|
On January 05 2012 10:01 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:53 Haemonculus wrote:On January 05 2012 09:41 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 09:33 Haemonculus wrote:On January 05 2012 09:18 JeanLuc wrote:On January 05 2012 08:39 Haemonculus wrote:
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings. Its funny because the anti-libertarians are the ones who want to punish people for exercising their individual rights. They want to put people who get caught smoking weed too many times in jail to serve ridiculous overlengthy sentences. They allowed lobbyist groups to shut down Online Poker in the United States even though it is a perfectly legitimate past time in other NATO countries such as Canada, the UK. The current way of thinking says that you need to criminalize prostitution, even though many women choose of their own free will to go into prostitution because it can make them more money than doing some other forms of onerous work that they'd rather not do. When it comes to heavy handed punishments against people who are exercising freedoms that don't hurt anyone else, the current regime is much worse than a libertarian one. And for the record, I think the war on drugs is a joke, (and one that benefits private prisons especially), and that prostitution *should* be legal. My point was that the arguments being made for these opt-in systems is that "he fucked up, thus he deserves to lose his house". Like, why stop at private fire departments? Let's disband the police, and let people buy into private security companies. Perhaps the government shouldn't build roads, and let private companies build them and charge people to drive on them. Let's get rid of public sewage plants, and allow people to buy into programs to filter water. Etc etc etc etc. I simply do not see how these things can be practically applied to a modern society with 315 million people in it. I might actually support a lot of libertarian ideals if we lived in an *actual* fair society. The difference in opportunity between people born into wealth and people born into poverty is incomprehensible to too many people. That "50% of Americans that don't pay taxes" that conservatives are always complaining about? http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010 That's how much money they make. That's how much money they actually have to live off of. How are those people going to afford any of these services? The counter-argument to your example of disbanding the police is imo , think of this . If in a crowd of 100 , every individual has a gun , would any of those 100 start shotting at another for personal material gain ? That would open himself to the aggression of others because he initiated in an act of violence ( and anyways , out of 100 people only 1 is capable of hurting others without careing in a situation of balance and peace ) so he will be seen as a missfit of that society . You attack others => you are opened to others attacking you . What you would say ... well the smartest will start a group and try to rule the society , but I believe there will be a counter-group to that group so it would be a gang of 50 against 50 , but since no1 stays to gain from a war between themselves without taking serious risks I would guess everyone would be peacefull because being selfish leads to their most probable death ^^... This is my own take on things . It may very well be wrong and if you see a good counter-argument to my opinion please give it ^^ I guess if you view each and every person as being better off armed with a lethal weapon 24/7 as an improvement of quality on life, then sure, this is a perfect argument. No it isn't, because it assumes that everyone is rational. Newsflash: people are not always rational. Guess what happens if one of them develops a brain tumor that causes his aggression to flare up and he gets mad at his ex (There are real life examples of this)? He pulls out his gun and shoots, then he gets shot. 2 people dead, one innocent, and that's if we're lucky enough for nobody to get hit in the crossfire.
There are plenty of situations where heavily armed groups of individuals fail to produce peace through mutually assured death. Gang warfare and mafia families are two examples of both sides knowing the other is armed and will retaliate, but engaging in violence anyway. Likewise, the widely publicized shootings in Arizona (of the US senator) and Norway (the teenagers' camp) were situations where the shooter knew he would be captured or killed by armed law enforcement, but went ahead and killed people.
fwiw I'm even someone in support of legal gun ownership, but I don't pretend that a society which is armed is less likely to have lethal violence.
|
On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people.
This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable.
In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't.
The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you.
On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery.
If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is.
|
Of course , I didn't mention , the gun owner must participate in range shooting classes constantly and be subject to tests of their own mental well being . It is not a perfect system for sure , if you ask me , I'd say get rid of ALL of the guns ... I believe people being aggressive to each other is silly and unproductive even for the psychopats . But it is way easier to keep people more content with guns ( because of the feeling of safety/possibility of defending themselves ) than without a means of defense . Putin police in charge of taking care of you will not help you protect from aggressive individuals , remember when you are seconds away form being killed , the police is minutes away from coming to rescue you - so you're best odds is having your own gun .
