On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
One America is really a Corporate Statist country. It is not capitalistic in any sense in the Laissez-Faire approach. Government basically runs the private sector by rules, regulations, monopoly, etc. You want an example? How about Richard Nixon in early 70's creating a price and wage freeze for 90 days and then extending that for months on end in various sectors. How is that capitalism? When Government basically controls the means of production not by actually owning, but by setting the rules and governance how is that capitalism? Seems to remind me awfully lot of Corporate Statism/Socialism.
How about JFK sending FBI agents out in the middle of the night to steel executives and forcing them to raise prices of their goods because of Government monetary policy, aka FED.
So, we basically have a quasi-government agency in the FED that can create money out of thin air, a Government in which it subsidizes its favored and lobbied Corporate entities to cut out competition and create Government sanctioned monopolies, and then we have price and wage controls. If that is capitalism to you, then that is a bastardization in which only in your mind you call it Capitalism.
Lastly, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I understand there has to be some modicum of Government. How many times do I have to say this? Five? Ten? Look at the last few posts in this thread and others of mine and you will see where I think Government should be involved and its specific enumerated powers.
Taxation is theft. What else is it if it is not theft? I'm also not a proponent of a virtual voluntary system, because that implies Anarcho-Capitalism. You have to have a tax if you are going to have any Government. My proposal has been this, fixed national sales tax of 4% only on end production goods. This means basically the finality of a good (Not raw material) at the end of its production. Ipod, Computer, House, not food, steel, plastic, etc. Abolish 16th amendment, abolish all property taxation (The state can only tax it if it is the lord. If you truly had private property then no one could tell you what to do with it, unless you created an externality with which you had to compensate those you have effected)
Left-Liberals do not promote economic freedom. How the hell can you call 40%+ taxes, and all other sorts of taxes, etc. freedom?! What a juxtaposition of ideas that is.
Despite recent marginal decreases, government spending is 51.5 percent of GDP.
Liberalism is about small government, limited government. How you claim this I do not know. I will commend Denmark on the easiness of starting a business (Why you need a license is a mystery, oh no its not, its to stifle competition.). Employee cost is pretty low, and firing an employee is relatively easy, so I give credit where it is due.
I'm also not sure that you understand that hand outs do not create an incentive to improve. The truism of the fish analogy is prescient.
Why do I get the impression you've not thought this through in the slightest. Now bear with me for a while here, because (for some) there might be some logical leaps for you. A Laissez-faire model would mean ZERO government intervention in business. Now lets think for a while; who makes up a business... Oh, by golly, its people!?
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
On August 19 2009 16:33 Aegraen wrote: A true patriot.
It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Edit: I would like to see your sources for your 'wild west' claims. Ever find out how many people died from 'accidents' from rail road companies? These are the unrestricted corperations and environment you would... like?
On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: [quote]
It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
On August 19 2009 20:46 Eniram wrote: [quote] Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
Aegrean, taxation is by no means 'theft'. We live in democratic societies. If people really thought it was theft, we would have parties for abolishing taxes wouldn't we? (Maybe not in the anglosaxon 2 party model, but you get the idea)
Guess what? An overwhelming majority of people accept taxation. Most people care about other people's basic welfare more than a new car. In Holland, we have a good example to explain this. It is in the people's intrest to see dykes built. Now if someone doesn't help pay, but still enjoys the protection of the dyke, would this be fair? No. Taxation is a necessity. We can disagree about what needs to be paid for, but it is certainly not theft.
You not understanding my definition of economic freedom says alot about your blind spot for other people's arguments.
On August 19 2009 20:52 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: [quote]
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Also, it has been demonstrated in economic studies that gun control does not reduce crime significantly: nor does a lack of gun control reduce crime nor increase crime either. In such a situation, where something has little bearing, it is better to let people have it than not.
And laissez-faire government idea exists and works quite well in other parts of the world, especially Asia.
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
First of all, your ideas of laissez-faire economics is that outdated fantasy of the gilded ages where rich evil robber barons crushed the poor hard working families of America. This is simply not true-this would never have been made possible had the United States government not backed the rich factory owners and support what they did against striking workers.
So let's see the first one: subsidized education. Undoubtedly there will be new private institutions as well as non-profit ones. Private institutions, as well as new charter schools and the like, have demonstrated in studies that essentially, students that transfer to charter schools do about as well in the charter school, mostly because they have the drive and motivation to want to succeed that they end up doing so anyways. Even with a public education system like it is in America, thousands of people drop out or don't attend classes and die poor anyways. What would be your solution, then?
