Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:20:23 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Am I wrong?  (Read 3287 times)
neptop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 314


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 09:49:06 PM
 #1

I spent some time thinking about Libertarians, because I find it interesting in many ways. I have some criticism that I don't write to tell everyone how bad Libertarians are, but because I am curious about the answers, where I am wrong and where I am right.


So for actual freedom wouldn't it make sense to take care that everyone can have a life of a certain standard - get food, a place to live, healthcare, education for free (not something luxurious, just something)?
Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?
Wouldn't it cause companies to create/be dictatorships (look up on Foxconn, they have more employees than some states have citizens and completely control their lives)?
Wouldn't such a society destroy the free market, because of stuff like monopolies?
Wouldn't we have all the benefits of a Libertarian society already if people would actually care about stuff like what products they buy and why would people care more in a libertarian society?

BitCoin address: 1E25UJEbifEejpYh117APmjYSXdLiJUCAZ
1481332823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332823
Reply with quote  #2

1481332823
Report to moderator
1481332823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332823
Reply with quote  #2

1481332823
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 01, 2012, 09:57:13 PM
 #2

I spent some time thinking about Libertarians, because I find it interesting in many ways. I have some criticism that I don't write to tell everyone how bad Libertarians are, but because I am curious about the answers, where I am wrong and where I am right.


So for actual freedom wouldn't it make sense to take care that everyone can have a life of a certain standard - get food, a place to live, healthcare, education for free (not something luxurious, just something)?
...snip...

That is where many libertarians disagree. 

Some say there should be no right to these things and call themselves libertarians.

Some say that a free market is the best way to deliver these things and call themselves libertarians.

The first group call the second "socialists."

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 10:02:18 PM
 #3

Wouldn't such a society destroy the free market, because of stuff like monopolies?

Libertarians would say the free market was destroyed because you prevented monopolies from acting, through regulation, and that monopolies are the free market in action - freedom, allowing them to grow large.

They forget that government is also a monopoly, and they've created themselves a paradox. If government is a monopoly, and monopolies are only possible in a free market, then it follows that we have a free market.

This means one of the three assumptions are false; either the free market was never destroyed, and libs are wrong about us living in an unfree market; monopolies are not inevitable in a free market; or government is not a monopoly.

The real world supports the view that monopolies are inevitable in every market (this is one of a capitalist business' goals).
The real world supports the view that governments are a monopoly on region (one winner taking all in every war).
Therefore, the only conclusion logically possible is that we live in a free market, and the libs are incorrect on this point.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 10:14:35 PM
 #4

Speaking only for myself...

So for actual freedom wouldn't it make sense to take care that everyone can have a life of a certain standard - get food, a place to live, healthcare, education for free (not something luxurious, just something)?
Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

Some claim charity can take care of that. Personally I'm not entirely sure... Though just because you are disabled doesn't mean you can't contribute. Look at Steven Hawking.

Wouldn't it cause companies to create/be dictatorships (look up on Foxconn, they have more employees than some states have citizens and completely control their lives)?
Wouldn't such a society destroy the free market, because of stuff like monopolies?

Not counting the government (har har), can you name a monopoly that exists now that can't be destroyed by a free market? We had a few companies grab power temporarily, but that never lasts... (Microsoft, Kodak, Ford, heck, even Foxconn will die as soon as Africa opens up, or 3D printing at home becomes more widespread)

Wouldn't we have all the benefits of a Libertarian society already if people would actually care about stuff like what products they buy and why would people care more in a libertarian society?

They wouldn't care any more or less than they do now. People still shop at Walmart, buy BP and Exxon gas, etc. I don't think this will change.

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 10:20:37 PM
 #5

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 10:31:33 PM
 #6

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

dayfall
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 312



View Profile
March 01, 2012, 10:38:50 PM
 #7

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

Perhaps.  Solving this problem will require changing how people view the state and their own responsibility.  Right now, people say, "I pay taxes so the Government should take care of X.  I have done my part."  The key to making a stateless society work is to make people realize they are responsible to take care of the unlucky and stopping monopolies.  Nested counsels and open debate will make sure a failure to take responsibility is known.
Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 11:32:22 PM
 #8

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 11:41:29 PM
 #9

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.

Yes, I've thought of that. I was only specifically commenting on the employment part. I don't have an answer to the disability part (maybe now that we can detect disabilities from genetic scans and ultrasound soon after gestation, we can abort any fetuses that will be born with disabilities?)

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 12:36:49 AM
 #10

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I don't know this for sure, and would willingly change my opinion based on evidence, but I think that was part of the point of the whole welfare movement post depression/ww2.

could this be something that people buy insurance for? I mean, we are already paying unemployment insurance, Though indirectly, since it comes out of our paychecks before we even see it.

It certainly could, although how does one insure against being born with disability before you are born? You'd have to rely on your parents for that, which...has room for failure.

Yes, I've thought of that. I was only specifically commenting on the employment part. I don't have an answer to the disability part (maybe now that we can detect disabilities from genetic scans and ultrasound soon after gestation, we can abort any fetuses that will be born with disabilities?)

I suppose that could work as long as someone can enforce responsibility of care on the people who make that decision. The parents could take out insurance themselves before conceiving, but without it being mandatory there are going to be instances where disabled people are born to parents who thought they could support the child (or couldn't accept abortion), and can't for the rest of the child's life. On top of this, "someone" has to enforce responsibility / accountability on the parents which goes against the grain of libertarianism.

