"Freedom" thread or something

dtguitarfan wrote: You work super, super hard to come up with great explanations for why your ideals will work

No, we're not doing that all.

Geoff, you should have said "thank you Gerinski for trying to have a proper debate/discussion as I can't go past purely political snarky remarks".

I'm not particularly set on all out libertarianism as an ideal, but I think we could solve a lot of our problems in America by just having the population give a sh*t. And to do that we need to have a drastic cut to our quality of life. We're largely fat and complacent. Take away our comforts a bit and we'll start to care again. 

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV?

Why do you want to prevent him from switching on a TV? His receiving the wave doesn't prevent you from doing so also, so he has in no way diminished the value of the waves to those who provided them. If you built a television tower for your own use, and you are able to use it as you planned, what do you care if someone else also uses it?

thellama73 wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV? Why do you want to prevent him from switching on a TV? His receiving the wave doesn't prevent you from doing so also, so he has in no way diminished the value of the waves to those who provided them. If you built a television tower for your own use, and you are able to use it as you planned, what do you care if someone else also uses it?

Gerinski wrote: Hey, I have no interests here, and actually I think I already said pretty much what I had to say so I will probably back off, this was anyway a thread about US libertarians and I'm not sure I should have ever even interfered, but I thought I would give you an European point of view on the subjects you were talking about. I will leave you discussing your ideals now, unless I see something which really calls me to post. Anyway, you are already living in the most libertarian country of the world, what else do you want? Your society allows you to become billionaire if you have the guts and the talent, isn't that enough? you can earn loads of money, if you manage to do it, is it really such a problem to give a bit of it to the rest of your compatriots? Are you so greedy that giving a bit of your income to social causes is a pain in the ass? some of you say you would do it anyway voluntarily, so what's the big deal in the government channeling your donations? don't take it so seriously.

I am sorry to see you leave the thread. You have made some good points and I have enjoyed debating with you.

It is not about me paying taxes. I don't care about that all that much. I care about other people who are prevented from starting a business and making money because of regulations. I care about the people who can't get a job because regulations make it unprofitable for businesses to hire more people. I care about the casual marijuana user who is in jail for no good reason, having the rest of his life ruined. I care about the American citizens who are killed by drone strikes without a trial. I care about the immigrants who try to make a living driving food trucks or braiding hair, but who are driven out of business due to lobbyists for their competitors. I care about the homeless guy who is allowed to beg for money, but if he tries to earn it by playing a musical instrument or juggling is punished because he has no license. I care about the homeowners whose houses are taken from them against their will because the government decided that building a shopping mall there would be good for society. I care about the homeowner who suddenly see his property rise in value and can no longer afford the property taxes and so is forced to sell his ancestral home.

I consider all of these things unjust, and I think it matters a great deal.

The police don't arrest people who are taking advantage of the welfare system, Ger.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV? You have to pay to get cell phone service.  You have to pay to get a TV.  Both of these things are controlled by private companies in the US (with some government regulation) and they work just fine.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV? You have to pay to get cell phone service.  You have to pay to get a TV.  Both of these things are controlled by private companies in the US (with some government regulation) and they work just fine.

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Your water example could be achieved just as well without government.  In fact, your example in itself suggests an enterprise undertaken voluntarily by a group of individuals, not by a government.  The "grumpy old man" you posited wouldn't have to be forced to pay; he merely would be denied the service of the channel unless he either pitched in to build it or changed his mind and decided to contribute to the maintenance later.  No taxes, no coercion, and no government would be needed. Easier said than done I'm afraid. What about antennas for cell phone coverage, or television broadcast waves. How will you prevent the grumpy guy from using a cell phone or switching on a TV? You have to pay to get cell phone service.  You have to pay to get a TV.  Both of these things are controlled by private companies in the US (with some government regulation) and they work just fine. It was just an example. Say from your community of 200 properties, 150 agree to have a common firefighting unit, the other 50 say 'no sorry, if a fire strikes in my property I will take care myself'. A fire starts and it affects all sorts of properties, if the firefighters do not put it out also in your neighbour's place, it will surely burn your property. How will you practically manage that the firefighters save only the properties of those who paid for them and let burn the ones of those who didn't want to pay? Another example? a coast lighthouse. I'm a fisherman but I don't want to pay for building it, but many other fishermen want it and pay for building a lighthouse. How will you prevent me from using its light to orientate my boat at night?

The firefighter example is easily dealt with, since that used to be the way firefighting was handled. You would pay for fire service and they would put a plaque on your house. If a fire started, the firefighters would look for the plaque and if you had paid,would put out the fire. They would also put out the fire if it was in danger of consuming a hose with a plaque by spreading. Seems like a perfectly sensible solution to me.

The lighthouse example: You don't need to prevent others from seeing the light, because their seeing it does not diminish your ability to see it. They are not stealing from you in any way, so what is the problem? If you believe it is worth your money to put up a lighthouse to see by, then the number of other people who see by it is irrelevant.