Libertarians

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dubaba, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. Ah yes, what a better way to solve an inefficient bureaucracy than to add some more bureaucracy :rolleyes:.
     

  2. couldn't be further from the truth. in a lassez-faire economy you are assuming, correctly, that there is no such thing as "perfect" market conditions and therefore it is beyond asinine to attempt to centrally plan for such a fantastical thing. the only way the market can respond to the ever changing chaos that is the free market is to be free. any attempt to plan or regulate the market creates inefficiencies, which raise price, reduce supply, etc

    your take on mises and the other an-caps is juvenile to say the least. you are oversimplifying "self interest" into "aggression and brutality". you are tilting at windmills or using an absurd emotional appeal. either way i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish

    you are right that human nature is a very hotly debated issue. one facet, however, is not; humans across the globe resist being forced to do anything. any economic or political system not based on voluntary participation is immoral. i will never voluntarily participate in a socialism. and i am not the only one.
     

  3. ahh but that is not it,

    it is replacing inefficient bureaucracy with efficient bureaucracy.
    :)
     

  4. efficient bureaucracy?

    Sounds like an oxymoron. :)
     
  5. Why do you think you have the right to tell me how much I am allowed to earn?
     

  6. I'm not debating the rest of your post but, there is no such thing as morals.

    Firstly, morals are simply an indication of a person or societies tolerance for different things.

    Secondly, morals vary vastly. many muslim women find the way US women dress immoral, and many americans think 'forcing' (in some cases) women to cover their hair immoral.
    In reality, neither is 'moral' so to speak because of point 1.

    Thirdly, rarely are your morals your own, rather than the product of your upbringing and environment. The same as religion, often morals depend on environment rather than choice.

    Finally, we are all moral hypocrites, and it is rare to find someone who hasn't blatantly gone against their morals for their own gain.

    In conclusion, talking about morals is generally a person regurgitating societal or environmental standards of tolerance that they were raised in, and regardless of how sacredly we hold them, they are not any more correct or representative of 'real' morality. Morals are a fraud and a meek justification of the intolerance of an individual, group, or society.

    Carry on :smoke:
     

  7. interesting you say that, although landing on the moon was pretty impressive bureaucracy. It is not always one or the other, and almost always a combination of the two. It is the difference between ideologues and free thinkers.
     

  8. Why do you think you have the right to earn anything at all as a member of this country, if the populace feels you shouldn't? Unless you support autocracy of yourself. Then leave and create a new nation, or go to war with this one. Good luck sir
     
  9. I hate to be a dick, but you contradicted yourself.
     

  10. Why would the populace have control over my life? What if the populace decides I should die my hair pink? Should I be obligated by law to do so? No, of course not. Just like it's none of their business what product I choose to put in my hair, it's none of their business how much gold, or how many colored pieces of paper I wish to store in a safe, a bank, or any were.
     
  11. Alright I'll break it down Barney style.


    No

    If people have to do it through a central government, it's not voluntary. If the government doesn't yield enough power to enforce itself as the central arbiter of trade - what good is it to your system?

    This sounds like a monopoly on trade. What if the people create a more productive means of trade? What is the governments role then? What about the costs incurred by the government? That would inflate the cost of trade.

    What about the trade and exchange of ideas? I would say right now we are engaged in a fairly unrestricted trade of ideas and time with one another. Would we have to go through a central government to have every conversation to exchange ideas?


    Currency was invented as a solution to this problem. It keeps computer programmers from having to find farmers who want a relational database management system in order to buy some eggs.

    How is this better than free trade? Doesn't sound too convenient to me.

    Also who defines the needs of the people? Why can't each person just define their own needs?


    What does 'you exchange energy from an existing solar panel for supplies built by someone else' if you need an existing solar panel to build a solar panel how does the first solar panel get built? Who takes the risk to create it?

    So there would be a common vote mediated by government to determine the value of goods? How do you know when to take a second, third or fourth vote to determine the value of the good over time? How do the people in government know they are deciding the correct value?


    What if you aspire to have more than a simple and humble home and you are willing to bring great wealth and prosperity to large number of people or increase the standard of living of many people in order to get it? Where does the food automatically come from? Who makes it? Who distributes it? Where do those resources come from? What if your family isn't like every other family and needs more than one car?

    It sounds like you think one size shoe is all the world needs and if you don't fit that shoe then too bad.


    What happens when someone gains a giant house and everyone else still has the first house? Or what happens when 98% of people have a giant house and 2% have a small house? Those people are living in poverty now and you are responsible for it because you put them in that house. Do you take from everyone in giant houses to increase the poor's standard of living? I think that would hurt the motivation for productivity.


    What makes 50% credit the correct amount of credit for every person in society? Why not 60% or 30%? What's the difference? How are you arriving at that number? Where does that money come from? Who is paying for the other 50%?


    What if you don't want to farm or use solar panels?


    Says who? Prove it.
     

  12. :hello: haha naw i meant that what people call morals are xyz.

    and that 'morals' aren't really real.
     

  13. Well if you don't like democracy you could... leave?
     
  14. They are very 'real'. Are ideas not real?
     

  15. Only if you believe government owns the land and not people :rolleyes:
     
  16. But the government is the people, mannn. :rolleyes:
     

  17. Or you know.... maybe you could?! =o
     
  18. Must ..... link ........ anarcho cap ..... circle jerk ...... images
     

  19. Yes, I am vastly oversimplifying the Anarcho-Capitalists, but you guys here are all experts, I don't need to elaborate. :D

    The consumer's self-interest sometime isn't always correct. For example, somebody eats fast-food 5 or more times a week, and they aren't really monitoring their diet as they should. Though buying fast-food is cheaper in the short-term, it is almost always more expensive in the longterm. However, most people in America don't do this. They just take their asses to McDonald's et al. For the An-Cap economy to work, one must infer that human beings are always rational beings. Which isn't really true.

    Also, about your point on coercion- Humans are social animals, and to live in a community of people, one will have to make some sacrifices. That doesn't mean that it's liscense for the masses to enforce their will on every facet of your life, but nevertheless, one must make sacrifices. Say if somebody is getting pressured by their neighbor for using clothesline; I'd be the first one to defend the clothesline.
     

Share This Page