And you giving me the example with the mental unstable man killing his wife .. come on son .. what stops him from breaking a glass and slashing her throath with it ?
The norwegian example is simple dealt with : Oh he was the only who was carrying guns .. hm what happened if most adults were armed there ? Would he have killed so many people ? I believe his first kill he would've been shot in the head .. In this case we have 80+innocent victims .
The mafia example .. As I said 1 out of 100 people are sociopaths , they have no problem hurting other and gaining from it .. Bringing sociopaths to form groups will inevitably bring you extreme violence even with equal means of hurting each other at the cost of their own lives .
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is.
I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders.
|
On January 05 2012 09:47 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:35 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 09:24 koreasilver wrote:On January 05 2012 08:39 Haemonculus wrote:
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings. It's honestly the reason why I'm growing less and less dismissive of Levinas' thought that freedom cannot precede morality. There is obviously a great deal of danger in this as well, but honestly, when you think that there is something wrong about having the responsibility to help someone else then there is something really wrong with your mentality and the society that fosters such sentiment. Explain to me how I have a responsibility to help others. I certainly do help others but I only do so because it is also beneficial to me. To help someone with no benefit to myself would be self-sacrifice. Why do I have a responsibility to sacrifice myself to others? Don't tell me because society sacrifices itself to me. I don't expect or force anyone to sacrifice themselves to me. I only expect to participate in voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships. These mutually beneficial relationships include things like giving charity to improve my community, helping people in emergencies (but not severely risking my life or limb to do so), etc. There's lots of ways to argue that. I'll give you two. The libertarian answer to that would be because during our history lots and lots and lots of transactions occurred that weren't mutually agreed upon, and these transactions have created a world where the current economic relations between people and countries are unfair and that the deck is stacked in favor of certain classes. This calls for restitution for things such as slavery, colonialism, withholding minority and female voting rights, you name it. (This is more or less Nozick) The more liberal answer to that is that the poor person could have been you, and that if we were to design a society without knowing anything about our position in life, a system where the less fortunate classes are supported by those more fortunate is the only fair and logical outcome. You can read more about this in the works of Rawls. Now, if you have the time, I'd appreciate a response to my post on the previous page. Any other free marketeer would be fine too.
How does the wrongdoing of others require the sacrifice of the innocent to the victims of the wrongdoers? If you can achieve restitution through the punishment of the wrongdoer, that is fine, but how can you possibly justify punishing innocents for other people's crimes? The best we can do is create a system which will have the most overall prosperity, and where force will no longer be permitted in relationships.
We don't live in a society in which we know nothing of our position in life. Being wealthy, in a capitalist society is (in general) more than just being fortunate. You need to be productive, or someone needed to be productive then have chosen to give you their property.
On January 05 2012 08:42 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:29 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 08:27 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
[quote]
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. If there is already a problem where people can't afford health care as it is, what makes you think that taking more away from them will make it any easier to afford? It's not like there is a group of doctors in every city saying, "if only people didn't have Medicare and Medicaid, then I could treat them for free!" I might disagree that a pure free market would make things better, but you clearly don't even understand the concept. edit; The argument is that healthcare would cost less if you didn't have all the government regulation in the insurance and health industries. The essential problem with that argument is that it is unproven, and that our empirical reality so far suggests differently. I'm inclined to agree that we have never seen a truly free market healthcare system, or true free market capitalism in any sector for that matter. That said, I don't think it is unfair to say that countries (and world systems) that have moved closer to free markets have seen increases in economic inequality. I have nothing against free markets, but they only work if you have an equal playing field. If you don't have an equal playing field but instead start with historical, social and economical inequality, free markets only seem to aggravate the problem not fix it. Completely free markets would be the institutionalization of existing inequalities (think current north-south relations), and unless there's some genius plan to fix those first, I'd prefer any other system including our current one. (Next to the moral objections I have to a system with the sole goal of accumulating as much wealth as possible, which is simply a difference in political opinion that won't be resolved.)
