ANY LIBERTARIANS HERE?

Posts

chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
One question, what if the monarch is as "stupid as the people", as you put it ?
Also, I may be wrong, but I think the queen of England has as little prerogatives as the emperor of Japan.
Does personal property still exist? Do the Old Money types get to keep and spend their legacy fortunes? How do you prevent land/resource cartels? Doesn't the loss of central direction prevent the construction of infrastructure projects that historically created and advanced civilisation?


of course that stuff exists. because the driving force in a proper libertarian government would the capitalist system—and the "central direction" that "historically created and advanced civilization" is still there and stonger than ever: the power of money.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
yes, seeing the wonderful effects of capitalism on the state of the world populations, it would be a pity not to let it take over completely.................................. right?
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
One question, what if the monarch is as "stupid as the people", as you put it ?

Then you have successive revolutions until you end up with a good monarch again or the people wise up and make a democracy that works until the people get stupid again.

Bluntly speaking, whoever's in charge needs to live up to his/their responsibilities.

Also, I may be wrong, but I think the queen of England has as little prerogatives as the emperor of Japan.

Like I said, I'm not well informed as to the British monarchy. I am given the impression that they command much more than just ceremonial powers, though.
author=chana
yes, seeing the wonderful effects of capitalism on the state of the world populations, it would be a pity not to let it take over completely.................................. right?


are you being sarcastic because i don't get this post.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
Yes, I am.
author=KingArthur
oh! what an original political opinion then.
I wouldn't call it original, it's just the result of thinking objectively for myself what the various forms of government require and entail.

Democracy in my opinion only functions when the people are smart and well-informed. If the people are stupid and/or ignorant (and most of the time they are), the next best choice is a constitutional monarchy with a good monarch as that completely eliminates public opinion from the political equation while also limiting the monarch via a constitution.

It's basically deciding who to place the burden of responsibility on: The head of state and government, or the people?

Actually I recently read somewhere (somewhere being a pretty bad thing to say. Though I'm fairly certain it was either in my local paper (VN) or the biggest Swedish language newspaper in the country (HBL)) that on a national level the fact that the "silent majority" is "ignorant and stupid" ensures democracy by making sure active fringe groups don't get too much traction. Basically the stupid and the ignorant vote for the guys that... well... the media tells them to. And generally that works out just fine.

It also had the counterpoint though that political activism on a local scale (municipal politics and the like) was a good thing because even though on a national scale informed politics might not always be the best thing, locally it always is :)

Or something like that. I wish I could find the article (it was an opinion piece though, probably based around some research but really. It probably wasn't fact nor presented as it. But the argument was convincing as arguments often are.)
author=Despain
of course that stuff exists. because the driving force in a proper libertarian government would the capitalist system—and the "central direction" that "historically created and advanced civilization" is still there and stonger than ever: the power of money.
Are you talking about the power of the bottom line?
I'm not anti-capitalism or anything. Actually, I'm very capitalist. It's just that I don't see any relevant examples of the free market advancing environmental, health, or safety issues in any meaningful way. Somewhere along the way, the social issues are ignored.
You could make an argument for health and safety, since it's a boon to protect the valuable workforce assets. But with the general laborers, the world has a glut of them. As far as supply/demand goes for menial tasks, you could take advantage of the Free Market by doing it Chinese style : Little-to-no safety standards and whoever dies is replaced the next day.
For environmental, people have never had a problem with polluting somewhere else to advance their own situation, and I don't necessarily mean in the monetary sense (NIMBY). Again, without some governing authority to lay and enforce laws, what do you do if BigNatGas Inc destroys your town's water table while selling elsewhere? A boycott won't work...

author=KingArthur
Democracy in my opinion only functions when the people are smart and well-informed.

My personal belief is that the fundamental problem with the entire world is the abundance of uneducated or undereducated people. If people had a properly developed critical thought process, the human race could probably make any system work. Even dopey communism.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I'm not anti-capitalism or anything. Actually, I'm very capitalist. It's just that I don't see any relevant examples of the free market advancing environmental, health, or safety issues in any meaningful way. Somewhere along the way, the social issues are ignored.
You could make an argument for health and safety, since it's a boon to protect the valuable workforce assets. But with the general laborers, the world has a glut of them. As far as supply/demand goes for menial tasks, you could take advantage of the Free Market by doing it Chinese style : Little-to-no safety standards and whoever dies is replaced the next day.
For environmental, people have never had a problem with polluting somewhere else to advance their own situation, and I don't necessarily mean in the monetary sense (NIMBY). Again, without some governing authority to lay and enforce laws, what do you do if BigNatGas Inc destroys your town's water table while selling elsewhere? A boycott won't work...

