Am I wrong?

[neptop]

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.

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

[neptop]

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.

But isn't it always the fault of someone else? Also wouldn't these things require (enforced) transparency?

[Hawker]

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.

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

You don't.  Libertarians believe that charity and begging will be just as good as a state system.

[Rassah]

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

[Hawker]

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.

But isn't it always the fault of someone else? Also wouldn't these things require (enforced) transparency?

As dayfall says, right now people say "I voted for X and its his job to make sure the government takes care of pollution, crime and the usual things that no individual really wants to devote brain time to."

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs.  We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

[Rassah]

If you start out being handicapped how would you pay insurance?

Depending on your handicap, you can still work. Most of our employment now only requires a functioning brain and a set of fingers.

[Hawker]

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Not strictly true.  In a free market system, health care costs more than a socialised system.

The benefit of a libertarian system is primarily a moral benefit.  People like the idea of sturdy independence.

[Rassah]

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs.  We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.

[Rassah]

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Not strictly true.  In a free market system, health care costs more than a socialised system.

The higher amount of money spent on healthcare is not wasted. I mean literal waste of money, time, and resources.

[Hawker]

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs.  We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.

Maybe.  I think of it more like car maintenance.  Sure I could buy a book for each car and learn how the engines work and how to look after them.  But that is not how I want to live my life.  I pay a garage to do it and hopefully while in the garage, the do more than put air in the tyres and make up a bill.

Same thing with the zoning/economics/pollution/health decisions for most people.  I find that particular discussion interesting but I have yet to meet anyone to talk about it in a pub.  Eyes glaze over and they watch the latest football.  Which is fine...they vote for people to think about that stuff on their behalf.

[Rassah]

I don't go to pubs. And I don't watch football. I do ask questions about my car, have a genuine interest in something that important to me, have a detailed dated list of ALL maintenance ever done on it to make sure I don't miss tuneups (MY responsibility, not my mechanic's), and have a friend who is a mechanic whom I watch intently when he works on it to learn how to do stuff myself if I need to. My plan is to drive my car until it dies (I have a feeling "until it dies" will be a long way away). I drive a 12 year old Honda Civic that's about to hit 222,222 miles, still works and drives like brand new, still does 32mpg, and likely saved thousands of dollars just because I do my own basic maintenance (oil, spark plugs, tires, etc), and because I haven't yet had to spend $15,000+ on a brand new car. And I'm a f'n ACCOUNTANT with a full time job and evening MBA classes (about as opposite of a car mechanic or car junkie redneck you can get)! What's everyone else's excuse?

[Hawker]

I don't go to pubs. And I don't watch football. I do ask questions about my car, have a genuine interest in something that important to me, have a detailed dated list of ALL maintenance ever done on it to make sure I don't miss tuneups, and have a friend who is a mechanic whom I watch intently when he works on it to learn how to do stuff myself if I need to. My plan is to drive my car until it dies (I have a feeling (until it dies) will be a long way away). I drive a 12 year old Honda Civic that's about to hit 222,222 miles, still works and drives like brand new, still does 32mpg, and likely saved thousands of dollars just because I do my own basic maintenance (oil, spark plugs, tires, etc), and because I haven't yet had to spend $15,000+ on a brand new car. And I'm a f'n accountant with a full time job and evening MBA classes! What's everyone else's excuse?

We have lives?

[Rassah]

We have lives?

And I'm a f'n accountant with a full time job and evening MBA classes!

Must I add, "And I'm taking Iaido and Kendo classes on Mondays and Wednesdays (when I don't have class), practicing flying in hopes of being a pilot, studying Japanese, participating heavily in Bitcoin stuff, trying to launch my own business or at least sell my patent to one, traveling at least twice a year, organizing cultural/business networking meets once a month, host fancy dinner parties at my house, watch movies, play video games, read books, and still have time to visit family and friends once in a while. Car stuff takes a few hours out of the morning on a weekend every few months. Seriously, what is everyone else's excuse, if not "it's just not important to me?"