Then Healthcare. I've already gone over this in the other thread, that the overreliance on HMOs is lethal. To make a long story short, doctor's have no incentive to compete or keep prices low, as there isn't a market atmosphere, due to the overreliance on insurance. People used to be able to get healthcare without insurance at affordable rates. Now, people without insurance often have to pay as much as 100x more than the insurance companies would for the same procedure. This needs to be fixed-but that's a topic for another day.
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
Minimum wage? Are you kidding me? Let's play 10th grade economics. You have your supply and demand curves for workers. There is a price for labor at a certain rate. In a laissez-faire economy, jobs that are worth $3.00 an hour are there, as are jobs that are worth $10.00 and $100 an hour, and so forth. By raising the minimum wage to say $5.00 an hour, you don't force the price of the $3.00 job up to $5.00 an hour. Suppose the job is emptying trash cans, which is worth $4.00. The owner of the cans gains $1.00 and the worker gains $3.00 per hour, which actually makes sense when you consider that the worker doesn't own the cans and didn't put any of his financial value into it prior to his work. So when you raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour, it is no longer profitable to have this worker, so he would likely be laid off and jobs would be lost. I will also go on to bring in the idea of skilled workers. In the case of skilled workers, job firms have to compete for skilled workers, otherwise their products would be inferior. Why would they want lower wages for skilled workers? Now you go on to complain about the resulting rich-poor gap. I respond by saying that there is only so much money you can spend on yourself before you end up giving large swaths of it to charity, ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,pretty much every multibillionaire is giving away large parts of their fortunes to charities, which benefit the poor, and could provide all the services you complain will be gone above.
And your statement on the land tax, wtf are you talking about? I've never heard of a property tax being the only reason businesses don't sell land and houses., Besides, as it is, people can buy and sell your mortgage, which is virtually the same thing.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Now that interests me. What do you mean by "fill this void" in that sentence?
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Now that interests me. What do you mean by "fill this void" in that sentence?
The meaning seems to have been lost in transit. I was responding to D10 who said that it's right wingers that use the worst examples of a group to represent that group. I was just saying that left wingers do this too using such people as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Most conservatives are not like either of those people.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Yes, of course. In fact this whole thread is the result of an attempt to that by StealthBlue. Try to find a few crazies on the right, then do your darndest to proclaim it everywhere as much as you can and lead people to associate the "crazies" with one side of the spectrum more than the others.
That's why I initially posted to show how ridiculous this whole thread is. Hence the comparison of signs and the treatment of Obama and Bush.
There are crazies on both sides. But when the media is largely liberal biased, it makes you wonder if the crazies on both sides are being talked about equally.
I went through that post like 9 times in my head, and besides for the very last one (and maybe the precisely), every phrase is patently false or misleading. Not even partisan false. Just plain false.
Try to find a few crazies on the right, then do your darndest to proclaim it everywhere as much as you can and lead people to associate the "crazies" with one side of the spectrum more than the others.
I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to say that republicans or people on the right in general are crazy beyond the people on the right who feel they're being stereotyped.
The thread noted that there's an increase in the level of extremism on the right. When even Bill O is calling people who show up for town halls with assault rifles "yahoos"... I mean, that's a pretty clear indication that your cause is lost.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
Fuck yeah, let's abandon regulations! If the guy behind the counter says the milk is fresh, you better believe him, cause there isn't any control whatsoever!! Lead in your kids toys? No one cares, it's a free world, we use whatever is cheapest! Weekend off? No way, it's much more advantageous to keep your employees working!
Enjoy your ideal world full of sweatshops, food poisoning and rampant pollution.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
Fuck yeah, let's abandon regulations! If the guy behind the counter says the milk is fresh, you better believe him, cause there isn't any control whatsoever!! Lead in your kids toys? No one cares, it's a free world, we use whatever is cheapest! Weekend off? No way, it's much more advantageous to keep your employees working!
Enjoy your ideal world full of sweatshops, food poisoning and rampant pollution.
heyheyhey
no need to get so hostile on me I didn't say abandon regulations, if you actually read the post instead of building a straw man, I said ease off some of the regulations that hurt smaller companies more than larger companies.
Consider, for instance, how pharmaceutical companies need to hire an inspector to inspect their plant. It costs, say, 50,000$ US for an inspection. A company that has 5 plants and is worth 1 billion can absorb that cost much easier than a company that has 1 plant and is worth 10 million. Is it no surprise that the larger company was the one that pushed for the new requirement?