How do free markets institutionalize inequalities? Just because someone is poor before a free market, introducing a free market will not cement them in that place if they have ability. There certainly would be inequalities according to varying levels of productiveness.
|
On January 05 2012 09:35 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:24 koreasilver wrote:On January 05 2012 08:39 Haemonculus wrote:
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings. It's honestly the reason why I'm growing less and less dismissive of Levinas' thought that freedom cannot precede morality. There is obviously a great deal of danger in this as well, but honestly, when you think that there is something wrong about having the responsibility to help someone else then there is something really wrong with your mentality and the society that fosters such sentiment. Explain to me how I have a responsibility to help others. I certainly do help others but I only do so because it is also beneficial to me. To help someone with no benefit to myself would be self-sacrifice. Why do I have a responsibility to sacrifice myself to others? Don't tell me because society sacrifices itself to me. I don't expect or force anyone to sacrifice themselves to me. I only expect to participate in voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships. These mutually beneficial relationships include things like giving charity to improve my community, helping people in emergencies (but not severely risking my life or limb to do so), risking my life for people I highly value, etc.
The main reason that the modern West came to the heights that it has is because the beginnings of their modern thought from the 18th to 19th century had continually pushed society to help the other not just in sentiment or for your own benefit, but for the other. Your kind of narcissism is a wanton rejection of all human relationships where even family and friends have no meaning aside from your own benefit and would lead to nothing but a deterioration of the one thing the West did good in her history. People too easily forget why the Vikings ended their slavery, why slavery was so diminished in the West compared to the East in a great deal of its history, and why Western thought was adopted with so much vigor in the Far East (China, Korea, Japan).
This is how the the North American hegemony falls: people think, "helping others? that is punishment."
|
On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders.
Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business.
We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there?
|
On January 05 2012 09:20 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism? There would be no reason to buy politicians because there would be no NEED to buy the politicians. You're so obsessed with the power that the government has, but that power won't go away with the government. It's just the government that will lose power, but the power itself will just get replicated, except that it will now be controlled directly by private interest instead of via a proxy. Nobody wants competition, and nobody wants to play fair. These are two constants of human nature that make the idea of free market unsustainable for a long term. One way or the other, the market will stop being free at some point (and in a market-driven society all the other freedoms will go away with it). This is why the society must move towards becoming less of a game (competition), and more of a system where law keeps everyone with power in check with mechanisms that prevent anyone and anything from gaining too much power (wealth).
How about we say, produce and keep all the wealth you want, but you're not allowed to use it to buy your own private fucking military or police force to shut down your competitors and if you try we'll use the legitimate police to shut you down? I'm not advocating anarchism if that's what you think. Do you really think that any company would ever be able to establish it's own government which is able to initiate physical force against competitors to shut them down with a legitimate government watching over them? That is beyond ridiculous. Neither the government nor the people would ever let a company establish a coercive monopoly through the use of physical force.
|
But then you are simply arbitrarily setting a limit to your ideology. Lets just continue from your previous post; if someone had the means to do so, and as you say, have no reason to give a care about anyone else, why would this man ever shy away from the thought of buying his military to subdue his competitors? If this is ridiculous, then why are you not? If you have no inclination to give a damn about ethics, then why here? Where does this arbitrary line come from?
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 10:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders. Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business. We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there?
