|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2015 21:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 21:32 Wegandi wrote:As for Clinton(s), they/she have so many scandals and lack of ethics I can't believe how even 15% of the public can 'trust' her. For those who haven't been around since Whitewater...here's a good run-down. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/clinton-scandals-the-nineties-113905.html#.VTuI1e90y00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversyThey're nearly on par with being as bad as the Bush's (and we all know about their bankrolling of Hitler, right?). For me it's no surprise they/she are willing to throw away any semblance of ethics for a bit of $$$ and power even if that means handing over uranium to the same countries that are supposed 'enemies' or that we're 'sanctioning'. It's such a laughingstock that they continue to do the same damn stuff for 30 years and those who are ignorant of their history buy the idiocy that it was a simple 'mistake' or 'coincidence'. LMAO. They're so dirty they make Nixon look clean. The other part of this is that the most ethical politician of the past 100 years Ron Paul was so demonized and mocked and was 'quixotic', yet people are willing to give the Clintons and Bush's power? My god, my fellow Americans are beyond the pale. Excellent, I wondered how long it'd take someone to bring up Whitewater! Here's a better, sourced rundown that isn't a politico article. + Show Spoiler +The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s. A March 1992 New York Times article published during the U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons—then governor and first lady of Arkansas—had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, owned by McDougal. She looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but she continued to pursue it. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1994. David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that as governor of Arkansas, Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] Clinton supporters regarded Hale's allegations as questionable, as Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment for this in 1993 did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation did result in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project, but the Clintons themselves were never prosecuted, as three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal.[5] Bill Clinton's successor as governor, Jim Guy Tucker, was also convicted and served time in prison for his role in the fraud. Susan McDougal later served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer any questions relating to Whitewater, and was granted a pardon by President Clinton just before he left office. Whitewater controversyAnd in regards to everyone's favorite Randroid, given your inability to understand how folks might prefer Clinton over Paul, I think it's time to get your hands dirty. + Show Spoiler +lol yeahhhh, he even mentions your favorite railroad baron, Mr. "The Government Won't Let Me Own a Common Carrier" himself, Lysander Spooner! Whoop whoop. How could anyone prefer those horrible Bush and Clinton folk to that?
Your source is copy and pasted Wikipedia. I'm not saying politico is great or anything (in fact, I quite dislike them, but hey...), but are you seriously disputing that the Clintons are dirty? I mean, they have about 40 different ethical skeletons in the closet. I mean Hillary was fired from the Watergate investigation for being dirty for crying out loud. Your partisan blinders are thick.
Before you wade into a discussion perhaps you should get your facts in line. Spooner never owned a railroad. He operated his own mail service and made the USPS look like the rip you off monopoly it was and still is. For someone who hates monopolies you seem keen on State-monopolies for some odd reason. That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'. Such an odd viewpoint.
Yes, how could anyone possibly want a Lysander Spooner over Hillary Rodham Clinton.....
|
On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously.
|
On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously.
No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State?
|
On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State?
True socialism is against the existence of the state ...
|
On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State?
Yes.
|
On April 25 2015 23:04 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? Yes.
Elaboration is needed. Who is competing with NHS for example? Who is competing with the USPS for letter mail? Who is competing with your countries military for defense services?
|
On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ...
No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism.
|
On April 25 2015 23:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:04 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? Yes. Elaboration is needed. Who is competing with NHS for example? Who is competing with the USPS for letter mail? Who is competing with your countries military for defense services?
NHS is a monopoly. England is not socialist. NHS is therefore not socialist either. Socialism has to do with social ownership of means of production, not with nationalistion.
|
On April 25 2015 22:28 oneofthem wrote:
"undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties"
this would be the libertarian gloss on the situation, but reality is that these societies simply enforce existing and highly oppressive distribution of property and economic power. of course, the poor landless farmers would be 'free' to exercise whatever liberties accorded to property to the same degree the owner of his farm gets, but it's very obvious to see that this is a pretty illberal situation.