1 you talk like i want to destroy the government completely. SAFETY would be government regulated, like it is now (except maybe a little more lenient). the purpose of government is to keep the people and property safe from physical harm.

2 environmental concerns aren't an issue anymore. GOING GREEN is a massive thing and on today's market BEING GREEN is an effective marketing strategy and business plan on its own. people eat that shit up. ENVIRONMENTALISM is so engrained in people's minds (example: you brought it up!) that it's nearly impossible to go back.

3 what do you mean by "health issues"? capitalism is an incredible driving force for the advancement of medical technology. also hospitals and doctors operate for profit. the businesses who do the most for health make the biggest profit. i don't really understand how a free market WOULDNT advance health issues.
Dudesoft
always a dudesoft, never a soft dude.
6309
I used to be very Liberal when I was younger. EQUALITY! yadda yadda. However, Canadian Liberals are bunch of self-serving assholes. So, I'm pro Conservative now. Not sure what that means for USA politics.
edit: I even remember my turning point. When Bob Rae joined the Liberal party. Goodbye faith in Liberals... We need Bob Rae in power again like we need another economy crisis. Oh wait, same thing.
I'm glad we agree one #1.

But...
author=Despain
2 environmental concerns aren't an issue anymore. GOING GREEN is a massive thing and on today's market BEING GREEN is an effective marketing strategy and business plan on its own. people eat that shit up. ENVIRONMENTALISM is so engrained in people's minds (example: you brought it up!) that it's nearly impossible to go back.

Two major points about this.
The first is that the movement began because of a huge government push. Kyoto, carbon credits, etc. All that shit. You could argue that it began with the hypocrit Al Gore, but his movie's goal was to influence public policy.
Second, most of the so-called green movement is heavily subsidised and dependant on government handouts to maintain relevancy. None of the green energy technologies have gone anywhere in the standalone private sector, and actual efforts to go green on ordinary products are usually token gestures : 5% less mercury.
And how did you like your environmental protection in regards to the BP oil spill?

#3 referred more to the availability of facilities. Doctors and nurses may travel and practise wherever, but can you really be in favor of a system where hospital directors have money to make, and if you can't afford the treatment then you'll just have to die?

author=Dudesoft
I used to be very Liberal when I was younger. EQUALITY! yadda yadda. However, Canadian Liberals are bunch of self-serving assholes. So, I'm pro Conservative now.

You're spinning your wheels.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives are whores to the same powers that be who control the US. The ignorant, uninformed vote maintains the back-and-forth so that no real change can ever be enacted.
I could go into a tirade about how F'ed up Canada's system is, but I'll just say we're a long way from any meaningful political change. We'll just have to go along with whatever the US wants us to do. North American Union, much?

he first is that the movement began because of a huge government push. Kyoto, carbon credits, etc. All that shit. You could argue that it began with the hypocrit Al Gore, but his movie's goal was to influence public policy.


how is that relevant? nobody's going to be developing a time travel machine.

Second, most of the so-called green movement is heavily subsidised and dependant on government handouts to maintain relevancy.


hey hey it seems like you're solving our nations problems. i'm for cutting environmentalism bullshit and getting this country out of debt. i don't believe in government handouts anyway.

And how did you like your environmental protection in regards to the BP oil spill?


what? the BP oil spill was fine—a couple of animals died big whoop. people blow that shit out of proportion.

it seems like the whole purpose of the environmentalism bullshit is to please the liberals who whine about cute baby seals (don't even start about tree cutting either because the same companies that cut down trees plant news one in their place to build a steady supply—it's how the business works and tree-hugging environmentalism is complete hippy bullshit).

environmentalism as a THING has been GROSSLY EXAGGERATED. it shouldn't be a political issue at all. if people want to save the environment then there's nobody stopping them from doing it. aside from aiding in the prevention and recovery of natural disasters (hurricanes and shit), leave environmental protection out of my government. it's a waste of tax dollars.

