Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Freedom" thread or something
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Freedom" thread or something

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 176177178179180 294>
Author
Message
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 18 2013 at 23:19
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

That is a basic problem Gerinski. Majorities deciding for minorities can lead to majorities deciding to step on minorities, or majorities deciding something about minorities that forces something upon them that they didn't agree to including things that you wouldn't qualify as legitimate, or majorities deciding that something perfectly accepted is illegitimate and thus forcing minorities to do as they want. Majorities can also, as has happened in the past, choose the wrong person who eventually lead to destruction of minorities. 
Democracy is a failed god. Sadly, it's difficult to replace it for some things. But for others, private chice should do. 

So, majorities can not decide for minorities, and presumably minorities can not decide for majorities. Cool, who decides whatever?
The solution to your conundrum is splitting the territory and create 'countries' according to political views. A country for libertarians, a country for moderate liberals, a country for moderate social-democrats, a country for socialists and so on.
This would not be too bad, the only problem being that all of them would fight to get the California soil for their country LOL 
I don't say I have the answer. One would be to go the entire anarchic way (better yet, anarcho-capitalism) with every individual making his own decisions and only agreeing with others in contractual ways, not with all-encompassing laws. I honestly don't think people are ready for this and a lot of other problems would ensue but in theory it would be the ideal scenario. Another way of course involves one person deciding. Other is democracy. But you can improve democracy and eliminate that power of majorities over minorities by reducing the number of aspects where majorities can decide, or, basically saying, by reducing the size and power of the majority-ruled machine. If, on the other hand, every single aspect of life is decided "democratically", then it runs the risk of majorities actually trampling minorities.


I am definitely pro-democracy, and would favor the last proposal: I'm basically calling for a return to the Constitution, which was supposed to safeguard liberty in a democratic republic by limiting the size of the government.  The founding fathers foresaw the danger of the "tyranny of the majority" and organized the government accordingly.  Then power-hungry politicians trampled on the constitution for centuries.

I don't know if the US will ever return to it's founding principles, but I'd rather try and fail than give up.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 00:30
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I don't think other security firms would like your army establishing itself as above the law.

The law? What law? How come there is a law when there is no government? Did everybody agree on that law?

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I don't think private courts, who make their living by having a reputation for being impartial and fair, would like it much either. I don't see such behavior as being tolerated, at least no more than it is now when the police decide to commit crimes because there's no one to sop them.

Well, if the behavior isn't tolerated by other security firms, private courts etc., then what do they do? Start a civil war over it?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 02:57
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

 
I don't think other security firms would like your army establishing itself as above the law. I don't think private courts, who make their living by having a reputation for being impartial and fair, would like it much either. I don't see such behavior as being tolerated, at least no more than it is now when the police decide to commit crimes because there's no one to sop them.
Let's go to court! 
Ok, which one, yours or mine?
LOL
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 03:16
You seem to believe that politicians have put themselves there, or have been put by majorities.
Nah, politicians and most of their laws are tools put there by the wealthy to protect their interests, so they don't have to show their own face. Yes, those incredibly wealthy you value so much because they amassed their fortunes thanks to the liberal market, and anyway they are very generous and donate parks and open museums with their private art collections.
So what's the problem? they simply used their liberty, their liberty to put some people up there who would protect and benefit their interests, it's much like having created their private army or security firm, just that it's an army wearing ties and using laws instead of guns, which looks more polite. Start a libertarian country and it will end up with politicians created by the most powerful.
Yes, some of the actions taken by politicians are oriented to keep the masses calm and make them think that we look for their interests too, a rather cheap facade just to prevent them from starting a revolution.

Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 04:07
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

 
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Democracy is a failed god. Sadly, it's difficult to replace it for some things. But for others, private chice should do. 
 
So, majorities can not decide for minorities, and presumably minorities can not decide for majorities. Cool, who decides whatever?

I don't say I have the answer. One would be to go the entire anarchic way (better yet, anarcho-capitalism) with every individual making his own decisions and only agreeing with others in contractual ways, not with all-encompassing laws. I honestly don't think people are ready for this and a lot of other problems would ensue but in theory it would be the ideal scenario. 
Completely unrealistic. Do you really think we could live in a modern world without collective decisions, having to agree each single thing one at a time in a bi-lateral contractual way? unless we go back to the middle age lifestyle, no way.