Even with all the regulations, we still have cases of all of the above. Just because there are regulations that say there shouldn't be any crap on my lettuce doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly trust that the lettuce must therefore be 100% ok. The consumer has to be at least somewhat intelligent to figure out what's going on to make sure that they won't get screwed over.
And it's all about consumer choice. If a company started polluting, there would probably be a boycott relatively quickly until the company stops. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez spilled, there were massive boycotts of Exxon. If a company was discovered to be using sweatshops and terrible conditions, there would be mass boycotts. And when Jack in the Box had it's breakout of E.Coli, lots of families, myself included, avoided Jack in the Box and still avoid Jack in the box. Companies have incentives to not put lead in the toys just because it's cheaper-and it doesn't have to be a boycott, either. We have lawsuits for that, and those 10 cents you shave off your 100,000 toys isn't going to be much against that multi-million dollar lawsuit that is going to shaft you in the ass. That's called incentives.
You're not seriously claiming that we don't have companies in our regulated world that use sweatshops, result in food poisoning, and pollute, do you? You're not seriously claiming that you blindly trust regulators that your product is 100% fine, do you? You're not seriously claiming that companies would force their workers into extra hours, therefore resulting in boycotts from the outside and getting rid of their skilled and best workers to competitors, are you? You're not seriously demonstrating your lack of economic and business principles, are you? You're not seriously revealing that your understanding of economics dates from a middle school education on the Gilded Age, are you?
I was mostly talking about Aegren's ideas about Anarcho-capitalism. Might of come off a bit too agressive.
Anyways, free markets will always consolidate. Advantages of scale will create huge enterprises. New innovations have a huge potential to be controlled by one company, for example look at Microsoft in the computer buisness. Laissez-faire capitalism will only give this companies more leverage to extort their suppliers, and edge their competitors out of the market. There will always be a need for a unbiased transparent organization with the power to force certain regulations on buisness. Consumer activism will only go so far.
Nike didn't see it's shoe sales go down much when it became public that they had sweatshops abusing children. Exxon is the biggest oil company even though they fought clean-up cases all the way in court.
Blind trust in regulators isn't the way to go, but relying more on consumer intelligence isn't really a good idea. The average joe knows nothing about computers, so companies like Microsoft can keep selling shit like Vista while shoving other competitors out of the market while creating even more dependence on their operating systems. What scares me isn't free enterprise, but big untransparent corporate monoliths controlling certain sectors, while holding great influence on goverment and press. Your ideas about semi-fascist economically liberal governments to support growth will lead us to this.
I'm going to ignore the last part of your post, because it's pretty much what I did in my own post, and you rightly accused me of strawman for that.
And it's all about consumer choice. If a company started polluting, there would probably be a boycott relatively quickly until the company stops. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez spilled, there were massive boycotts of Exxon.
All those boycotts against Montana leach pile extraction sure worked. It sure wasn't the state government that shut down the method because they kept having to deal with messes left by mining companies who declared bankruptcy after gutting a mine and paying off directors and investors, right? Sometimes consumer pressure doesn't work because consumers have no method of applying pressure. Do you know if any of the copper in your house comes from poorly run copper mines? Can you trace any of it? Can you identify the point of origin in new products? I'm going to guess No, No, and No.
Good luck starting a movement.
We have lawsuits for that
No, actually, the primary aim of actions in tort is restoring the victim to his state pre-victimization. Tort law and actions in the field have failed on a consistent basis to provide compensation, which means that the risk/benefit analysis for a company almost always lets them take an inordinate amount of risk for any benefit. When the risk involves groups that are less likely to litigate, the ratio gets even higher; the poor, minorities, victims who are ashamed, etc are all consistently under represented. There's quite a bit of literature on this.
What's more, you rely on the legal system to provide a deterrent, yet hold this position:
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
So now if you cant afford legal aid, its acceptable for a company to disregard your rights, because the risk that an action is used against them drops. While tort is generally a bad system for what you want it to do, your position here makes it even worse.
On August 20 2009 08:58 Eniram wrote: [quote] No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Also, it has been demonstrated in economic studies that gun control does not reduce crime significantly: nor does a lack of gun control reduce crime nor increase crime either. In such a situation, where something has little bearing, it is better to let people have it than not.
And laissez-faire government idea exists and works quite well in other parts of the world, especially Asia.