[neptop]

So what's the benefit of a libertarian society then?

Less waste. Every dollar wasted is a dollar taken out of our overall well being.

Well, I guess it's a lot of how you define waste. I mean in a way you could call every form of economic system and what it entails a huge waste that could be replaced with a system similar(!) to communism (and by that I mean the early, basic concepts).

An even better concept I think would be a resource based economy (similar, but not necessarily exactly what he Zeitgeist Movement/the Venus project proposes).

Isn't that all very naive? Especially when we see how people (or companies, countries, whatever) usually benefit if they don't raise the finger. Wouldn't it therefor be much better to build a free society based on giving anyone what is required to live and the option to education since this is what always caused a benefit for the whole society. And if you would want a better society wouldn't it be possible to raise the minimum level so everyone can risk something in order to make society better and doesn't have to struggle with daily life? All this to prevent someone who could contribute from spending all of his time struggling with survival.

Don't we have a huge problem with how society thinks about certain groups. I mean like an actor once meant nothing and had low pay for doing a lot more and now they get tons of money. Same thing is true for computer science.

In general the money someone receives doesn't tell you a lot about how much someone contributes to society. It's even worse, money is actually demotivating. Also it's hard to argue on what's an important contribution. Also it's simply stupid, that luxury goods like expensive cars, destroying the environment for everyone makes companies a lot of money. Like in many other cases people are more like "but others do it as well". And what about all the companies (Apple being a famous example) creating products that break soon so they make more money? They already make lots of money by making things worse, so what would happen if the was no regulation and it would be even easier for Apple to silence people complaining about that? Wouldn't this be the case in a Libertarian society, because the state doesn't create rules to prevent people who don't know lots of stuff from buying bad (like even dangerous) products?

Just because I often read it in discussions. It's simply not true to say that dangerous (or generally bad) products would simply disappear, because they have bad chances on surviving. Yeah, I think the world would be better off without states, being able to regulate itself and I think we should work into that direction, but on the other hand I am living in central Europe and I have seen and can see how liberation of markets makes things worse for the company, the people working there and the consumers. I am also close enough to US citizens to know they are worse off, because the US seem to push even more into free markets and while I have studied enough to know that everything would work better under certain circumstances I always get reminded of all the other ideologies about making the world better for everyone.

People love freedom. But freedom can be "Freedom to decide about every cent you earn and not give everything that state or whoever" and "Freedom to try new stuff, because it won't kill you when it turns out to be a mistake". Since society, like everything else evolves with trial and error isn't better to make sure you have more tries?

Thats why democracy works - most people do not want to get into the nitty gritty of understanding the interaction of zoning, economics, pollution and health costs.  We vote people in to do it and hope for the best.

This is otherwise known as willful ignorance.

Maybe.  I think of it more like car maintenance.  Sure I could buy a book for each car and learn how the engines work and how to look after them.  But that is not how I want to live my life.  I pay a garage to do it and hopefully while in the garage, the do more than put air in the tyres and make up a bill.

Same thing with the zoning/economics/pollution/health decisions for most people.  I find that particular discussion interesting but I have yet to meet anyone to talk about it in a pub.  Eyes glaze over and they watch the latest football.  Which is fine...they vote for people to think about that stuff on their behalf.

I think democracy "works" because it's maybe the most revolution resistant form of authority. It's easy to make people believe that they have power and can change things for better. Combined with various forms propaganda (a science that got far in the past 100 years) it simply, subtly hardens control. See the US. Only two huge parties that are similar in so many ways and everyone knows (as in believes) that voting for someone else doesn't change anything. Shouldn't that be enough they simply create exceptions. There is always some kind of opposition while in reality everything is stalled and reinforcing itself, because it worked until now. Basic evolution. Since it is the most influential country/the superpower it to a certain degree can even control the rest of the world through means of "globalization".

It's stable. It's maybe even better than alternatives. I don't know, I haven't seen them.

