Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Private police forces?

NecronCommander wrote: I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with you guys that there should be much less power given to the government concerning how they control certain areas of our life.  The extent of how much that power should be lessened, though, is probably where I draw the line.  I've always associated libertarianism with being a stone's throw away from anarchism, and I for one like the concept of government.

Just certain areas? I don't like nobody controlling pretty much any area of my life. Well, with taxes and all of that I guess I'm assuming they can control a little of my financial/income/spending life. But there's no need for 100 rich people to decide absolutely everything regarding my life.

I don't think less government equals anarchism though. Less government switches the locus of chaos control from the governing body to the individual I guess. Also, there will always need control forces to protect rights (and not private forces or judges, please Shields).

I'm not a libertarian, but I do agree with you guys that there should be much less power given to the government concerning how they control certain areas of our life.  The extent of how much that power should be lessened, though, is probably where I draw the line.  I've always associated libertarianism with being a stone's throw away from anarchism, and I for one like the concept of government.

I think the previos thread accomplished a lot: it made me realize Pat Shields is not actually insane. Sometime he takes it too far (private ownership of roads, please... Private police...) but in general, the less government, the less congressman deciding our fate and giving it away to corporations, the better.

Hate towards the rich is kind of engraved in my type of country (where politicias use it to gain votes, since most people are poor) but since I live here, I think more by myself... I still thinkmany of them act only on their behalf disregarding other people's rights, but many others don't. And, hell, what would the world of my favorite music (classical) be without private donations and rich people? Dead. .

The health care thing, though... I can't, no matter how I try, to see it as an activity where profit should be the main motivator...

Go for it.

It requires that Textbook come in an troll, or T ask a question, or GaryB come and ramble insanely. 

We briefly kind of sort of discussed some political stuff on the first pages. 

Bet it feels good to feed the corporate machine, you evil, evil b*****d.

As I've said before, don't let anyone tell you liberals are lazy.
Hell, I'm socialistic and  just got back from working M-Sat just under 55 hours in total.

Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: How the hell are calories measured? I could understand how sugar, fat, and etc content can be measured in food, but what about calories? How does one determine "oh this banana has 50 calories" (other than reading the label, and how do they do it anyway?) "Calorie: a unit of heat equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree at one atmosphere pressure; used by nutritionists to characterize the energy-producing potential in food." Note that when discussing food, a "calorie" is actually a kilocalorie with respect to the above definition.

And, entertainingly, in England they actually label it a kilocalorie. Americans are so lazy. :( But it's the same thing: they burn it and measure the amount of energy it produces.



Edited by Henry Plainview - January 01 2011 at 20:13