The major problem of Democratic Greece actually was the above, and no ones property is safe when it is up to the whim of public sentiment. Your caricature of what you think libertarianism is, is pretty hilarious actually. For one, let's take the scenario you paint above of serfdom and the landlord. In the first place, this scenario would not exist under libertarian principles, and secondly, given the fact it had, libertarian policy would give to the peasant that which was rightfully his. Let's take a more modern example. I'm in favor of returning indian lands back to the tribes, as they are the rightful owners. In fact, libertarian solutions to a host of things is about as far from 'status quo' as the other extreme of State-socialism. There would be a huge land distribution shift to their rightful owners. Things all ready socialized such as roads and what not. There is extensive libertarian writing on the subject and if you took the time to actually understand then you wouldn't write such drivel.
|
On April 25 2015 23:16 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:12 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? Yes. Elaboration is needed. Who is competing with NHS for example? Who is competing with the USPS for letter mail? Who is competing with your countries military for defense services? NHS is a monopoly. England is not socialist. NHS is therefore not socialist either. Socialism has to do with social ownership of means of production, not with nationalistion.
Vagaries. What does social ownership even mean? Are corporations socialist because of share-holders and boards? Or, by social you mean the entire population of a certain geographical territory? In what ways? You're trying to call syndicalism socialism. After-all, anyone can buy shares into 'publically' traded companies - how is that not social ownership? You're going to have to define your terms in more exact language.
Also, what would you call the NHS then? Don't tell me you're going to say Capitalism lmao.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 25 2015 23:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 22:28 oneofthem wrote:
"undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties"
this would be the libertarian gloss on the situation, but reality is that these societies simply enforce existing and highly oppressive distribution of property and economic power. of course, the poor landless farmers would be 'free' to exercise whatever liberties accorded to property to the same degree the owner of his farm gets, but it's very obvious to see that this is a pretty illberal situation. The major problem of Democratic Greece actually was the above, and no ones property is safe when it is up to the whim of public sentiment. Your caricature of what you think libertarianism is, is pretty hilarious actually. For one, let's take the scenario you paint above of serfdom and the landlord. In the first place, this scenario would not exist under libertarian principles, and secondly, given the fact it had, libertarian policy would give to the peasant that which was rightfully his. Let's take a more modern example. I'm in favor of returning indian lands back to the tribes, as they are the rightful owners. In fact, libertarian solutions to a host of things is about as far from 'status quo' as the other extreme of State-socialism. There would be a huge land distribution shift to their rightful owners. Things all ready socialized such as roads and what not. There is extensive libertarian writing on the subject and if you took the time to actually understand then you wouldn't write such drivel.
since my situation is hypothetical unless you prove that disparate ownership or types of ownership (such as land) won't create the situation as i described, you would be at a loss. the basic point is that even under perfect libertarianism there will be social situations that are decidedly illberal due to the inherent problem associated with their version of naive property rights.
there's not much to study about austrians etc, it's very simple stuff.
|
On April 25 2015 23:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:16 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 23:12 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 23:04 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? Yes. Elaboration is needed. Who is competing with NHS for example? Who is competing with the USPS for letter mail? Who is competing with your countries military for defense services? NHS is a monopoly. England is not socialist. NHS is therefore not socialist either. Socialism has to do with social ownership of means of production, not with nationalistion. Vagaries. What does social ownership even mean? Are corporations socialist because of share-holders and boards? Or, by social you mean the entire population of a certain geographical territory? In what ways? You're trying to call syndicalism socialism. After-all, anyone can buy shares into 'publically' traded companies - how is that not social ownership? You're going to have to define your terms in more exact language. Also, what would you call the NHS then? Don't tell me you're going to say Capitalism lmao.
The fact that it is undefinied is precisely the point (and the problem for socialist obviously) ! I'm not trying to call syndicalism socialism. It certainly isn't because of share-holders, unless the share-holders happen to be the workers. Anyone can as long have they have the money, therefore it's not anyone. Plus the idea is not that it's anyone, it's that is... well, the workers.
