"Freedom" thread or something

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Another good point MoM. I actually feel ashamed that I was all about the "we need jobs, f**k the numbers and whats "best for economy" we need jobs!" but then I wanted high taxes and over regulation on them. Then I disregarded the loss of jobs with "b*****d fat cats have to pay their fair share!" Is it really about jobs, or envy and anger? It's hard to admit you are envious and vengeful, but pretty enlightening when you do. There are signs up all over where I live that say things like "Tax the Rich!" and "Put the middle class over the 1%!" It's unclear to me how taxing the rich is helpful to the middle class, and I can't help believing that these kind of passionate calls are motivated more by animosity towards a class of people rather than a simple desire for increased tax revenues. Maybe that's unfair of me, but I have a hard time imagining people getting so worked up over tax revenue.

Absolutely my man. Like I said, it's envy. It's refreshing to admit, it led me to a change in political outlook but even life outlook.
Indeed I don't really feel worked up about tax revenue, but I am passionate about it, especially in regards to helping the middle class.

I don't envy the rich.  I have no desire to be rich.  A comfy middle class existence is all I desire.  In many circumstances there is animosity however, especially to those rich who believe it is their right, simply because they are rich, to be d*cks.

stonebeard wrote: No no no. What I said, or at least mean to say, is that it definitely seems like the diehard libertarians in this thread act a lot of the time like it should be obvious why libertarian (even extremely extreme anarcho-libertarianism) ideas are good. I'm saying it is not obvious, and that being condescending (not accusing anybody here, but it does happen) gets you nowhere. I'm not saying what has happened historically is what should have happened or continue to happen. I am saying that given government "always has been" (more or less), one needs to make an extremely good case why it should not continue to be. Replace government for taxes, etc.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the sentence: " given government always has been one needs to make an extremely good case why it should not continue to be." Murder always has been. Do I need to make an extremely good case why it should not continue to be?

If libertarian ideas do not seem obviously good, there are a number of reasons why this may be.

1. The language of government obscures what is really going on. We call taxes taxes and not theft even though they are both the seizure of private property without the consent of the owner. I believe theft is self evidently bad, but if you disagree that brings us to point 2.

2. You may disagree with the axioms at the root of libertarianism, namely that freedom is desirable and that protection from those who would take your life and/or property is also desirable.

Then there are those who accept the philosophical argument but disagree on pragmatic grounds, fearing that a libertarian state simply wouldn't function. This is basically how I feel about anarcho-capitalism, not having been entirely convinced that it wouldn't quickly dissolve into despotism. (I'm almost there though)

To those people I wold say, look to history. Every attempt at a fully socialized state has failed, and the social democracies survive (although they do not thrive) by carefully keeping just enough capitalism around to keep things running. Recently, the Scandinavian social democracies along with Canada have been rolling back taxes and regulations, realizing that their previous path was untenable.

I would also invite pragmatist objectors to simply think about a potential libertarian state. Why would it fail? Why would the free market that works so well for hot dogs and iPads fail when applied to mail delivery, transportation, utilities, fire stations and medical care?

Nobody likes the government we have now. Everyone complains about congress, taxes and the regulations that prevent them from earning a living. Why is everyone so fearful of trying something different for a change?

smartpatrol wrote: hi

JJLehto wrote: The Doctor wrote: @JJ and Rob.  You both are absolutely right that government can also be an evil, but unlike both of you I do not see it as the only evil or even, as things currently stand, as the primary evil.  Rather I see private power, that those with said private power, exert over the powerless as the primary evil.  Ahhhh maybe my fault for such rambling posts (sorry) but I did say I hate many of the same things you do. Who wouldn't? Greed at all costs, screwing people over, crushing the middle crushes and small business, less off to well of redistribution. It's evil indeed, and I'd be a little freaked out by anyone who disagreed! That being said, do you at least see that government is an enabler to what you see as most evil? It's there to allocate resources, to be petitioned, and the private power has a much better chance of doing that than us right? I don't believe in the free market utopia like some here, and not sold that everything should be left to its devices, but I see it as fairer and more just than more government.

Absolutely, I see the government as an enabler to what I see as most evil.  I just think that lack of government would enable greed even more.  Oh and my fault.  I shouldn't have lumped you in there with Rob.  It was just more convenient for me to post that way.  Was also in the middle of a conversation with the gf so wasn't really paying enough attention. 


Edited by The Doctor - December 05 2012 at 22:50

Can I ask why you're uncomfortable with health care being for profit but (presumably) comfortable with food being sold for profit?

I get that. But I mean. Food is kind of important to your health. Right?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I get that. But I mean. Food is kind of important to your health. Right?

For you mortals, sure.
I honestly never even entertained idea. Been mulling it over and I guess it just is so unquestioned because: Very few of us kill and butcher our food. I'd choose not to anyway, sooo I need to pay for that service.
The difference is that you can go and get all your own food, can't really do the same with health issues. Just feels so out of our hands, it's scary to think of profitable competition controlling it.
Anyway, I see the point  but you also realize mine, it was a generality anyway. Our health system is the worst possible, I'd prefer either free market or governmental, but would choose the former. Even with my reservations about it. How's that for leaving some faith in the markets!?


Edited by JJLehto - December 05 2012 at 23:47

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I get that. But I mean. Food is kind of important to your health. Right? For you mortals, sure. I honestly never even entertained idea. Been mulling it over and I guess it just is so unquestioned because: Very few of us kill and butcher our food. I'd choose not to anyway, sooo I need to pay for that service. The difference is that you can go and get all your own food, can't really do the same with health issues. Just feels so out of our hands, it's scary to think of profitable competition controlling it. Anyway, I see the point  but you also realize mine, it was a generality anyway. Our health system is the worst possible, I'd prefer either free market or governmental, but would choose the former. Even with my reservations about it. How's that for leaving some faith in the markets!?

Two things here.

1) To some extent you can do the same with health issues. You control diet and exercise habits. You can learn medicine and pharmacology. Really, most people don't have the time, intelligence, dedication, means, etc. to do this.

2) You can't get your own food. There's not enough of it. Modern life requires an agricultural industry. This is what allowed us to shift from sustenance farming to surplus and for populations to explode. Even though food is the most important of all health care, we don't mind paying for it because the farming lobby is very strong and ingrained into our culture and because there's a collective realization that the agricultural industry as a whole gives something that we can't individually achieve. Modern medicine is in the same boat. We're picking goldenrod from the forest and rubbing it on bumps anymore.

I realize your point. I think it leads to some interesting things you may not realize though.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: King of Loss wrote: Even though I have no problem with healthcare for profit, there are some surgeries and procedures that under a free market system would mean an early grave for some. How would you solve these particular people where the market cannot find a good price for these particular surgeries? You don't solve all these problems. You try to bring the overall cost down to minimize these situations. In other cases, you hope the good will of doctors, health care professionals, and people will make up the differences. If they can't for such a basic thing as preserving human life, then we're f**ked no matter what.