You're making up your own fantasy dystopia in contrast to their utopia. I really doubt that genuine charity would stop. And arguing it's inevitable is about as solid as quicksand.
|
On January 05 2012 10:32 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:20 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism? There would be no reason to buy politicians because there would be no NEED to buy the politicians. You're so obsessed with the power that the government has, but that power won't go away with the government. It's just the government that will lose power, but the power itself will just get replicated, except that it will now be controlled directly by private interest instead of via a proxy. Nobody wants competition, and nobody wants to play fair. These are two constants of human nature that make the idea of free market unsustainable for a long term. One way or the other, the market will stop being free at some point (and in a market-driven society all the other freedoms will go away with it). This is why the society must move towards becoming less of a game (competition), and more of a system where law keeps everyone with power in check with mechanisms that prevent anyone and anything from gaining too much power (wealth). How about we say, produce and keep all the wealth you want, but you're not allowed to use it to buy your own private fucking military or police force to shut down your competitors and if you try we'll use the legitimate police to shut you down? I'm not advocating anarchism if that's what you think. Do you really think that any company would ever be able to establish it's own government which is able to initiate physical force against competitors to shut them down with a legitimate government watching over them? That is beyond ridiculous. Neither the government nor the people would ever let a company establish a coercive monopoly through the use of physical force.
Pff , I hate this kind of competition , I would go even more regulating competition ( If I'd be a statist ) saying that whatever you do to harm other's people marketing or means of competing should be penalized if it doesn't directly gains your corporation - Mom and pops coffee shops are good example , when Starbucks appeared they even went out of their way putting 4 starbucks near a mom and pop shop just to kill it , over the time less starbuck places remained with shittier products because they don't really have to compete anymore ...
I'm a DotA player and a SC2 player , but I was sick to my stomache when I saw popular platform allegedly DDoS attacking other platforms for kill the competition ...especially the attacks on ICCup DotA servers ...
|
On January 05 2012 10:24 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:35 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 09:24 koreasilver wrote:On January 05 2012 08:39 Haemonculus wrote:
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings. It's honestly the reason why I'm growing less and less dismissive of Levinas' thought that freedom cannot precede morality. There is obviously a great deal of danger in this as well, but honestly, when you think that there is something wrong about having the responsibility to help someone else then there is something really wrong with your mentality and the society that fosters such sentiment. Explain to me how I have a responsibility to help others. I certainly do help others but I only do so because it is also beneficial to me. To help someone with no benefit to myself would be self-sacrifice. Why do I have a responsibility to sacrifice myself to others? Don't tell me because society sacrifices itself to me. I don't expect or force anyone to sacrifice themselves to me. I only expect to participate in voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships. These mutually beneficial relationships include things like giving charity to improve my community, helping people in emergencies (but not severely risking my life or limb to do so), risking my life for people I highly value, etc. The main reason that the modern West came to the heights that it has is because the beginnings of their modern thought from the 18th to 19th century had continually pushed society to help the other not just in sentiment or for your own benefit, but for the other. Your kind of narcissism is a wanton rejection of all human relationships where even family and friends have no meaning aside from your own benefit and would lead to nothing but a deterioration of the one thing the West did good in her history. People too easily forget why the Vikings ended their slavery, why slavery was so diminished in the West compared to the East in a great deal of its history, and why Western thought was adopted with so much vigor in the Far East (China, Korea, Japan). This is how the the North American hegemony falls: people think, "helping others? that is punishment."
What is the difference between helping others for the sake of helping other and helping others for the purpose of self-interest? Why is the former better? Consider the notion of altruistic love. If someone said to you, "I love you because I want to help you and make you happy but you offer no value or happiness to me", would you accept that love? I don't think anyone would. That is what altruism is. Helping other isn't necessarily punishment. People help others every time they do things like buy food from a store, give to local charities, invest in businesses, pay for their families medical care, etc. but all of these things are mutually beneficial. These are the kinds of relationships which lead to prosperity and happiness.
|
On January 05 2012 10:32 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:20 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism? There would be no reason to buy politicians because there would be no NEED to buy the politicians. You're so obsessed with the power that the government has, but that power won't go away with the government. It's just the government that will lose power, but the power itself will just get replicated, except that it will now be controlled directly by private interest instead of via a proxy. Nobody wants competition, and nobody wants to play fair. These are two constants of human nature that make the idea of free market unsustainable for a long term. One way or the other, the market will stop being free at some point (and in a market-driven society all the other freedoms will go away with it). This is why the society must move towards becoming less of a game (competition), and more of a system where law keeps everyone with power in check with mechanisms that prevent anyone and anything from gaining too much power (wealth). How about we say, produce and keep all the wealth you want, but you're not allowed to use it to buy your own private fucking military or police force to shut down your competitors and if you try we'll use the legitimate police to shut you down?