#3 referred more to the availability of facilities. Doctors and nurses may travel and practise wherever, but can you really be in favor of a system where hospital directors have money to make, and if you can't afford the treatment then you'll just have to die?


sounds good to me.
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
My personal belief is that the fundamental problem with the entire world is the abundance of uneducated or undereducated people. If people had a properly developed critical thought process, the human race could probably make any system work. Even dopey communism.
I agree. ( ̄▽ ̄)ノ

Doctors and nurses may travel and practise wherever, but can you really be in favor of a system where hospital directors have money to make, and if you can't afford the treatment then you'll just have to die?
Putting aside the emotional appeal of healthcare for a second, it's basically one not being able to afford something and thus can't obtain it. I don't see the problem there.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
Even when life's in stake? (it's impossible to put the "emotional appeal", that I would simply call reality aside).
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3154
author=Despain
what? the BP oil spill was fine—a couple of animals died big whoop. people blow that shit out of proportion.
Please don't talk about things you don't understand. I mean this in the sincerest way possible.

This goes for most people in this thread, actually. (Myself included, don't worry. I'll put my hands up and say I don't actually know what a libertarian is.)
author=Yellow Magic
author=Despain
what? the BP oil spill was fine—a couple of animals died big whoop. people blow that shit out of proportion.
Please don't talk about things you don't understand.


skimming this confirms what i said—animals died: As of November 2, 2010, 6,814 dead animals had been collected, including 6,104 birds, 609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 other reptile.

no humans, though.

also according to your article a bunch of businesses and tourism suffered too and that's pretty upsetting i suppose.

but that was one ACCIDENT and people love to go crazy talking about shit like that like it's the end of the world. accidents are irrelevent in political debate. there will always be accidents.
author=Despain
Does personal property still exist? Do the Old Money types get to keep and spend their legacy fortunes? How do you prevent land/resource cartels? Doesn't the loss of central direction prevent the construction of infrastructure projects that historically created and advanced civilisation?
of course that stuff exists. because the driving force in a proper libertarian government would the capitalist system—and the "central direction" that "historically created and advanced civilization" is still there and stonger than ever: the power of money.

but...capitalism can only exist when there is a powerful state to enforce balance, parity and anti-cheating measures... :/
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
author=chana
Even when life's in stake? (it's impossible to put the "emotional appeal", that I would simply call reality aside).

Human life (or rather life itself) doesn't have any exceedingly special worth and I simply fail to see the difference between paying for a hamburger I'm going to eat and paying for medical treatment.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
That's a very special point of view, or you must be very rich. It's not a coïncidence if housing, healthcare and education are free (or almost) in socialist, and plainly, a lot of countries, it's because those services are the most essental/vital ones
Hey Billwilliams, I haven't forgotten about your promise :O Good luck surviving the Christmas->Boxing Day->New Years stretch.

author=Despain
Stuff

Stuff

I had an epiphany after some retrospect.
You'd already mentioned that you weren't all about abolishment of government. I don't know why I decided to be disagreeable afterward, since you and I share a lot of eye to eye.
My beef is with the von Mises indoctrinated meat heads who think that if we did a blanket wipeout of government, everything would magically work out. You should know the type. They're the ones who say "Tax is Theft", and love to prattle on about the immoral Monopoly of Force. Either unknowingly or consciously denying it, they support leveraged buyouts and corporate raiders, as well as speculative capital driving up the costs of the necessities of life. They also support learning mandarin so that we can understand what our new bosses are going to be telling us.
Free market is unarguably the way to go for matters of invention, technological advancement and forms of intellectual property. Resource management, maybe not so much.

FYI, I still think some level of socialised healthcare is necessary. Letting some single mom's kid die because she can't afford the bill is a form of persecution, and the lack of ethics involved will eventually bite the society back.
But in my twisted mind, I imagine a profitable Nation-State that pays dividends in the form of social systems and proper enviro/safety regulations. Maybe I just have too many optimistic ideas for humans.

author=Despain
what? the BP oil spill was fine—a couple of animals died big whoop. people blow that shit out of proportion.

Corexit, the chemical most used to clean it up, is toxic and believed to be carcinogenic. If the carcinogenic part is true, we won't really see effects in humans for 10 years or so. But I assure you, it'll return to the headlines eventually.
But if you don't believe it and think everyone is just blowing hot air, there are some great deals on coastal real estate in Florida. I wonder why.



I remember reading about the political system used in Switzerland. It's referred to as Direct Democracy and everything is done in a quasi-referendum style. They still have ridings like we do, but they're so small that people know their elected reps on a first name basis. The ability of big business/finance to influence public policy is seriously minimised by the level of de-centralisation. It also keeps the populace involved and engaged, and results in some very progressive developments like Switzerland not having a standing army, and gun laws that look like the US 2nd Amendment on steroids.
I don't know why I brought this up.