Here's wikipedia for you : "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.
If you want my personnal opinion, I'd say at the moment I'm closest to council communism, cooperative ownership of the means of production, and more Athen-type democracy (drawing lots included).
I'd have no qualms calling a state-monopoly capitalist, why not. You're free to disagree though (that's also kind of the point) Anyway, here I'd say publicly founded, state organized, centralized, maybe even socialized (because it is vaguer !), but certainly not socialist.
|
On April 25 2015 23:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:20 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:28 oneofthem wrote:
"undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties"
this would be the libertarian gloss on the situation, but reality is that these societies simply enforce existing and highly oppressive distribution of property and economic power. of course, the poor landless farmers would be 'free' to exercise whatever liberties accorded to property to the same degree the owner of his farm gets, but it's very obvious to see that this is a pretty illberal situation. The major problem of Democratic Greece actually was the above, and no ones property is safe when it is up to the whim of public sentiment. Your caricature of what you think libertarianism is, is pretty hilarious actually. For one, let's take the scenario you paint above of serfdom and the landlord. In the first place, this scenario would not exist under libertarian principles, and secondly, given the fact it had, libertarian policy would give to the peasant that which was rightfully his. Let's take a more modern example. I'm in favor of returning indian lands back to the tribes, as they are the rightful owners. In fact, libertarian solutions to a host of things is about as far from 'status quo' as the other extreme of State-socialism. There would be a huge land distribution shift to their rightful owners. Things all ready socialized such as roads and what not. There is extensive libertarian writing on the subject and if you took the time to actually understand then you wouldn't write such drivel. since my situation is hypothetical unless you prove that disparate ownership or types of ownership (such as land) won't create the situation as i described, you would be at a loss. the basic point is that even under perfect libertarianism there will be social situations that are decidedly illberal due to the inherent problem associated with their version of naive property rights. there's not much to study about austrians etc, it's very simple stuff.
Well the fact that Non-Proviso Lockean principles were the driving force for ending serfdom would tell a different story. You keep making it seem like today's situation is remotely libertarian, which can't be further from the truth. I mean, something as huge as abolishing IP and copyright which is a libertarian idea would have huge positive repercussions. Perhaps you should go here for some good reading Center for a Stateless Society.
|
On April 25 2015 23:14 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 23:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2015 23:00 Wegandi wrote:On April 25 2015 22:58 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 25 2015 22:57 Wegandi wrote:
That's actually what socialism is. Unbridled monopoly only instead of 'private' it is 'public'.
And you don't own the meaning of socialism either. Seriously. No one owns language it is a social construct. Are you telling me in socialism that there is a provider of services other than the State? True socialism is against the existence of the state ... No it isn't. Perhaps you meant communism.
Nono socialism. Socialism was at first the idea that people should have direct control over capital, even back in its utopian days with Fourier or Owen. It's the workers that were supposed to have direct control over their means of production, the state is nothing but an intermediary and was not even mentionned or negatively - as a tool dominated by the bourgeoisie.
Communism is not very far from socialism from a theorical standpoint btw. Marx for exemple use scientific socialism and communism as synonymes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are not really getting my point. not talking about any particular time period, but focusing on the body of correct rules of acquisition and transfers in propertarian systems, the precise social state is underdetermined. the range of possible outcomes is very wide and may include illberal situations.
|
On April 26 2015 00:19 oneofthem wrote:
you are not really getting my point. not talking about any particular time period, but focusing on the body of correct rules of acquisition and transfers in propertarian systems, the precise social state is underdetermined. the range of possible outcomes is very wide and may include illberal situations.
If you're making the supposition that a society without licensing, without IP and copyright/patents, without zoning and safety regulatory schemas, without privileges and monopolies, with NP-Lockean principles as being epitome of inequity, well, there's not much else I can say, other than those are all examples of concentrations of wealth by artificial rent-seeking means. But, of course, this will never be a solution because it's 'ugly' and unseemly, to both progs and conservatives. It's why I get a rise out of people calling our current situation a libertarian problem. Never mind corporations being fictions created by the state in the first place, people actually have this inane belief that an entity created by the State will gain in more power by a movement that seeks to eliminate the State.