And how exactly do you enforce that with a weak government?
You can SAY that, sure. But in the end the companies who want to do it will just pay whoever is in charge of making the decisions to shut down transgressors to look the other way, and they will look the other way because why wouldn't they? It's in their best interest to side with the leading private corporations.
What prevents corruption from happening in that situation? It's exactly the same thing you have a problem with today.
On January 05 2012 10:32 OsoVega wrote:Do you really think that any company would ever be able to establish it's own government which is able to initiate physical force against competitors to shut them down with a legitimate government watching over them? That is beyond ridiculous. Neither the government nor the people would ever let a company establish a coercive monopoly through the use of physical force.
Ah, amusing how you are still relying on the government and the people. But then again, you want the government to be striped of its power to govern, and you want the people to follow only their own private interest instead of common interests. Combination of these factors will make it impossible for either the government or the people to make any difference at all.
There would never be a need for physical force to gain power. But a group of corporations working together to control the market with nobody having enough power to challenge them or make them play fair? Extremely possible, and almost a definite outcome in the long term. Somebody always ends up on top.
I mean we already have a "light" version of that scenario in place today.
|
On January 05 2012 10:37 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:29 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders. Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business. We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there? You're making up your own fantasy dystopia in contrast to their utopia. I really doubt that genuine charity would stop. And arguing it's inevitable is about as solid as quicksand.
Genuine charity wouldn't stop, but it is impossible for charities in today's form to cover all the demand for social aid. Private charities are a drop of water in an ocean of social aid worldwide.
Getting rid social aid IS an extremely radical move. It will have radical consequences.
|
On August 16 2011 23:12 drag_ wrote:
Idk if anyone watched the Daily Show yesterday but there was a segment on how the media is pretty much ignoring Ron Paul, who seems to be the only republican I could see myself voting for. I hope he wins the nomination, but I unfortunately can't see it happening.
God no. That man is AWFUL. He gets little media attention, but he is anti civil rights, just to start this off. Dont even get me started. That man should never even be considered for the presidency.
|
@All the people who are talking about the "economic inequality" that a free market society would bring about
Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone would be better off in a free society, or do you believe that "economic equality" is more important than everyone's improved standard of living? Your arguments must stem from either ignorance or pure jealousy (or perhaps both?).
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 10:50 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:37 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:29 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders. Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business. We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there? You're making up your own fantasy dystopia in contrast to their utopia. I really doubt that genuine charity would stop. And arguing it's inevitable is about as solid as quicksand. Genuine charity wouldn't stop, but it is impossible for charities in today's form to cover all the demand for social aid. Private charities are a drop of water in an ocean of social aid worldwide. Getting rid social aid IS an extremely radical move. It will have radical consequences.
I agree that private charity would probably never be able to help everyone in need. I just don't think your scenario is any more likely.
|
On January 05 2012 11:01 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:50 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:37 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:29 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders. Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business. We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there? You're making up your own fantasy dystopia in contrast to their utopia. I really doubt that genuine charity would stop. And arguing it's inevitable is about as solid as quicksand. Genuine charity wouldn't stop, but it is impossible for charities in today's form to cover all the demand for social aid. Private charities are a drop of water in an ocean of social aid worldwide. Getting rid social aid IS an extremely radical move. It will have radical consequences. I agree that private charity would probably never be able to help everyone in need. I just don't think your scenario is any more likely.
Which part of it seems unlikely to you?
