| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: September 24 2010 at 11:33 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
One question for libertarians:
Why do you want the system to change? I mean, what's the reason behind your push for a change of system? Just out of principle? Or do you think that: a) society as a WHOLE will benefit; or, b) YOU don't have to be paying nobody else's anything and you should be getting all the money you work for, therefore YOU will benefit from it?
Just a question. The changes you want (no taxes, no this, no that, no food stamps, no public education) don't always seem like they're going to benefit MOST of the people... And I'd guess that's what a good system should have in mind...
So that's my question. |
In part on principle, I find the current system immoral, tyrannical, and demeaning to humans.
In part on pragmatism, the amount of wealth generated by this country would explode under a free market system. Life in general across the board would improve. Every aspect of our society is invaded and perverted by government.
|
1) Ok. But that's just your principle. On that basis alone, you can't expect a society to change just to fit what you would consider moral, free, and not-demeaning to humans.
2) That sounds better. Though I fail to see how the richest people, free of all limitations, would really "trickle down" their wealth in the full free market.
|
|
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 12:15 |
|
By the way, how do libertarians feel about state-sponsored public defendants? Without taxes, would charities fund their existence? Or poor people should also be left defenseless in a trial?
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 12:23 |
The T wrote:
By the way, how do libertarians feel about state-sponsored public defendants? Without taxes, would charities fund their existence? Or poor people should also be left defenseless in a trial? |
I am okay with the DA's because I think the court system is a legitimate and necessary function of government. It falls under "protecting the lives and property of its citizens and enforcing contracts." I believe that Pat and I differ on this, as I think he's said before that he doesn't want government run courts.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 12:30 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
By the way, how do libertarians feel about state-sponsored public defendants? Without taxes, would charities fund their existence? Or poor people should also be left defenseless in a trial? |
I am okay with the DA's because I think the court system is a legitimate and necessary function of government. It falls under "protecting the lives and property of its citizens and enforcing contracts."
I believe that Pat and I differ on this, as I think he's said before that he doesn't want government run courts.
|
This.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 12:36 |
God be praised... At least public defendants will not disappear in the libertarian future.... 
(because as opposed as I may be to many of your ideas, I think it's bound to happen some day, the way society shift the focus from the collective to the individual... I'm pessimist by nature I guess... )
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 12:51 |
The T wrote:
2) That sounds better. Though I fail to see how the richest people, free of all limitations, would really "trickle down" their wealth in the full free market. |
You are aware that anytime anyone spends a dollar in the market that someone else has just made that dollar....well, before taxes.
I fail to see the point of limiting "rich people" (not that that can ever be effectively defined) outside of some warped satisfaction that one may get because they have class envy issues. When money is used in any way it is being redistributed naturally. Government has no actual reason to become involved in something that is as free flowing as the supply and demand market function. The reason that government does is because the people who have entered government have corrupted it with agendas. Government officials have no legitimate claim on the pro-active powers they have granted themselves other than the fact that they can convince citizens that they do/should.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 13:25 |
manofmystery wrote:
The T wrote:
2) That sounds better. Though I fail to see how the richest people, free of all limitations, would really "trickle down" their wealth in the full free market. |
You are aware that anytime anyone spends a dollar in the market that someone else has just made that dollar....well, before taxes.
I fail to see the point of limiting "rich people" (not that that can ever be effectively defined) outside of some warped satisfaction that one may get because they have class envy issues. When money is used in any way it is being redistributed naturally. Government has no actual reason to become involved in something that is as free flowing as the supply and demand market function. The reason that government does is because the people who have entered government have corrupted it with agendas. Government officials have no legitimate claim on the pro-active powers they have granted themselves other than the fact that they can convince citizens that they do/should. |
Ground-breaking stuff, the unfettered free market has just been described as pure and natural in our midst. A rich source of moral fibre to be sure. The fount of corruption is of course the state with their meddlesome ethics, democracy and conscience plus those damned law enforcement critters who dare to protect your property from the thieving neer do wells. I'm assuming you're american so forgive me if I'm wrong, but the oft cited 'class envy' has nothing to do with money at all. Ethics, Morality and Conscience make you classy. Money is a poor man's respectability.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 13:31 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Ethics, Morality and Conscience make you classy. Money is a poor man's respectability.
|
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 13:39 |
We have become the hottest thread in PA.. We've surpassed Mike... Congratulations to you all... 
Edited by The T - September 24 2010 at 13:39
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 14:00 |
I think we should change the name of the site to Libertarian Archives. 
|
|
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 14:06 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
The T wrote:
2) That sounds better. Though I fail to see how the richest people, free of all limitations, would really "trickle down" their wealth in the full free market. |
You are aware that anytime anyone spends a dollar in the market that someone else has just made that dollar....well, before taxes.
