Political discussion thread

timothy leary wrote: Would they compete with private industry?

Reading this thread leads me to conclude that ultra-libertarian ideas are just (at least) as bad as ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal.
This thread does not make me happy.

Where are Rob, Teo and Pat when I need them? 

I am too tired to continue this right now, but I will say that I do not think Feudal Europe was a place of liberty, since monarchs and lords could impose their will upon the serfs.

thellama73 wrote: Where are Rob, Teo and Pat when I need them?  I am too tired to continue this right now, but I will say that I do not think Feudal Europe was a place of liberty, since monarchs and lords could impose their will upon the serfs.

 Feudal Europe ? Where did that come from?

akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: Where are Rob, Teo and Pat when I need them?  I am too tired to continue this right now, but I will say that I do not think Feudal Europe was a place of liberty, since monarchs and lords could impose their will upon the serfs.  Feudal Europe ? Where did that come from?   It is a bit odd as it always used to be you lot ganging up on Slarti (RIP) or The Doctor.  Can't you take it the other way round?

Someone mentioned Feudal Europe earlier so I was responding.

There's no need to be childish. I can take it fine. I just wanted to take a break. It's Sunday afternoon and I will have time for political arguments later.

thellama73 wrote: You don't have to go to an emergency room, you can try to heal yourself.

thellama73 wrote: If you find the terms of working for any company unsatisfactory, you don't have to work for any of them. There are thousands of pan-handlers and street performers who make more money than I do. You can learn how to juggle in a matter of days (sometimes hours) at virtually no cost. Do that if you find working for a company oppressive.

I think these two examples illustrate very well why I consider libertarianism a radical ideology. It rejects many of the social achievements of the 20th century. If freedom is just "take it or leave it", only a few exceptional individuals will ever make it.

timothy leary wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: Where are Rob, Teo and Pat when I need them?  I am too tired to continue this right now, but I will say that I do not think Feudal Europe was a place of liberty, since monarchs and lords could impose their will upon the serfs.  Feudal Europe ? Where did that come from?   It is a bit odd as it always used to be you lot ganging up on Slarti (RIP) or The Doctor.  Can't you take it the other way round?  Where is Slarti?

 

Okay, there's a lot to respond to here, so I will just hit a couple of points.

The Doctor: I don't wish to misrepresent your views, so please correct me if the following is inaccurate.

It seems to me that your position is that other people are obligated to provide you with the things you want (want, not need. I explained how many people live perfectly fulfilled lives without jobs or housing) at their own expense. If they fail to do this, you view it as oppression.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position? If not, where am I going wrong.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I think these two examples illustrate very well why I consider libertarianism a radical ideology. It rejects many of the social achievements of the 20th century. If freedom is just "take it or leave it", only a few exceptional individuals will ever make it.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Recall that this discussion began with the liberals in the group, not me, complaining about the status quo. I never said that freedom was just "take it or leave it." Freedom is the whole world of possibilities. At any given point, you have an infinite number of choices that you could make. With libraries and the internet, you can learn any skill, acquire any knowledge and point your life in any direction you wish. The only cost is time. The Doctor and others keep objecting to this by claiming that most options are not "real" because they are hard. It is not my position that life should be easy. It never has been and it never will be.

Liberty is about glorifying human achievement and celebrating the infinite potential of the individual. I find it a tremendously positive and inspiring philosophy and am sorry that others see it as cold and unfeeling.

thellama73 wrote: Okay, there's a lot to respond to here, so I will just hit a couple of points. The Doctor: I don't wish to misrepresent your views, so please correct me if the following is inaccurate. It seems to me that your position is that other people are obligated to provide you with the things you want (want, not need. I explained how many people live perfectly fulfilled lives without jobs or housing) at their own expense. If they fail to do this, you view it as oppression. Is that an accurate assessment of your position? If not, where am I going wrong. HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I think these two examples illustrate very well why I consider libertarianism a radical ideology. It rejects many of the social achievements of the 20th century. If freedom is just "take it or leave it", only a few exceptional individuals will ever make it. I don't really understand what you mean by this. Recall that this discussion began with the liberals in the group, not me, complaining about the status quo. I never said that freedom was just "take it or leave it." Freedom is the whole world of possibilities. At any given point, you have an infinite number of choices that you could make. With libraries and the internet, you can learn any skill, acquire any knowledge and point your life in any direction you wish. The only cost is time. The Doctor and others keep objecting to this by claiming that most options are not "real" because they are hard. It is not my position that life should be easy. It never has been and it never will be. Liberty is about glorifying human achievement and celebrating the infinite potential of the individual. I find it a tremendously positive and inspiring philosophy and am sorry that others see it as cold and unfeeling.

People do not live "perfectly" fulfilled lives without housing or a job.  Housing as well as food and medical care are not wants but needs.  The way you phrase it, you make it sound like I want people to pay for MY CD collection and big screen TV.  Those are wants, and I neither expect nor want others to pay for them.  Nor do I want them to pay for my food or shelter, as I'm doing just fine providing that for myself.  But there are others, (and more and more, as we devolve further and further into some libertarian type hell, and yes, I fear for myself here to) that are going under and unable to provide their basic needs, not wants. 

Human achievements like war over silly man-made borders, murdering others over tribal god images, overpopulating the planet and causing the near extinction of several other species, unlimited greed which allows a few to live like kings while the rest of the planet suffers?  Those type of human achievements?


Edited by The Doctor - October 14 2012 at 15:07

The Doctor wrote: People do not live "perfectly" fulfilled lives without housing or a job.

How do you know?

I don't agree with your definition of basic needs, but fine, for the sake of argument I will change that part.
So you would agree with the statement: "Other people should be forced  to provide the basic needs of those who cannot afford them at their own expense."

As we scale up the definition of basic needs (what is considered a need now is more expensive than what was considered a need 100 years ago) and as the population increases, is it not conceivable that this financial cost could exceed the income of those still working?  There is nothing about this policy that is wealth creating, and forcing people to simply give things away without compensation is a disincentive for work and make it harder for companies to succeed.

Haven't countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland demonstrated what happens when you treat money as if it grows on trees and give generous handouts to the population at the expense of those who add value to the economy?