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 11:00 Shraft wrote:
@All the people who are talking about the "economic inequality" that a free market society would bring about
Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone would be better off in a free society, or do you believe that "economic equality" is more important than everyone's improved standard of living? Your arguments must stem from either ignorance or pure jealousy (or perhaps both?).
The debate is over whether the standard of living increases/decreases/stagnates for the vast majority of society while the upper class reaps the benefits. One way to to see that when accounting for inflation, most of societies wages have been stagnant for the last 30 years or so. Another way is to also notice that many technological developments are now far more accessible then in the past. Another is to debate the merits of a social safety net the ensures a decent life if you do happen to fail at your current endeavor, and the consequences they bring like the free loader problem. There are of course many other angles you could take as well.
It'd be wise not to come in here spouting insults when you don't seem to understand the arguments either.
On January 05 2012 11:02 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 11:01 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:50 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:37 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:29 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 10:16 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 10:09 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:On January 05 2012 09:39 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly. It changes the situation very drastically. Social aid is not charity. It is something that is guaranteed by law. It is your right, it belongs to you as a citizen of that country. Nobody can legally deny it to you. The money you get from social aid belongs to you, in every sense of the term. It's not actually somebody else's money that was given to you, it's YOUR money, because that's what the law says. Charity is driven by someone's "good will" (which in itself is unreliable, but not the core of the problem). The money you get from it is basically a gift. Moreover, private charities are governed by private interests. In fact, let's look at this in a more systematic way: 1. Private charity is potentially your only source of income 2. Private charity is governed by private interest 3. Private charity doesn't have an obligation to help you out Now go ahead and put 2 and 2 together and you'll come to the conclusion that they OWN you, in a very literal fashion. They have the ability to make you vote whoever they want you to vote, to make you only buy products they want you to buy, to make you apply for jobs that they want you to apply for, to make you live where they want you to live. And if you want to qualify for their financial aid program, you have to suck it up. And this is easily something that would actually happen in reality under such conditions. No, social aid is entitled to you by the government. You are completely owned by the government, in the exact same fashion. The government can legally deny it to you. The government can make you jump through just as many hoops. The only difference is you replace the government by some generous folks who want to help people. This is quite simply false. Social aid is guaranteed to you by the law. In some countries, it's even a constitutional right (social justice). Social aid is as hard-coded into the system as is humanly possible. You want to replace that with a whim of people following their private interests - it isn't even comparable. In most democratic societies, you are not completely owned by the government. At the contrary, you own the government. You have the power (some would say even an obligation) to make your representatives do what you want them to do, and punish them when they don't. The government can't legally make you jump through hoops. Complex bureaucracies can do that, but only within the boundaries of the law. When/if they cross that boundary, you can sue them. And you can get several times the money they owe you. On January 05 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
I do not see how in any way that equates to slavery. If you do not understand the difference between a gift and a right guaranteed by law, then you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. When you create a scenario where private charities are the ONLY means to receive financial aid, you place your life under direct control of the people providing you with means to survive, under the conditions they decide upon. That is what slavery is. I'll say it's more like slavery then those on the other side who would argue taxation is slavery, but it's not like soup kitchens are requiring people to fill out forms or do anything at all besides stand in line and wait their turn. I really think people need to stop calling something slavery unless they literally have no choice but to abide by someone's orders. Soup kitchens don't really cover the extent of what a full-blown social aid system is supposed to cover. Moreover, you can't really compare private charities today with private charities in a hypothetical environment where private charities are the only option. Right now a lot of charity is actual charity. Without rights to social aid and social justice, it would be a business. We're talking about the bare minimum of your living conditions depending on the benevolence of private entities - most likely companies that run their own charity organizations. They decide on terms and conditions of their help. What realistic choice is there? You're making up your own fantasy dystopia in contrast to their utopia. I really doubt that genuine charity would stop. And arguing it's inevitable is about as solid as quicksand. Genuine charity wouldn't stop, but it is impossible for charities in today's form to cover all the demand for social aid. Private charities are a drop of water in an ocean of social aid worldwide. Getting rid social aid IS an extremely radical move. It will have radical consequences. I agree that private charity would probably never be able to help everyone in need. I just don't think your scenario is any more likely. Which part of it seems unlikely to you?