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Another way of course involves one person deciding. 
Cool, I bet he will be quite busy Confused

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Other is democracy. But you can improve democracy and eliminate that power of majorities over minorities by reducing the number of aspects where majorities can decide, or, basically saying, by reducing the size and power of the majority-ruled machine. If, on the other hand, every single aspect of life is decided "democratically", then it runs the risk of majorities actually trampling minorities.
Unrealistic again. Collective decisions are what enables the economy to work on a massive scale (not only economy, the whole of interpersonal interactions). Imagine nobody decides what should be mentioned in a label on food products, you produce canned food and you have to discuss with each of your customers individually what does he want on the label. And what kind of conservatives does he allow you to use or not. If you want to produce cell phones, will you discuss with each of your customers what frequency should be used?
You produce cars and you need to negotiate with each of your customers which level of safety devices he likes to have, if he likes the winkers white or yellow or red, if he wants the fuel gauge in gallons or liters, what level of exhaust emissions he wants, does he want laminated glass on the windscreen or plain glass, what kind of petrol do they use in his community (since there is no government set standard), does he allow you to use asbestos in the brake pads? etc etc etc. Your car production is going to be wonderfully efficient!
Do you realise that any kind of trade would be impossible without pre-agreed rules, and rules which are collective, which you can apply to all the customers? and that it's simply impossible to discuss all those rules individually one by one (since there is no government to set the standards collectively)?
No collective rules = back to the middle age, go live in an Amish community.


Edited by Gerinski - June 19 2013 at 04:10
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 05:40
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I don't think other security firms would like your army establishing itself as above the law.

The law? What law? How come there is a law when there is no government? Did everybody agree on that law?



Libertarianism =/= no law.

There have been civilizations throughout history with laws but no government (and that doesn't make them Libertarian civilizations either).
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 05:44
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

 

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.
Nice, perfectly sensible, you did not have money enough to contribute, burn you b*****d! Confused


This is precisely what happened in 2011 because the homeowner did not pay the annual tax.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:00
This is another important thing to point out: It's said that "government builds roads."

They don't.  They levy money from individuals and pay that money to a private contractor who starts building.  The only difference from the people doing this themselves?  Politicians and bureaucrats get to shave off a hunk of that money before it ever gets to fund civil service projects, and what's more, they routinely propose projects that benefit one group rather than everybody.

If you still think government is required for infrastructure, then we need a history lesson:

Originally posted by Forbes Forbes wrote:


In America’s early years, there was a perceived need for better roads – our Founders complained about bad roads. But states generally weren’t able to finance them. Among other things, people commonly used roads to leave their states! The states tried to fund road projects with lotteries, forced road service and land grants to contractors, but the schemes didn’t work.

Capital for road building was raised more efficiently by the private sector. The pioneering business seems to have been the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Corporation, chartered in 1792. For the first third of the 19th century, hundreds of private turnpike companies built thousands of miles of roads that linked western territories with the eastern seaboard. By 1821, 84 turnpike companies were incorporated in Pennsylvania, and 278 were incorporated in New York. Long distance roads were beyond the capability of any company, so work was divided among many companies that built connected roadways.

Then came a government-run canal building boom. In every case, politicians claimed that the projects were urgently-needed and required more money than could be raised from market sources. Politicians were hailed for having more vision than private entrepreneurs.

From 1817 to 1825, the State of New York financed and built the Erie Canal – 364 miles from Albany to Buffalo, linking New York City and Lake Erie. The project enough revenue to cover construction costs, but not enough to cover operating costs or the cost of improvements. Merchants elsewhere in New York demanded canals. The government built eight more, but they lost money. Politically-connected merchants gained from all this, while taxpayers lost.


Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:00
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
Wow... it is for real... this is the cruelest example I have seen of your hyper-liberal society. Thank god I don't live there.
And you still think it is not libertarian enough... 
Thank god I'm sure she received a new mobile home from a wealthy patron.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:03
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

You seem to believe that politicians have put themselves there, or have been put by majorities.
Nah, politicians and most of their laws are tools put there by the wealthy to protect their interests, so they don't have to show their own face. Yes, those incredibly wealthy you value so much because they amassed their fortunes thanks to the liberal market, and anyway they are very generous and donate parks and open museums with their private art collections.
So what's the problem? they simply used their liberty, their liberty to put some people up there who would protect and benefit their interests, it's much like having created their private army or security firm, just that it's an army wearing ties and using laws instead of guns, which looks more polite. Start a libertarian country and it will end up with politicians created by the most powerful.
Yes, some of the actions taken by politicians are oriented to keep the masses calm and make them think that we look for their interests too, a rather cheap facade just to prevent them from starting a revolution.



So you agree with us that government is a tool for the wealthy to exert power over the rest of us?

