1. okay, lets take welfare for example noone is going to deem that as necessary besides the people who need it, and cant pay for it. I do agree with this in some respects, mainly due to overpopulation. Under libertarian control its not an even playing field from the start and the poor will die off due to not being able to house themselves and feed themselves regularly. 2. its an imperfect system, most assuredly, but its set up this way and everyone does vote for the idiots in office. Your not limited to republican or democrat, but people just choose one or the other, maybe out of habit. The two party thing is really dumb imo. It just needs to become more of a democracy, people need to be able to choose how the money will be spent, by popular vote. And government needs to be held accountable in some way for making the obvious wrong choices (stupid 'war' and especially the idiotic bailouts) In a more perfect society GWBush would have never been elected and bailouts would have never been passed. 3. i dont understand how not maintaining roads is a reflection of how much importance we place in them, if its left to local governments cross country travel would take longer.....companies would most likely be backing the road systems and introducing tolls everywhere. Our government provides conveiniece, libertarian rule doesnt allow for most of the things usually taken for granted fuck this, the more i argue this the most your side makes sense, damn libertarian voodoo, lol. i dont agree with government not being involved with families, nor do i agree with the education part, and especially the "hate crime" part. Making many of the conveniences we have today run under charitable donations seems silly. Im not charitable at all. But i dont understand how a country could function in today's world under Libertarian rule. Unity would crumble and we would be weak. We would undoubtedly break into smaller and smaller countries because theres no way to support its infrastructure.
Why would it be better for minorities in a Libertarian run state ? If you take away the protections that minorities have at the moment then surely things would revert to the way they were without said protections... Yip.. Wonder about that myself.. 20 years ago in Ireland they were all over the shop too... They used to have tents at music festivals where they would feed everybody and went around collecting those that had over indulged.. I woke up in a tent myself with a Krishna mopping my brow once..
I didn't say anything about taking away their protections, they would still be protected under the law as anyone else would be. I said end the nanny state and all of its entitlement programs and give every person an even playing field. We are all equal, why should any one race get preferential treatment? That philosophy in and of itself is racist. That's suggesting minorities are inferior and can't survive on an equal level. Of course there are some walks of society that do need help, the physically and mentally challenged for instance. And I'm not saying get rid of all government programs, some are needed and benefit the society as a whole. Programs such as job training and placement, etc. As for the Krishna's.....about 25 years ago or so, the feds busted a huge compound of them down in west Virginia of all places, that's when the started disappearing, i ain't seen one in years.
I believe that's because the state tried to force racism under the rug, instead of allowing the people to deal with it. Coercion breeds resentment. Starting with the civil war, and then the Jim crow laws, and then the certain provisions of the civil rights act... the state has been trying to manage race relations but only mucked it up. That's happening currently, but I don't think it would be the same if we were a libertarian society where every individual was held to the same standards. I didn't say that. If we do have free schools they should be paid for voluntarily, or at least locally. The Dept of Education blows is all I said. Marriage is a religious union, it has nothing to do with the state. I'm still confused. Are you saying that without the legal repurcussions of divorce people would be getting them more frequently? Why are divorces more common now than ever? Hobbesians believe people need to be taken care of by the state and are inherently evil, Lockeans believe people are best governed by natural law and themselves. Not all libertarians are anarchists, I'm sure we agree on a lot of things.
Where would you draw the line though ? Would those that are not able to care for themselves be looked after by the state ? For instance someone that has worked hard all his life but after an accident say while playing football gets paralyzed and is unable to provide for his young family. He made the mistake of not being insured for such an event and now finds himself in serious trouble. A Libertarian state would not provide for him and would he have to depend on some other individuals charity.
So, your solution to this issue (bolded) would be to take money by force (coercion) in order to help this poor fellow? I have a hard time believing that you can't see the obvious problems with this solution. If I was wrong about "your solution" to this problem, then please enlighten me. If not by charity (read: voluntary exchange), then isn't the only other option force/coercion? How can you believe that a state that uses coercion against innocent, hard-working people will be anything but oppressive (especially in the long run)?
So it would be survival of the fittest. One stupid mistake and you are on the scrapheap. Sounds harsh to me. Force and coercion are very dramatic words. Why not use taxes ? I have no problem with a lot of Libertarian ideology but have concerns about some thinking. Why is not possible to have taxes to fund your fellow brothers and sisters that fall upon hard times ? A lot of government has got very fat and demands major trimming and a lot could be got rid of. But i cannot see how society could function without some guarantees and essential services.
Life's not fair. Sorry. Because, in general, it's the same fucking thing. It's possible alright, just immoral. And I'm not really a big believer in entitlements so, you're working with a tough crowd here. Life's not fair. No one owes you anything, especially not a doctor, or a grocer or anyone else who works for an honest living and tries to contribute to society.
What about transport ? If it is left up to private business to build roads and provide public transport they would only be interested in profitable routes. What about individuals that live off the beaten track ? Would they be forced to relocate to somewhere on the "Coca Cola Highway" ? Who would regulate such forms of transport ? Would all the privately owned means of transport all have their own rules and regulations not to mention police/security ? What about the National Parks ? Would they be taken over by private business ? Would we see Yellowstone cut down because the timber is worth so much ?