Just look at all the hatred for Uber. Then there is the huge change with fiat fictions held up by legal tender laws, which concentrate power and wealth to an unbelievable degree. Out of all of that, you think getting rid of these things will make things worse than what we have to contend with now?
Let price discovery happen naturally and let people make their own decisions in a free environment, and you'll see a huge human blossoming.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
my point is twofold,
libertarian principles underdetermine social outcome.
libertarian framework of rights has no expressive power to even recognize such injustices.
it's impossible for you to find a solution without adopting some measure of respect for social outcomes.
|
not to mention that libertarian support in the US is overwhelmingly white working class male with a minority of intellectuals thrown in. If it's such a great liberator for minorities I wonder why none of them actually support the cause
|
Norway28675 Posts
On April 25 2015 22:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2015 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Wegandi, I am seriously interested in your historical and empirical defense of the statement that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe liberty and freedom is. I am not disputing that it is possible to find some undemocratic societies that have highly valued certain freedoms and liberties (often in particular economic freedoms and liberties), and I'm not disputing that some democratic societies have put some restrictions on the same freedoms and liberties, but the notion that dictatorships have on average been less restrictive than democratic societies.. That statement blows my mind. For one, you certainly don't seem to value freedom of speech and expression highly, values that are nearly universally championed by democratic states and nearly universally combated by dictatorships. Frankly, I'm left with the impression that when you talk of freedom and liberty, you are solely talking about restrictions on economy, and then you confuse will with ability, and by noticing that more developed (coincides with more democratic) societies are more capable of enforcing economic regulations, you make the conclusion that more democracy equates to more regulation. And this is me trying to give you credit - the notion that non-economic freedoms and liberties are more protected in undemocratic than democratic societies is just factually wrong. I mean, look at this map + Show Spoiler +This is the 'democracy index'. Fully democratic nations are dark green, the less democratic the lighter green, the more authoritarian the darker red. You seriously want to claim that liberties and freedoms are less safe in the dark green than the dark red states? Before I being, I just want to say your post proves my prior post. The attributes you give Democracy are actually Republican principles, not Democratic. I'm much more inimical towards Democracy than Republicanism for instance. Things such as guaranteed recognition and obeyance of our natural rights are not Democratic ideals - in fact, they're pretty opposed. You can't vote away someone elses' right of self-defense, expression, etc. You're not defending democracy, you're defending republicanism. Similarly, when democracy is expanded and you're allowed to vote on a wider range of activities this tendency is to limit liberty and freedom. On a micro scale, entities like Homeowner's Associations which have a shit ton of democracy are atrocious at recognizing liberty. Scale this up to the nation-state and the trend becomes even worse. Imagine giving the population to vote for economic and personal policy. It would make the USSR look tame in comparison. A microcosm are the state referendums that generally come up and mostly tend to reduce our liberties. Also, just so you're aware I don't separate economic and personal liberty - it is all one principle of self-ownership. Good luck legalizing prostitution, gambling, vices in general, etc. especially in our 'safety' paranoid society. A good view on this is also socialized healthcare actually. When this happens as it all ready is in Europe for instance (and you should be aware of this) is that personal choice tends to be at the whim of popular will - that's the exact opposite of freedom. You think you're going to have legalized heroine or cocaine or insert other 'dangerous' 'addictive' activity in that environment? No. Democracy is essentially the unlimited expansion of this intrusion by your neighbors. Being able to vote on anything and everything as plurality law is unbridled Democracy. In fact, it is so extreme and dangerous that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone defend it. Now, I never said that our liberties are better protected in a 'dictatorship'. From a state perspective the best option is city-state republicanism and then 'enlightened' Monarchy is after that. The point was that liberal values aren't inherit part of Democracy. Now if you a modern day example take the Drug War. There were no drug wars going on in 18th Century monarchies for the most part. Similarly, early Rome the citizens had more overall liberty than say their Greek counterparts in Athens. Again, I'm talking in aggregate. Anyways, you still haven't answered my first statement - that the more Democratic a society is, the less safe freedom and liberty is. You're under the false assumption that there exists only Democracy and or Dictatorship. It's a false dichotomy.
