"Freedom" thread or something

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: You say "tell me what you want and let me do my work." Okay, I want a government that doesn't coerce people. So do you want there to be a very minimal amount of murder/theft?  How exactly are you going to accomplish this without "coercing" people?

I've explained my views on private law enforcement and courts a number of times. I don't believe you haven't read them by now.

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: What arbitrary rules do libertarians insist on that make absolutely no sense at all? That was specifically for Jacob, who has told me very specifically before that he is against certain things simply because he believes in "small government", whatever the hell that means.  This is why I attack him for ideology.  My "arbitrary number of megabytes for the program" is a very good analogy for showing how ridiculous it is to insist on "small government".

thellama73 wrote: Incidentally, I've become a contributor on this site where I get paid based on how many facebook likes my articles get, so if you all want to go there and like my stuff, I would appreciate it.

What's it worth?

Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: What arbitrary rules do libertarians insist on that make absolutely no sense at all? That was specifically for Jacob, who has told me very specifically before that he is against certain things simply because he believes in "small government", whatever the hell that means.  This is why I attack him for ideology.  My "arbitrary number of megabytes for the program" is a very good analogy for showing how ridiculous it is to insist on "small government". I sometimes think when (some) people say "small", they mean "efficient", which are not necessarily the same. I do not want bloat and inefficiency in either my government or my code.

Exactly.  But my argument is this: that's not our problem, just like the customer doesn't say to the programmer that they want less lines of code.  A programmer wants less lines of code because it makes the program easier to read and easier to maintain.  But that's his problem.  Now if the system gets slow, that's a customer problem, and the customer needs to go yell at the programmer to make it faster, but they don't give a crap how the programmer fixes the problem so they're not going to demand a "small program", as if they're qualified to determine what a good "size" for a program is.

Epignosis wrote: I daresay that most people who refrain from murder and theft do so irrespective of laws against those activities.  As for the people who do kill and steal?  They don't care that there are laws against it.

Exactly, so it's those people who don't care about the law that the law is concerned with.  I don't particularly trust a system where I have to pay a private security company to protect me from those people, especially since I don't trust rich people, so I believe that the rich people would be stealing from me and using their far superior private security to prevent my inferior private security company from enforcing the law against theft.

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: What arbitrary rules do libertarians insist on that make absolutely no sense at all? That was specifically for Jacob, who has told me very specifically before that he is against certain things simply because he believes in "small government", whatever the hell that means.  This is why I attack him for ideology.  My "arbitrary number of megabytes for the program" is a very good analogy for showing how ridiculous it is to insist on "small government". I sometimes think when (some) people say "small", they mean "efficient", which are not necessarily the same. I do not want bloat and inefficiency in either my government or my code. Exactly.  But my argument is this: that's not our problem, just like the customer doesn't say to the programmer that they want less lines of code.  A programmer wants less lines of code because it makes the program easier to read and easier to maintain.  But that's his problem.  Now if the system gets slow, that's a customer problem, and the customer needs to go yell at the programmer to make it faster, but they don't give a crap how the programmer fixes the problem so they're not going to demand a "small program", as if they're qualified to determine what a good "size" for a program is. It is the customer's problem because the customer is paying the salary of the programmer (can't believe I'm still playing along with this stupid analogy) so any inefficiencies created on the programmer's end will end up costing the customer more money. You're arguing that the size of government doesn't affect people, just as the size of a program doesn't affect customers, but that isn't the case. All of the programs I want to cut affect real people every day. Every aspect of government thta I object to, I object to because of its effects on the citizens.

That's not the argument.  I'm NOT arguing that the size of government doesn't affect people.  I'm arguing that it's completely pointless to argue over what size a government should be, just as it's completely pointless to argue over what size a computer program should be.  If you want to argue over what size a computer program should be, the question becomes: "what exactly is the program supposed to do, and how fancy should it look?  What operating system should it run on?  What are the specs of the computer running it?"  Adhering to a "small program" ideology is just that - an ideology.  It's a completely pointless and stupid point of view to say that all programs should be "small".

Now if that's not your point of view, then why aren't Libertarians like you joining me in the arguments against people like Rob and Jacob who insist that all taxes are immoral and government should be small to none (period, no ifs ands or buts)?  You wanna know why I get rude in threads like this (probably not but I'm going to tell you anyways) - it's because I'm dealing with ideologies like that that have no basis in reality or logic.  How can you possibly even argue with someone who insists, religiously, that there should be no taxes (period) and government should either be small (period) or non existent (period)?  It's insanely frustrating to have to try to put up a defense against a religious view like that, just like it would be insanely frustrating for me, as a programmer, to deal with a customer who insists that the product I have made for them (even though it does everything they want it to do and looks great and works fast) should be "small".

This has to stop. Analogies are good to explain things in a clearer, simpler way but we all agree we can read and understand things here and can process information beyond little analogies that serve no purpose except making this thread unusable and useless.