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
First of all, your ideas of laissez-faire economics is that outdated fantasy of the gilded ages where rich evil robber barons crushed the poor hard working families of America. This is simply not true-this would never have been made possible had the United States government not backed the rich factory owners and support what they did against striking workers.
So let's see the first one: subsidized education. Undoubtedly there will be new private institutions as well as non-profit ones. Private institutions, as well as new charter schools and the like, have demonstrated in studies that essentially, students that transfer to charter schools do about as well in the charter school, mostly because they have the drive and motivation to want to succeed that they end up doing so anyways. Even with a public education system like it is in America, thousands of people drop out or don't attend classes and die poor anyways. What would be your solution, then?
Then Healthcare. I've already gone over this in the other thread, that the overreliance on HMOs is lethal. To make a long story short, doctor's have no incentive to compete or keep prices low, as there isn't a market atmosphere, due to the overreliance on insurance. People used to be able to get healthcare without insurance at affordable rates. Now, people without insurance often have to pay as much as 100x more than the insurance companies would for the same procedure. This needs to be fixed-but that's a topic for another day.
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
Minimum wage? Are you kidding me? Let's play 10th grade economics. You have your supply and demand curves for workers. There is a price for labor at a certain rate. In a laissez-faire economy, jobs that are worth $3.00 an hour are there, as are jobs that are worth $10.00 and $100 an hour, and so forth. By raising the minimum wage to say $5.00 an hour, you don't force the price of the $3.00 job up to $5.00 an hour. Suppose the job is emptying trash cans, which is worth $4.00. The owner of the cans gains $1.00 and the worker gains $3.00 per hour, which actually makes sense when you consider that the worker doesn't own the cans and didn't put any of his financial value into it prior to his work. So when you raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour, it is no longer profitable to have this worker, so he would likely be laid off and jobs would be lost. I will also go on to bring in the idea of skilled workers. In the case of skilled workers, job firms have to compete for skilled workers, otherwise their products would be inferior. Why would they want lower wages for skilled workers? Now you go on to complain about the resulting rich-poor gap. I respond by saying that there is only so much money you can spend on yourself before you end up giving large swaths of it to charity, ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,pretty much every multibillionaire is giving away large parts of their fortunes to charities, which benefit the poor, and could provide all the services you complain will be gone above.
And your statement on the land tax, wtf are you talking about? I've never heard of a property tax being the only reason businesses don't sell land and houses., Besides, as it is, people can buy and sell your mortgage, which is virtually the same thing.
more later.
To deal with your 'education solution'. Charter schools cost REAL big bucks. Scholarships wont even amount to 10%; so 10% poor, the rest rich. Non-profit schools are actually supported ALOT by the Government. Education costs real money, if it costs billions for the federal government, what makes you think philanthropists are going to pick up the slack? There isn't one billion dollars of church or philanthropist money 'just floating around' for non-for-profit schools to 'just use'.
Legal aid is TOTALLY the point. If a company skrews you over, then its not YOU in the defenders seat getting the free aid, thats for sure! Unless you make it a class action law suit, there is NO way you can take on a massive corporation with millions of dollars to throw at a protracted legal case. They have so much money, they can pretty much keep yo' poor ass in Court for the rest of yo' poor ass life.
Politics: This has EVERYTHING to do with it; as it stands, marketing = elected. Marketing costs real big $$, and typically the way you get the real big $$ is with real big donations. Lobbying by corporations pretty much keeps most political parties as rich as they currently are.
To address the minimum wage: Here you are grand-standing about how you 'pay more for better workers'; I am not going to argue with you on this point. But more, doesn't mean wages go UP. It just means theirs don't go down as fast... And YES, I HAVE done economics papers at university; don't worry, i know perfectly well how this all works. You see; there is this thing called 'inflation', and every year money devalues. It might not be legally possible (or there might be an outrage) to make wages go DOWN, but with no government intervention they sure as hell an't going UP. Why would a company put its wages UP, when there is no reason too? To give their works a 'pat on the back'? Companies are in the game for profit. End of story. Productivity is the amount it costs per unit. Wages are part of costs. Wages go down, productivity goes up. Thats how it works.
To address your ignorance on land tax; land tax is a MAJOR reason people don't keep switching homes and buying and selling properties. Each time you do it, it costs you money. In Australia you have your 'Family home' which isn't taxed when you move home; but if your doing it for profit, then it costs. It is land tax that keeps the housing market under control. If it wasn't there, then people who are in rental properties would speculate on where housing prices would go up the most, and sell and move there. This pushes house prices WAY up.
EPT
