For my Libertarian friends

^ well, with no functioning army it would be easy for the US to exploit them, we could pay for our social programs with their slave labor, excellent idea.

Edited by Easy Money - July 24 2010 at 11:29

The T wrote: I wish it was possible to give libertarians a state, let's say texas (one with resources so they have a shot at success) and let them run it like they would the country, abolishing all those institutions and regulations and all of what they want to eliminate. If they succeeded and no collapse ensues, only then could society afford to embark in such a dangerous idea. But as things are now, libertarianism would end up killing, without wanting to, many many dreams, wishes, hopes, families, lives, and yes, even people. It's too radical a concept to be allowed to prosper overnight...

On the flip side, it would be cool to give Liberals their own state to implement their all-out Utopian vision, and see what happens.

Oh yeah, it's already in process.  California.  That's working well.  They seem to have just as many social ills as anywhere else, and are now how far in debt?

JJ, I'm no expert on economics, but isn't the often glorified social welfare states of Scandinavia paid for largely by state oil/resource revenues rather than the obscenely high taxes alone?....thus somewhat discrediting the Left's assertion that we can tax our way to Nirvana?  If they have a fairly small population and plenty of cash, are they a realistic template for other countries who have much less capital/resources combined with much higher populations, and much needier populations?

I'm not telling, I'm asking.  The main point is that if the socialist model has to be sustained by a Govt who covers a large part of their budget by oil or other resource extraction, isn't that an advantage which can only be replicated by those states/countries lucky enough to have said resources?  Take that away, would these countries be able to support their cradle to grave hand-holding social programs simply by fleecing "the evil rich" people?

thellama73 wrote: We've already talked about unemployment insurance and why I think it's a bad idea for the government to be involved. Just look back a few pages. And yes, I might be a bad person, but in fact I'm not. EDIT: I thought I'd elaborate a little bit more. I have worked several jobs for very low wages in which many of my coworkers were quite poor. In all cases, they squandered what little money they had on junk rather than trying to improve their station. When the record store where I worked went out of business, nearly all of my coworkers were actually excited about going on welfare. They were happy that they were going to be able to get money without having to work for it. I spoke to one of these people a year later, and she was living on her welfare check and had not even started looking for a job, nor was she planning to until the benefits ran out. Now I know that my experience does not represent all people, and that there are many hard working folks who just need a hand. However, it is my sincerely held belief that the more the government tries to protect people from poverty, the more people will be lazy, complacent and have a sense of entitlement. In the absence of government welfare, friends, neighbors and relatives would be forced to maintain strong ties with each other for mutual protection in case of hard luck. I think this would be good for society in general, and that we have become altogether too isolated from one another. Furthermore, such a system would refuse to support anyone it saw as freeloading. That's my position, and if you think it makes me a bad person, I can live with that. Also, why has no one addressed the issue of privatized unemployment insurance that I brought up? Why couldn't it work the same as fire insurance or life insurance?

Well isn't that the idea of a safety net? I use this as a general term, but you know minimal benefits.
And as I always say, look at the situation out there. I actually am not opposed to welfare reform, even a pretty radical one but perhaps best for when things are back in form.
I mean it seems to harsh to make these cuts when there's not much out there. I've griped enough for jobs being lost all over the place.

I will admit, I dont know much about it....but anyone familiar with the idea of micro loaning? From what I understand it is fairly small loans given to the poor for the purposes of entrepreneurship. I know it is used most in very poor countries, but has had a decent amount of success and has very high repayment rate.

I still support a "safety net" but maybe a large amount of welfare could be replaced with something like this, (in conjunction with some welfare benefits) and hopefully would spur local growth, maybe get some more small/local business' going. Of course this is a non government thing, and even helping the poor can become profitable for people.
Maybe that, along with cutting our defense budget (including leaving Iraq, Afghanistan and much of the world), and repeal of the Bush Tax cuts, (or let them expire) will generate money for my other pinko social plans. Like education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc and lets not forget other, more unacceptable ways to generate money at the moment like gay marriages, drugs, maybe even a scale back of recycling programs

This is big, unorganized idea but its all I got at the moment and its been fun debating and all, but really. The system is screwed up. I used to support it and advocate MORE, even at the expense of business or wealthy because, well f*ck them! But really, I have moderated my views on such things and I dont see why I should stick with a system that is screwy. Some reform is needed!