Unless you can demonstrate that a Libertarian country would inevitably descend into what we have now, your argument is a slippery slope.  Did you look at my example of Liechtenstein?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:06
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Originally posted by Forbes Forbes wrote:


Capital for road building was raised more efficiently by the private sector. The pioneering business seems to have been the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Corporation, chartered in 1792. For the first third of the 19th century, hundreds of private turnpike companies built thousands of miles of roads that linked western territories with the eastern seaboard. By 1821, 84 turnpike companies were incorporated in Pennsylvania, and 278 were incorporated in New York. Long distance roads were beyond the capability of any company, so work was divided among many companies that built connected roadways.

That's nice to know, thanks. I'm curious as to how did these companies collected the money from the road users? where all these roads equipped with a toll system?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:06
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
Wow... it is for real... this is the cruelest example I have seen of your hyper-liberal society. Thank god I don't live there.
And you still think it is not libertarian enough... 
Thank god I'm sure she received a new mobile home from a wealthy patron.


You missed the point.  You say people pay taxes to have a fire department.  She didn't pay her taxes.  She didn't think she needed to (her own admission).  Suppose nobody paid their taxes and someone's house caught on fire.  How would the fire get extinguished?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:23
Liechtenstein is not a 'country' in my book (of course I know it's a country), it's a financial instrument designed to benefit from the profits generated elsewhere, by the work of people other than his own population. I'm not in favour of its existence, it's not a demonstration of the success of a country IMO, only a demonstration of how unfair financial mechanisms can be legally allowed because of the lack of enough regulations and collective agreements between all the planet's countries.

In fact I am surprised that some very wealthy guy has not purchased an island somewhere and started his own private country with similar fiscal rules in order to attract companies' profits (a privately owned and fabricated tax haven country as a business).
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 06:39
Sorry I had said that I would back off and here I am again spoiling your thread, it was stronger than I could resist Tongue
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 07:00
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Sorry I had said that I would back off and here I am again spoiling your thread, it was stronger than I could resist Tongue


You are spoiling nothing.  I appreciate hearing your perspectives.  Smile
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 07:03
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Sorry I had said that I would back off and here I am again spoiling your thread, it was stronger than I could resist Tongue


You are spoiling nothing.  I appreciate hearing your perspectives.  Smile


I quite agree.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 07:06
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Liechtenstein is not a 'country' in my book (of course I know it's a country), it's a financial instrument designed to benefit from the profits generated elsewhere, by the work of people other than his own population. I'm not in favour of its existence, it's not a demonstration of the success of a country IMO, only a demonstration of how unfair financial mechanisms can be legally allowed because of the lack of enough regulations and collective agreements between all the planet's countries.

In fact I am surprised that some very wealthy guy has not purchased an island somewhere and started his own private country with similar fiscal rules in order to attract companies' profits (a privately owned and fabricated tax haven country as a business).


Those who expatriate still get harassed for income taxes. I don't think it would be as simple as buying an island.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 07:21
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

In fact I am surprised that some very wealthy guy has not purchased an island somewhere and started his own private country with similar fiscal rules in order to attract companies' profits (a privately owned and fabricated tax haven country as a business).


Those who expatriate still get harassed for income taxes. I don't think it would be as simple as buying an island.
Yeah, I don't think it's that simple either Smile
I believe that you may not declare your own land a new sovereign country (even if it would be new land, for example a new artificial island) without the approval of the UN, and I doubt that approving such a project would be acceptable for the public opinion.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 08:02
May I ask how does waste collection work in the States?
This is another of those things which I find hard to imagine being dealt with on an individual choice basis, without a collective democratic agreement for all the citizens.
If your neighbour does not want to pay for waste collection, can he just drop it in his driveyard and let it rot and you have to suffer the stink of his rotting garbage?
Of course I'm talking in urbanized areas, if you live isolated then it's not such a problem.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2013 at 08:19
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

May I ask how does waste collection work in the States?
This is another of those things which I find hard to imagine being dealt with on an individual choice basis, without a collective democratic agreement for all the citizens.
If your neighbour does not want to pay for waste collection, can he just drop it in his driveyard and let it rot and you have to suffer the stink of his rotting garbage?
Of course I'm talking in urbanized areas, if you live isolated then it's not such a problem.


If the neighbor's refuse is violating your property rights (which I think transmitting odor particles of a sufficiently noxious nature does) you can, of course, take legal recourse.

I am not an expert on the specifics of waste collection economics, but garbage collection is run privately and works quite well, so I don't see why sewage could not be handled in a similar way.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 176177178179180 294>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.