Where you say that private entities would use the charity in nefarious means other then building a good image.
|
On January 05 2012 10:45 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:32 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 09:20 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:
[quote]
See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism.
Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty?
Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism? There would be no reason to buy politicians because there would be no NEED to buy the politicians. You're so obsessed with the power that the government has, but that power won't go away with the government. It's just the government that will lose power, but the power itself will just get replicated, except that it will now be controlled directly by private interest instead of via a proxy. Nobody wants competition, and nobody wants to play fair. These are two constants of human nature that make the idea of free market unsustainable for a long term. One way or the other, the market will stop being free at some point (and in a market-driven society all the other freedoms will go away with it). This is why the society must move towards becoming less of a game (competition), and more of a system where law keeps everyone with power in check with mechanisms that prevent anyone and anything from gaining too much power (wealth). How about we say, produce and keep all the wealth you want, but you're not allowed to use it to buy your own private fucking military or police force to shut down your competitors and if you try we'll use the legitimate police to shut you down? And how exactly do you enforce that with a weak government? You can SAY that, sure. But in the end the companies who want to do it will just pay whoever is in charge of making the decisions to shut down transgressors to look the other way, and they will look the other way because why wouldn't they? It's in their best interest to side with the leading private corporations. What prevents corruption from happening in that situation? It's exactly the same thing you have a problem with today. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 10:32 OsoVega wrote:Do you really think that any company would ever be able to establish it's own government which is able to initiate physical force against competitors to shut them down with a legitimate government watching over them? That is beyond ridiculous. Neither the government nor the people would ever let a company establish a coercive monopoly through the use of physical force. Ah, amusing how you are still relying on the government and the people. But then again, you want the government to be striped of its power to govern, and you want the people to follow only their own private interest. Combination of these factors will make it impossible for either the government or the people to make any difference at all. There would never be a need for physical force to gain power. But a group of corporations working together to control the market with nobody having enough power to challenge them or make them play fair? Extremely possible, and almost a definite outcome in the long term. Somebody always ends up on top. I mean we already have a "light" version of that scenario in place today.
I've never proposed a weak government, only a limited government. I think the military and police should be strong and able to deal with any initiation of force with a response of force. Again, I'm not suggesting anarchy. As for corruption and the government potentially failing at it's task of responding to, shutting down and punishing the initiation of force, well, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If a politician supports the initiation of force, we vote them out. It's certainly not in the interest of the people to allow coercive monopolies to form. Today people aren't vigilant. Not only that, but it's hard to distinguish what are "benevolent" initiations of force by the government and which are corporatist initiations of force. I suggest we get rid of all government initiations of force make it much easier for the vigilant eye to spot when a company tries to pay the government to initiate force for it. If the government is somehow usurped by a corporate military or if the government is completely taken over by corporations and can't be restored with peaceful methods, well, that's why we have guns, not that it would ever get that far if people were vigilant.
As for there being no need for physical force to gain power, at least now you're getting back to normal liberal arguments instead of the extreme retardation of the notion of corporations militarily usurping the government. Well, what you need to realize is that it is 100% impossible to establish a coercive monopoly in a free market. When there isn't physical force to block competitors from entering the market, the only way a company can achieve a monopoly is by efficiently offering the best possible product. Once they've established this monopoly it's not like they can suddenly start offering a terrible product because there will always be potential competitors and no shortage of capital from investors to fund those competitors.
The only reason we have a "light" version of that is because the government establishes coercive monopolies through regulation. It is the socialized side of the mixed markets which results in coercive monopolies. Here's a challenge: Point me to a single coercive monopoly in history that was not a result of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
