurial spirit in this country - and as a result, entire industries have sprung from government interference and incompetence.

I'm not talking about Lockheed/Martin: they should be able to make other airplanes and be just fine.
I'm thinking about H&R Block. I'm thinking about TurboTax. There are two entire companies which would disappear, overnight, right along with the IRS.

Don't get me wrong, I say do it anyway, but I'm not sure how we would avoid a lot more turmoil than anyone thinks would happen. In order to implement just ONE item of the libertarian agenda, we're talking about putting a LOT of people out of work. How do we get around that?

"Unknown market solution" doesn't really make sense in this case, because the fallout will last for years - and after about 5 minutes of that many people looking for jobs, they're going to be in the streets demanding government handouts so they can keep their houses.

 

[deadin]

Well, I'm not a member of the ME! generation. (You know.. Me first, screw you.) Unfortunately a lot of the folks that support the Lib adgenda seem to be of this ilk, so I have cast my dissenting vote and wish you all the best of luck preaching to the choir.
If it turns out that you get your way, I can live with it. It sounds like you can't live with my way.

 

[budney]

Well, I'm not a member of the ME! generation. (You know.. Me first, screw you.)

Since you're retired on a fixed income and I'm not, there's a pretty good chance I give a lot more to charity than you do. Suggesting that anything I've said means "me first, screw you" is extremely unfair.

It also exposes a fallacy: how does taking people's money at gunpoint make you more generous and public-spirited than me? It sounds from here like you're saying, "Keep my social and pension security checks coming to me every month, and screw you."

And yes, I realize that you consider those things your due because you "put in your time" and "paid your dues," so there's no need to say, "Listen here, you whippersnapper, I worked hard all my life, etc., etc.!" The fact is that you claim I'm obligated, against my will, to support you in your retirement. Although I sympathize with your situation, and blame the government for putting you there with its lying promises, I'll get a bit tired of hearing you play the "obligation" card and at the same time claiming to be the generous public-spirited one: your position just happens to be the one that puts checks in your pocket, so at least don't pretend to be disinterested and impartial.

You are illustrating the core problem, though. Government workers are a huge, and growing portion of the population. Add in folks on fixed incomes such as social security and disability, and it will soon be the case that a big majority in the country are net recipients of tax dollars. To them, taxes are a wonderful thing, because more taxes is the same thing as a pay raise for them. The ones paying the taxes may not like it much, but the tax-recipient class will still saddle 'em up, put the spurs to 'em, and say, "Yee-haw! Get to work so you can pay my salary!" Liberty will never win the popular vote when that happens.

As Bastiat put it, "Democracy is the fiction that everyone can live at everyone else's expense."

--Len.

 

[Beatnik]

Well, I'm not a member of the ME! generation.

Well, I had to go back and read what you posted, but you pretty much stated that you are against us trying to put ourselves in a better position because of your belief that it would put you in a worse position.

Nobody has said that we are going to take your income: in fact, we're all agreeing that it would be wrong for us to leave you high & dry. But you seem to be wholeheartedly against us trying to get more stuff in a way that doesn't involve taking it from someone else by force.

It sounds like you can't live with my way.

Sir, as I am alive, I am already living with your way.

 

[ctdonath]

Libertarianism: there is a government, with the primary goal of promoting & protecting individual liberties, with the recognition that sometimes the aggregate of individuals need to work as a unit, and that sometimes against a particular individual.

Anarchism: you're on your own, with some unspecified factor preventing others from ganging up on you.

The first post sounds like it's talking about the latter. Don't confuse them.

The core problem with both is that human nature is to subject others to one's will, usually achieved by like-minded people ganging up on others. "Peace thru superior firepower" is a popular phrase on this board, but fact is it works both ways: one creates peace by threatening or inflicting great harm on others.

 

[DRZinn]

If someone commits a crime, he or she should pay for it--and that is enforced by the government.

How about, if someone violates someone else's rights, he or she should make restitution. If someone assaults me, then spends a year in jail, how has their act in any way been made right? What if a court (private or public) found him guilty, thereby giving me the right to administer the same harm to him, or hire someone else to do so. Then, presuming he didn't want that to happen, he and I could negotiate a price to forego such restitution.

You endorse sending armed thugs to break down my door if I refuse to pay for your schemes or if I engage in peacefull transactions with consentimg adults that you do not approve of. I, on the other hand, do not insist on you doing anything or sacrificing anything as long as you do not agress against anyone. Quite a difference in our positions.

Mind if I make that my sig? Attributed, of course.

 

[budney]

The core problem with both is that human nature is to subject others to one's will, usually achieved by like-minded people ganging up on others.

Crime and governments both support your point. People are still fundamentally animals, willing to kill and steal to get what they want.

On the other hand, governments amplify the predatory nature, because it allows us to kill and steal without getting our hands dirty. The ones doing the actual violence don't feel guilt, because they're "just following orders" and "doing the will of the people." The people don't feel guilt, because they simply don't think about it--the same way they enjoy meat but would be too squeamish to slaughter and butcher it themselves.

Reducing the machinery of power forces people to do their own killing and stealing, and there's at least some basis for confidence that in that case there'd be less of it.

one creates peace by threatening or inflicting great harm on others.

That seems like an oversimplification to me. If you replace "others" with "aggressors," it's closer to the mark. None of us would, in self-defense, kill our attacker and a bunch of innocent bystanders along with him. Again, it's institutionalization of violence that enables us to kill innocents and yet dismiss it from our consciences as "collateral damage." And even that doesn't help the guy pulling the trigger: any soldier who has personally killed a noncombatant or friendly is going to suffer psychological trauma from it (unless he was sociopathic to begin with). Despite our predatory animal nature, we also have a God-given conscience.

--Len.