"Freedom" thread or something

Gerinski wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Gerinski wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Who said that they needed to think the same way? Well I guess you can't have a different country for each family. If you recognize Philly and surroundings as your country, some of your neighbours recognize the whole of Pennsylvania, others the whole of the North-East, some the whole of the US and some just their small block, you're going to have a problem, not all of you will be pleased with whatever definition of your country will be finally applied. How will you decide which territory constitutes your country? As a Libertarian I don't think that you will coerce your neighbours to abide by your preferred definition over theirs. Why does such a thing need to be decided? I find it to be a cultural thing that evolves on it own.   perhaps your meaning of country is not what I had in mind. So in your view, your neighbour's country does not necessarily need to be the same as yours. It's just a personal choice, something like 'what I feel my fatherland is, without any practical meaning beyond my own perception. Perhaps just what I would fight for in case needed, perhaps just my family, perhaps my neighbourhood, perhaps the people from the town 100 miles away, something completely subjective and dependant on the context'. Is that what you mean by 'country'?

I mean something very nebulous by it. Don't know if I could define it. I'm not sure that many people suitably could without the definition just boiling down to the government. I'm an anarchist and all that so I don't believe in a government, thus the country distinction is really irrelevant.

Gerinski wrote: My arguments do not convince you so I give up, it's fine, I'm not a smart enough arguer. Again in my view they are evident but I reckon they are not to you. Peace to the world.

I know exactly how you feel.  This is what I think you and I are up against: we're fighting a culture that insists it's right, but refuses to look out at the world.  They've become increasingly selective of their data and any data that refutes their hard set positions is rejected outright as being false data.  They insist on their ideology, and compromise is not possible.  In their world, it is seen as moral to blow up the world just to protest the fact that they are not getting their way.

Somewhat of a side note, I watched "The One Percent" last night.  It's a fascinating documentary made by Jamie Johnson, the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune.  At one point he is interviewing Milton Friedman, who has been incredibly influential on the supply side economical philosophy that is so prevalent in American "Conservative" politics.  Jamie is questioning him about how, after his policies have been implemented, the one percent has moved farther and farther away from the rest and has grabbed up more and more of the wealth.  Friedman insists, however, that even so, everyone has gotten slightly richer and this would not have happened if we hadn't offered up our sacrifices to the rich.  Jamie tries to point out to him that the very negligible rise in wealth for the rest has not offset the rises in cost, and Friedman basically treats him like he's stupid and says he's done with the interview.  Selective data processing - I only see what I want to see and if you try to point anything out to me that contradicts my preset views, I treat you like you're stupid and put my hands over my ears and say "LALALALALALALA!" 

We'll never get any better until we learn that we're all part of a whole.  We need each other.  Existence is relationship.

rogerthat wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   I'm just not understanding why big cities wouldn't continue to have such restrictions? I don't see you contradicting anything I'm saying. I just see some ifs that you're criticizing. Well, then, I have to say I don't understand how you expect libertarianism to be in its practical form.

There's the rub - Libertarianism doesn't exist.  Think about it - no Libertarian agrees with another Libertarian, and whenever you point out a politician or other public figure who claims to be a Libertarian to another Libertarian as an example of a policy that doesn't work, the reply is always "oh, he's not really a Libertarian...."  You ask them to show you a country that exemplifies Libertarian values and the best they can do is pull out some obscure, tiny little nothing of a "country" that they then point out isn't really Libertarian - it just comes close.  Libertarianism doesn't exist. 

I consider myself a "Progressive".  Yes, I admit that one person's flavor of "Progressive" is not the same as another person's flavor of "Progressive".  However, every "Progressive" seems to be able to point out things that are happening in the world around us as examples of things that exemplify what it means to be "Progressive".  And there seems to be, among all "Progressives", a way to measure whether a country is heading towards or away from progress.  Libertarians do not have that.  You try to point out that policies that model what they are saying have been put into place and haven't led to good places, and they insist that those aren't Libertarian policies.  It's an "all or nothing" view, and thus it is impossible from within their paradigm to see anything else but the paradigm which imprisons them.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Libertarians advocate the privatization of roads.  Whoever owned the road could make up their own rules for traveling on it.