I'm not even attacking your points Geoff (or your views really), but the way you have to present them is really bad. And now everybody has followed suit and this thread is one big stupid computer programming/operating system discussion.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: especially since I don't trust rich people, You seem perfectly willing to let them write the laws that everyone else has to follow.

Right back atcha, Koch brothers follower: "[Koch brothers] want less government for the same reason criminals want less cops."  (an adaptation of a James Carville quote)

Queue the "yeah, well the Koch brothers aren't really Libertarians...they just adhere to the ideological view that all taxes are evil just like I do, but we're not similar at all...."  Once again - why is it that every time you criticize a Libertarian all the other Libertarians jump straight to the "oh, he's not really a Libertarian" argument?  Can you point me to a single person who IS a Libertarian (besides yourself)?  What if I went this same route with Democrats?  I mean, I could have a lot of fun with that...except I really like Ralph Nader, so I'd never say that about him.

dtguitarfan wrote: That's not the argument.  I'm NOT arguing that the size of government doesn't affect people.  I'm arguing that it's completely pointless to argue over what size a government should be, just as it's completely pointless to argue over what size a computer program should be.  If you want to argue over what size a computer program should be, the question becomes: "what exactly is the program supposed to do, and how fancy should it look?  What operating system should it run on?  What are the specs of the computer running it?"  Adhering to a "small program" ideology is just that - an ideology.  It's a completely pointless and stupid point of view to say that all programs should be "small". Now if that's not your point of view, then why aren't Libertarians like you joining me in the arguments against people like Rob and Jacob who insist that all taxes are immoral and government should be small to none (period, no ifs ands or buts)?  You wanna know why I get rude in threads like this (probably not but I'm going to tell you anyways) - it's because I'm dealing with ideologies like that that have no basis in reality or logic.  How can you possibly even argue with someone who insists, religiously, that there should be no taxes (period) and government should either be small (period) or non existent (period)?  It's insanely frustrating to have to try to put up a defense against a religious view like that, just like it would be insanely frustrating for me, as a programmer, to deal with a customer who insists that the product I have made for them (even though it does everything they want it to do and looks great and works fast) should be "small".

If what you're trying to say is that imposing an arbitrary size restriction on government for no reason makes no sense, then I agree with you. But you then follow it up with non sequiturs about the morality of taxes, which is not an arbitrary question at all but one of principle. I don't argue for small/no government "just because." I have identified problems and concluded that the best way to solve them would be the removal of government involvement.

The question of whether it is moral to take people's money without their consent and use it for your own ends (taxes) is an important one and not some arbitrary or contrarian position people take just to annoy you. Can you really not see that morality is different than quibbling over lines of code?

My ideology has every basis in logic. It is far more logical to conclude A. Theft is wrong; B. Taxes are theft; ergo taxes are wrong than to make exceptions and excuses because of some nebulous notion of "society" that you cannot pin down.

How can you argue with a person like me? By trying to convince me that my premises are wrong. Certainly not by calling me names. I say it is wrong to relieve people of the money they earned without their consent, even if your intentions are good. Your task, if you are interested in convincing me that you are right, is to show me in convincing terms why that is not the case. You will not succeed at that task by posting quotes from Keynes, or James Carville or videos you found on the internet or by Republican bashing or by personal insults. Just drop the outrage and engage with me on a human level. Why is it moral to take other people's money away from them because they are not using it the way you want them to?

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: especially since I don't trust rich people, You seem perfectly willing to let them write the laws that everyone else has to follow.  Right back atcha, Koch brothers follower: "[Koch brothers] want less government for the same reason criminals want less cops."  (an adaptation of a James Carville quote)Queue the "yeah, well the Koch brothers aren't really Libertarians...they just adhere to the ideological view that all taxes are evil just like I do, but we're not similar at all...."  Once again - why is it that every time you criticize a Libertarian all the other Libertarians jump straight to the "oh, he's not really a Libertarian" argument?  Can you point me to a single person who IS a Libertarian (besides yourself)?  What if I went this same route with Democrats?  I mean, I could have a lot of fun with that...except I really like Ralph Nader, so I'd never say that about him. Back to whining about the Koch Brothers?  People who have donated more money than you and I will probably ever make in our lives?  What is your problem with these people? Well I expect they can afford to give money to other organisations such as Tea Party and other worthwhile causes seen as they managed to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Easy to be a Libertarian from that position I would think.

I'm broke and I find it easy to be a Libertarian.

akamaisondufromage wrote: I know. But you work and pay taxes etc so that makes you as much a Libertarian as I used to be an anarchist. ?

Libertarians aren't allowed to work? I don't see how paying taxes makes anyone a hypocrite. "I believe it's wrong for you to steal from me, but I cannot stop you, so I'd rather hand over my money than be thrown in jail" seems perfectly reasonable to me.