To start off; I can see how my fuckup capitalizing Democratic meant 'attributed to politics favored by the democratic party' or whatever, and where your capitalization was actually a conscious choice because you wanted that meaning to be evident, where I actually meant 'democratic society as opposed to authoritarian' not in any way relating to the american political spectrum. Chalk it up to a linguistic misunderstanding on my behalf.  But yes, I initially interpreted you as to be saying that authoritarian regimes have on average through history been better for individual liberties than democratic societies. That would be a statement hinging on either a very weird understanding of world history, or a very selective understanding of personal liberties and freedoms.
As for the 'freedom' debate, I think we have a fundamental disagreement relating to like, where one freedom starts and another ends. It's one of the big and essential debates, where one's point of view normally permeates over to every other aspect of morality and preferred societal construct. I personally think that regulations are essential to maintain other freedoms (like the freedom to breathe clean air is contingent on environmental regulations on industry, like the freedom to pursue happiness is contingent on access to quality education, etc).
Anyway, I happily agree that Democratic ideals, as opposed to Republican, are more geared towards individuals changing for the betterment of society. (So creating the best society is the goal rather than always protecting individual freedoms and figuring that if people are not constrained then improvement comes as a natural consequence). I mean, these are simplifications, I do think Democratic ideals also concern themselves with the individuals within a society, and all but the most Thatcherite forms of Randism believe that society is a real thing which influences the people inhabiting it. But yes, there's certainly an element of republicans valuing freedom of choice and personal autonomy more. The 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' Kennedy quote is kinda the embodiment of this.
Which in other ways doesn't make sense, because when I see right wing I also see New Public Management and when I see New Public Management I see workers being stripped of professional autonomy, but oh well. That's another discussion altogether - but I've never seen any libertarian argument against NPM.
And finally, you mention 'Now if you a modern day example take the Drug War. There were no drug wars going on in 18th Century monarchies for the most part.'. Here, I just have to state that as much as I hate the war on drugs (and I've been a very avid champion of drug legalization for more than a decade), I would actually consider the British-Chinese Opium Wars even more societally damaging and intrinsically immoral, but the foundation of the Opium Wars was opposite-ish of the more modern War on Drugs?
|
On April 26 2015 00:35 oneofthem wrote:
my point is twofold,
libertarian principles underdetermine social outcome.
libertarian framework of rights has no expressive power to even recognize such injustices.
it's impossible for you to find a solution without adopting some measure of respect for social outcomes.
Who says libertarians do not care about such things? In fact, our prescriptions are the best remedies for many of these 'ills'. You want to help the poor? How about giving their labor a higher bargaining power via eliminating licensing, zoning, etc. Eliminate the welfare state and taxation and let them keep all their money. Mutual aid societies are far better at remedying those in tough-times. This isn't even close. The record on this front is out there.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iJQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=physicians in contract practice with benevolent societies&source=bl&ots=5u7jaU90TE&sig=uG9_3VlRV96hkulNYc8zyeJOJ1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1bY7VYWVCMX6oQThqYHgDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=physicians in contract practice with benevolent societies&f=false
The spectacle of reputable physicians underbidding each other to secure a contract is neither dignified nor professional...
This in regard to Lodge, Fraternal, and other Mutual Aid societies rendering services for poorer peoples, and just in general. This was before licensing, and the host of artificial raising of medical expenses. The AMA is a big fat rent-seeking fraud. This is just one example. To call libertarians uncaring is pretty ludicrous. We're also the most staunch anti-war folks out there precisely because of those libertarian principles you think don't have 'positive social outcomes'. Not much more need to be said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png/1280px-EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png)