Finnforest wrote: The T wrote: I wish it was possible to give libertarians a state, let's say texas (one with resources so they have a shot at success) and let them run it like they would the country, abolishing all those institutions and regulations and all of what they want to eliminate. If they succeeded and no collapse ensues, only then could society afford to embark in such a dangerous idea. But as things are now, libertarianism would end up killing, without wanting to, many many dreams, wishes, hopes, families, lives, and yes, even people. It's too radical a concept to be allowed to prosper overnight... On the flip side, it would be cool to give Liberals their own state to implement their all-out Utopian vision, and see what happens. What "utopian" vision? It's not a utopia Finn we're not suggesting communist.  Can you libertarians ever see things in shades of grey and not just black and white?  Oh yeah, it's already in process.  California.  That's working well.  They seem to have just as many social ills as anywhere else, and are now how far in debt? Illegal immigration has killed that state.

Finnforest wrote: The T wrote: Finnforest wrote: The T wrote: I wish it was possible to give libertarians a state, let's say texas (one with resources so they have a shot at success) and let them run it like they would the country, abolishing all those institutions and regulations and all of what they want to eliminate. If they succeeded and no collapse ensues, only then could society afford to embark in such a dangerous idea. But as things are now, libertarianism would end up killing, without wanting to, many many dreams, wishes, hopes, families, lives, and yes, even people. It's too radical a concept to be allowed to prosper overnight... On the flip side, it would be cool to give Liberals their own state to implement their all-out Utopian vision, and see what happens. What "utopian" vision? It's not a utopia Finn we're not suggesting communist.  Can you libertarians ever see things in shades of grey and not just black and white? [Teo, I simply presented the flip side of your own black and white question--how did  you not catch that?] I didn't.  But again, "liberals" are not really the other extreme of libertarians (in theory, libertarians are really liberals according to od definitions (!?). That would be COMMUNISTS. And I'm sure COMMUNISM has not been practiced in California... yet...  Oh yeah, it's already in process.  California.  That's working well.  They seem to have just as many social ills as anywhere else, and are now how far in debt? Illegal immigration has killed that state.

^ I don't know T, seems like you yourself tend to get worked up when someone doesn't believe that control is the answer to all questions.   But hey, maybe you are right and we can hand over market control to a select group of people who will never abuse their power and will always be able to adapt and react to the ever changing needs of the market.

Logical stalemate reached. Can we all get drunk now?

And this would be most difficult to get together to drink. Pat is somewhere in PA, im in NJ, Robs in FL, T youre in a grave and llama....well I can only assume he lives in a house he made himself in the middle of wyoming to escape all governments! 

Edited by JJLehto - July 24 2010 at 19:37

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Society can't afford to embark on the path we're on now. The country is bankrupt. Most of the Western world is bankrupt. Things are going to change regardless of whether you want them to or not. No amount of shiny, faux-charitable rhetoric is going to change that. If you like at our nation's history. The state of things as they are and as they are progressing are actually the radical ones. If you want to look at the prosperity which would be brought on my a free market, you need only look to when the market was freer. You're too hung up on the idea of absolute freedom. If you wish to observe the state of an object at absolute zero, you can get a pretty good idea of how the object will be by observing ever decreasing temperatures and draw a conclusion without ever observing the absolute zero state. We are able to do that. You say that it'll destroy dreams, wishes, blah blah blah blah without anything to back  up your claims. Whose dreams will it destroy? What families? I'm anticipating your answers, and I already have a pretty good idea of the fallacies it will be propped up by. EDIT: One of the things that gets to me so worked up is the current state of the country. I could see if things in the economic and social realms were great that people would be so reluctant to even consider Libertarian ideas, but clearly there are deep deep issues with our economy and government's lack of rights considerations. People who think you can have social freedom without economic freedom (or its converse) are just fools.

passionate but not persuasive; closer to the angry young man than a student of history in that it actually ignores as much history as it draws on--  i.e:  "I could see if things in the economic and social realms were great that people would be so reluctant to even consider Libertarian ideas, but clearly there are deep deep issues with our economy and government's lack of rights considerations".    That struggle is part of America and has been for a long time.  We'll always have eras of prosperity and eras of downturn.  That's how things go, regardless of whatever politics - or non-politics - are involved.  The question you have to ask yourself is do you really want to live in a nation that disappoints you so much?

Frankly if you hang your beliefs on the fact that we're going through hard times, it doesn't give much long-term credibility to them.  Hard times?  This country was born and built on hard times.  That's freedom (or perhaps I should say democracy).  We work through things and keep going whether you like the "system" and who's in office or not. 





Edited by Atavachron - July 24 2010 at 22:13