Oh that's going to work our great.  Rather than planning my trip on what the most efficient route is, I'll have to figure out who I need to make deals with in order to get to where I wanna go.  Massive headache if you ask me.  And just watch your bills skyrocket.  I suppose you agree with the Nestle CEO who says that water is a food that should be privatized?  Let's all bow down to our corporate masters and worship the almighty dollar together.  That's where this leads - money is god.

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Libertarians advocate the privatization of roads.  Whoever owned the road could make up their own rules for traveling on it. Oh that's going to work our great.  Rather than planning my trip on what the most efficient route is, I'll have to figure out who I need to make deals with in order to get to where I wanna go.  Massive headache if you ask me.  And just watch your bills skyrocket.  I suppose you agree with the Nestle CEO who says that water is a food that should be privatized?  Let's all bow down to our corporate masters and worship the almighty dollar together.  That's where this leads - money is god.

You already buy a car from a private business.  And gasoline.  And oil.  And tires.  And auto insurance.

What strikes me as funny is that we have public roads, yet on many of them you're still required to pay a toll, so what's so challenging to understand about private roads? 

Epignosis wrote: What strikes me as funny is that we have public roads, yet on many of them you're still required to pay a toll, so what's so challenging to understand about private roads?

I hate toll roads.  Can you honestly imagine a world in which all roads are toll roads?  The traffic would suck, big time.  When I was still a single man, I used to visit my cousins in Boston.  The one, single toll booth I used to hit would often delay my ride by up to 2 hours.  Just getting through that one toll would do that to me.  Can you honestly imagine what the traffic would be like if all roads were toll roads?  Face it, your Libertarian world sucks, man.

dtguitarfan wrote: Gerinski wrote: My arguments do not convince you so I give up, it's fine, I'm not a smart enough arguer. Again in my view they are evident but I reckon they are not to you. Peace to the world. I know exactly how you feel.  This is what I think you and I are up against: we're fighting a culture that insists it's right, but refuses to look out at the world.  They've become increasingly selective of their data and any data that refutes their hard set positions is rejected outright as being false data.  They insist on their ideology, and compromise is not possible.  In their world, it is seen as moral to blow up the world just to protest the fact that they are not getting their way.

You're particularly adept at riding large horses.

rogerthat wrote: On another note, America must be one of the few countries where there seems to be some concern about swinging too much to the left.  I guess everywhere else the left has moved a little to the centre and the right has either stayed put or moved even further right and the absence of a strong left voice to counterbalance the right is bemoaned.  There is talk in India that the so-called United Progressive Alliance might take us down the leftist road but that will never happen, the govt will eventually bow to market forces.  It is interesting that there is a left-right tussle in USA just at the point that most other countries have accepted the market imperative to some degree, while necessary maintaining a reasonably sized, if not large, govt.

It helps that's we're smarter and better than every other weird country in the world.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: What strikes me as funny is that we have public roads, yet on many of them you're still required to pay a toll, so what's so challenging to understand about private roads?  I hate toll roads.  Can you honestly imagine a world in which all roads are toll roads?  The traffic would suck, big time.  When I was still a single man, I used to visit my cousins in Boston.  The one, single toll booth I used to hit would often delay my ride by up to 2 hours.  Just getting through that one toll would do that to me.  Can you honestly imagine what the traffic would be like if all roads were toll roads?  Face it, your Libertarian world sucks, man. Parking lots are privately owned but do not always require a toll ya know?

I live in Chattanooga, where all parking lots are privately owned and you can't find a free parking spot on the weekend to save your life.  That sucks too.

Oh yeah and parking on public roads is abundant. What's you point? Do you even process what's said, or do you just look for the next irrelevant way you can one up someone?