Ultimately I think this problem boils down to lesser evils. How many people suffer if we leave disabled (or unemployed) people to their own hardships, and how many people suffer if we all chip in to help them suffer less. There is surely suffering in either case, but which is more? How do we quantify suffering and happiness? Have these things already been done?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 01:31:18 AM
 #11

I guess this leads back to changing perspectives from "Government took my taxes to pay to support X, so it's not my problem" issue. That's going to be hard, and a lot of people will get hurt obviously.

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 01:54:39 AM
 #12

I guess this leads back to changing perspectives from "Government took my taxes to pay to support X, so it's not my problem" issue. That's going to be hard, and a lot of people will get hurt obviously.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I don't quite follow your premise. Who's changing perspective?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 02:10:40 AM
 #13

I guess this leads back to changing perspectives from "Government took my taxes to pay to support X, so it's not my problem" issue. That's going to be hard, and a lot of people will get hurt obviously.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I don't quite follow your premise. Who's changing perspective?

I mean right now people thing that since they are paying taxes, it's no longer their responsibility to do thinks like take care of disabled or poor people. If that goes away, people's perspective will have to change, and they will have to take more responsibility for helping others. I think that change would be very difficult, since people will continue to think those other people are not their problem.

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 02:23:35 AM
 #14

I guess this leads back to changing perspectives from "Government took my taxes to pay to support X, so it's not my problem" issue. That's going to be hard, and a lot of people will get hurt obviously.

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I don't quite follow your premise. Who's changing perspective?

I mean right now people thing that since they are paying taxes, it's no longer their responsibility to do thinks like take care of disabled or poor people. If that goes away, people's perspective will have to change, and they will have to take more responsibility for helping others. I think that change would be very difficult, since people will continue to think those other people are not their problem.

Oh I see, yeah that change will be difficult.

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 03:45:39 AM
 #15

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?

I don't know. My guess is it was because of one of two reasons
1) it was not working well, so centralized option was put in place
2) someone wanted to score political points and started a small centralized option that eventually grew and overtook charities (the why should I give when government already pays issue)

Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 04:37:23 AM
 #16

I wonder, though...why do you think charity was abandoned in the first place, for something centralized?

I don't know. My guess is it was because of one of two reasons
1) it was not working well, so centralized option was put in place
2) someone wanted to score political points and started a small centralized option that eventually grew and overtook charities (the why should I give when government already pays issue)

Yeah point 2 would def be the balloon pressure once initiated.

Regarding point 1, I guess the political points would only have had weight if the charity version wasn't working very well. I don't think people would vote for something if they didn't see it actually happening around them.

deego
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 317


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2012, 06:43:37 AM
 #17

Wouldn't a minimal state be extremely bad for people that have "bad luck" (disabilities since birth)?

I actually believe that certain social programs would be good for society IF they could be implemented.  My problem is the latter part.

The non-minimal state - the one you'd like, the one that would care for the needy -  actually doesn't. Power corrupts. You may not easily see it, but the non-minimal state harms more than it helps the needy.  Why, the more powerful you make it, the more it wages wars around the world with impunity.

The tax dollars that you think are going to the needy - no, they all go to wars. Plus, more money is printed and spent on wars.  Yes, the state spends some on the needy, but I suspect that if the state weren't making us all poorer all the time, the needy would have been even better off.

Also, don't you see by now? Every program that's ever implemented in the name of the needy - it only ends up helping the super-rich cronies?

Corruption and perversion of everything "freedom" stands for is a fact of life. The only good state under such circumstances is a minimal state.
 




1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR
deego
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 317


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2012, 06:49:11 AM
 #18

Yes, the state spends some on the needy, but I suspect that if the state weren't making us all poorer all the time, the needy would have been even better off.

To see my point, an extreme example of that is, of course the communist/socialist states - they help the poor, but they create far more poor every year. 

A non-minimal state (such as ours, that's been waging wars continuously since 1913, and has 900 bases around the world), does the same, IMO. It creates more poor than it can ever hope to help. That is, there are more needy and poor than if the state were minimal.

----

Just another reason why this non-minimal state makes us all poor: Does anyone really think this "license raj" is helping our country? Where I need a license for every darn thing? A license just to give someone a backrub? Where I need to get a license to trade for my friend? to change money/currency? to advise someone about the  market?
 

1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR
Hunterbunter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 02, 2012, 07:23:32 AM
 #19

A non-minimal state (such as ours, that's been waging wars continuously since 1913, and has 900 bases around the world), does the same, IMO. It creates more poor than it can ever hope to help. That is, there are more needy and poor than if the state were minimal.

This is very true, although I would still term the US as a relative capitalist state so socialism/communism themselves may not be responsible for extra poverty. You are trying to stop a war-like state with debate. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Just another reason why this non-minimal state makes us all poor: Does anyone really think this "license raj" is helping our country? Where I need a license for every darn thing? A license just to give someone a backrub? Where I need to get a license to trade for my friend? to change money/currency? to advise someone about the  market?
 

It's a public vouching system. You don't have to have your back rubbed by someone with a license, even now...get your friend to do it who "know's what they're doing".
deego
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 317


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2012, 07:30:18 AM
 #20

You don't have to have your back rubbed by someone with a license, even now...g

Well, we are splitting hair now.. Fine, "you can't legally rub someone's back for money without a license."


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!