I hate to say it, but it is kind of survival of the fittest. This same thing applies to minorities. There is a libertarian parable called The Price of Free Corn. It is about how wild animals can be tamed by supplying them with free corn. These minorities are disadvantaged because, at least in modern America, have never had to provide for themselves. The few that chose to actually provide for themselves do very well. It isn't simply minorities, either. Poor white people are provided for in the same fashion, and they are just as bad off. Living off of food stamps with no education, working minimum wage jobs because this is what the system was designed to do. Take away the free corn and see how many people want to work the poor service jobs for the rest of the country... Also, why not talk about the war on drugs? Another huge hindrance for minorities or impoverished people in general. Race maps of America | Mail Online Do you think that happens just because? I think it happens because the war on drugs takes innocent family men and puts them in jail for having weed or crack. These people that are being imprisoned have families to support that end up dependent on the state once they are jailed. Now we have single mothers (if the mother isn't also jailed for drug possession) trying to raise children who's only role model is now in prison on drug charges. The family goes on food stamps, welfare, etc. and can never get out of the rut. Not to mention that more money goes to single parent families, even more of an incentive to break families apart. End the drug war, end state dependency, end all of it. If you really want a welfare system it needs to be designed so that it does not breed dependency on the state, which I don't think is honestly possible. I think that utilizing a system which breeds dependency on the state is far worse than not giving out welfare to begin with.
Sounds reasonable to me. Why would you expect roads to be built where they're bound to lose money? You also realize that there are organizations called non-profits, right? Not every private institution needs to be focused on shareholders, profits, etc. Forced? Is this a serious question? I think I've made my stance on "force" pretty clear when it comes to innocent people. People would regulate such forms of transport. As for the 2nd question, I'm not sure I'm really qualified to make such a prediction about the market. I'm sure that people who own means of transportation and feel they need to be policed, will hire police/security and institute their own rules/regulations as they see fit (supply and demand). As someone who doesn't really have any interest in owning and maintaining a means of transport, I'm not really interested in explaining exactly what it would entail. Timber wouldn't be worth so much if it wasn't for the government (read: hemp). You'd think on a cannabis website, people would know all about how the government uses restrictions (read: regulatory capture) to drive prices up. I think this is sort of a ridiculous notion that our national parks would be decimated if it wasn't for the gubment to protect them. Yea, I'm sure all the greenies would just sit by and watch as Yellowstone was torn down tree by tree.
A Yellowstone coffee table would be worth a few bucks not to mention Yellowstone toothpicks.. Surely the new owner of Yellowstone say "Starbucks" would be entitled to do what they want with the park. Maybe they would chop down the trees and build a mega mega Starbucks land instead ? They would be entitled to protect their investment and shoot any greeners that attempted to prevent them from doing what they wanted. If they wanted to do this then would that not be their choice in a Libertarian society ? What about museums and such ? They would be dependent on charity to function. There would be nothing to stop a private individual buying and preventing others from seeing their contents. This cannot be a good thing. Would it not be better for all if such state run institutions stayed in government control ?
And I'm betting they would just decimate Yellowstone, then, because we wouldn't want such a profitable business to last. Yea, those guys who cut down trees never replant the trees. And other people would be entitled to whine about what he/she did with the park. Sounds like a crappy business venture to me. I don't think you'll be seeing any investment money from me. No, no, no... They would only be entitled to protect their investment so long as they don't harm any innocent people. If the greeners are going to trespass on their property, then yes, they should expect to be met with force. Yes. Good is subjective. If someone wants to purchase a museum and prevent people from enjoying it, then that's morally acceptable. TBH, though this individual sounds like an idiot. I wonder how he got so rich that he can just buy museums to shut them down. Surely, honest people would be a little hesitant to do business with such an obvious prick. Nope. It would be better for people to act voluntarily in order to preserve freedom.
I totally agree with ending the war on drugs. It is a waste of lives and resources. Legalizing all drugs (perhaps with restrictions on some) could only benefit everyone.. I would be very concerned that without a means of government support for those that cannot support themselves that there could be great pain and suffering. What about the children of those that depend on welfare ? They would not be able to care for themselves and would in a sense be helpless. Would they not be driven to crime to survive ? Charity could quite easily turn into what we had before welfare - Work houses etc..
Can you tell me a place that treat minorities or immigrants better than the USA Currently Does? And before it happens. " Are you kidding me!? USA IS THE WORST PLACE ITS OBVIOUS." Is not a valid response, i mean specific example.
Never even suggested that the US was not a good place for any minority group ?? There are a lot of laws regarding minority groups in the US and i was merely asking what would happen if these protections/supports were removed.
Then im confused. I dont understand why you think libertarians want to remove protection from minorities? Libertarians would like to emphasize the governments role in this type of instance. Only beause its what the constitution calls for. Libertarians don't want to take away from the constitution, they just want to limit government to what constituion calls for, and nothing more. Perhaps you have a differing view on the concept of "protection" for minorities?
Interesting... I think you are confusing Libertarians with Constitutionalists. Libertarians are i believe in favor of one rule for all.. No protections or special rights for any minority. Equal treatment for all. No civil rights legislation etc etc... Constitutionalists
I think libertarians in America do not really differ from constituionalists. There are more "extreme" ( for lack of a better word) examples of libertarianism. However i think its safe to say most libertarians in America accept the Constitution as a well planned guideline for applying a libertarian type of government. Perhaps your confusing libertarianism with anarchism (they are indeed related). Or perhaps your trying to very specifically define something when no completely specific description fits. Libertarians in the USA want to take a libertarian sided approach to define the role of our government and its application. Trying to define americans as "constitutionalist" or "Libertarian" in a way that seperates them is not practical. Correct. No special rights for ANYBODY. One rule for all IS the civil rights legislation lol that seems pretty self apparent.
Do you think a business owner should be able to put a sign such as this in the window of his shop and choose to not allow said minorities into his store ?