I fail to see the point of limiting "rich people" (not that that can ever be effectively defined) outside of some warped satisfaction that one may get because they have class envy issues. When money is used in any way it is being redistributed naturally. Government has no actual reason to become involved in something that is as free flowing as the supply and demand market function. The reason that government does is because the people who have entered government have corrupted it with agendas. Government officials have no legitimate claim on the pro-active powers they have granted themselves other than the fact that they can convince citizens that they do/should. |
Ground-breaking stuff, the unfettered free market has just been described as pure and natural in our midst. A rich source of moral fibre to be sure. The fount of corruption is of course the state with their meddlesome ethics, democracy and conscience plus those damned law enforcement critters who dare to protect your property from the thieving neer do wells. I'm assuming you're american so forgive me if I'm wrong, but the oft cited 'class envy' has nothing to do with money at all. Ethics, Morality and Conscience make you classy. Money is a poor man's respectability.
|
So, in your world "ethics, morality, and conscience" only exist within government and "corruption" only exists in unregulated industry. Those who have manged to gain positions within government are morality superior to all of the rest of us occupying the market? People need to be ruled or they won't make the right decisions, correct? I'm assuming you're from Utopia, where government officials never ever abuse power and have all the information at all times because none of the citizens have individual needs, wants, or desires to complicate perfect governance. It must be nice to possess the moral high ground and know what's best for everyone, what's that feel like? How quickly can you become our dictator?
Never said I respected money, by the way, but I do respect the right to make and keep it.
There is certainly nothing natural about allowing creatures (human beings, for example) to operate without intervention or regulation.
Edited by manofmystery - September 24 2010 at 14:08
|
Time always wins.
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 14:13 |
The T wrote:
We have become the hottest thread in PA.. We've surpassed Mike... Congratulations to you all...
|
Well, I always found the "Theism vs. Atheism" thread to be pointless since it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a diety. There can be no winner.
|
Time always wins.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 16:08 |
I know taxes are usually withhold by the employer, but, has any of you libertarians ever not-paid taxes (if you had a way to avoid it)? That would be really living your principles...
But then, while we live in a tax-based society, it would also be you're playing us tax-paying people for fools... |
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 17:39 |
The T wrote:
I know taxes are usually withhold by the employer, but, has any of you libertarians ever not-paid taxes (if you had a way to avoid it)? That would be really living your principles...
But then, while we live in a tax-based society, it would also be you're playing us tax-paying people for fools... |
I have sometimes not paid taxes due to not making enough money to have to pay taxes, but I have never purposely evaded taxes. I value my liberty too much to risk going to jail over a few bucks. Also, I believe that one should abide by the rules of society, as long as they are in place (except in very extreme cases.) I want the rules to be changed, but simply breaking them will not accomplish that or help my cause.
Edited by thellama73 - September 24 2010 at 17:41
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 18:57 |
Been delving into the Obama healthcare bill. I am so full of rage. Socialism my arse! I really can't believe how little it accomplishes... The change it will create is not good and it doesn't even meet its goal! What a boat of fail. I like to say, "something is better than nothing" but if I was a congressman I'd have voted against that thing. 
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 19:55 |
Yes, Obamacare is a fail.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 20:23 |
That's for sure! I am not so keen on the idea of forcing people to buy health insurance. Even though there will be some government subsidy to help people purchase (why not just go universal then??) and an alternative "market" to compete with the private health plan market...it's still not an idea I really like. And by 2019 its estimated 23 million will be uninsured. The bill doesn't even get everyone covered.  Fail is pretty much it.
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 09:38 |
JJLehto wrote:
That's for sure!
I am not so keen on the idea of forcing people to buy health insurance.
Even though there will be some government subsidy to help people purchase (why not just go universal then??) and an alternative "market" to compete with the private health plan market...it's still not an idea I really like. And by 2019 its estimated 23 million will be uninsured.
The bill doesn't even get everyone covered.
Fail is pretty much it.
|
Probably because it 1) adds a bunch of ridiculous, unncecessary costs that don't solve the real problems with our health care system and 2) there's no way our country could afford to pay for everyone's health insurance with our current deficit.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 09:51 |
|
The thing that amuses me is that if you are going to be accused of enacting a socialized medicine program, then really go for it. If it fails horribly then people will be clamoring for a reform to a totally free market system, however there is the risk that it might actually work well. I sometimes feel that the healthcare reform was deliberately set up to fail. Requiring people to buy it without providing a viable public option was purely idiotic.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17309
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 10:04 |
|
Slart, I keep meaning to ask your opinion of the Greens. Did you ever support them or Nader, since you think the Dems are too centrist?
Or did you feel by splitting the vote they were actually hurting the progressive future?
I imagine your heart is closer to the Green platform than the general Dems agenda?
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
![Hot Topic [1 New Post]](https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_images/topic_hot_new.png "Hot Topic [1 New Post]")