People can look at history, but still think it's different now. From my point of view it's just that things get more large-scale.

[Rassah]

By waste, I mean spending a lot of time and money on things no one actually needs or wants. A business doing that will go bankrupt quickly. A government doing that will just continue to receive tax dollars. I do honestly believe that a majority of what the government does is not wasteful, but a very large portion of it is. How much raw materials we spend on bullets to shoot people in countries we shouldn't be in alone?

Wouldn't it therefor be much better to build a free society based on giving anyone what is required to live and the option to education since this is what always caused a benefit for the whole society. And if you would want a better society wouldn't it be possible to raise the minimum level so everyone can risk something in order to make society better and doesn't have to struggle with daily life? All this to prevent someone who could contribute from spending all of his time struggling with survival.

That depends on one important question: are you personally willing to give to someone? Can you go out, find a homeless person, and start giving them every day to make sure they don't have to struggle with daily life? If yes, then there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting that society right now. If you can't afford it, then you've found the #1 reason that idea won't work. Do keep in mind that wealthy people (and corporations) typically have just as much free cash as you do. If you want them to spend their millions to help support everyone, that means they have to free up more cash, which means selling off real estate (kicking out people and businesses), pulling money out of stocks (depriving other businesses from cash they need to operate), selling their million's worth factories (firing people), or even just taking working cash out of their own businesses (employees won't know if they'll even get paid).

I don't want to take apart the rest of your post bit by bit because it would take too long (but can point out issues in it if you really want me to), but in short, you are of the belief that everyone should be cared about and deserves a chance at life and minimum sustenance (like I was 5 years ago) and I'm, to put it bluntly, am now jaded and of the belief that it's OK to let people who choose to stay ignorant to die off from their own stupidity.

[neptop]

That depends on one important question: are you personally willing to give to someone? Can you go out, find a homeless person, and start giving them every day to make sure they don't have to struggle with daily life? If yes, then there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting that society right now. If you can't afford it, then you've found the #1 reason that idea won't work. Do keep in mind that wealthy people (and corporations) typically have just as much free cash as you do. If you want them to spend their millions to help support everyone, that means they have to free up more cash, which means selling off real estate (kicking out people and businesses), pulling money out of stocks (depriving other businesses from cash they need to operate), selling their million's worth factories (firing people), or even just taking working cash out of their own businesses (employees won't know if they'll even get paid).

I don't want anyone to spend any money on anything.

Besides that you are wrong. It does not depend on how much money you have. Look at history. How many forms of society have been based on someone with money starting that.

You are also wrong when you say a wealthy person don't have enough cash to support others so they don't have to struggle with daily lives. There are tons of people supporting others lives.

I think one possible way to create something like what I said would be inflation. People get a basic amount of money from a central bank, enough to live and maybe to pay school. Basically how Cuba (and yeah, when it comes to stability they are doing very well when you think about the US sanctions, even if the government is damn oppressive and stuff. Many people there even seem to be very happy, even if they have a good reason to complain about there government and do so) has been doing it for a while now, but I guess "normal" money would be better.

Basically, if you want any kind of luxury you'll have to work for it. This would of course have a huge effect on inflation, but that's natural in times of upheavals.

I think a big problem is that people forget about money and economics are tools for society. Society should be independent of it. It's imply stupid to create systems where you can have a financial crisis and it's a huge problem for the world. It certainly is a problem so it needs to be fixed. I guess it will be fixed at some points. I just think (and fear) a lot more people will have bad luck (wrong time, wrong place) until then.

[Rassah]

I don't want anyone to spend any money on anything.

What you are saying is you want to create things from nothing and without any effort. Money is simply a representation of things and effort.

Besides that you are wrong. It does not depend on how much money you have. Look at history. How many forms of society have been based on someone with money starting that.

I don't know my history well enough, so I'll ask you, what changes in society, or revolutions, began without any money or work?

You are also wrong when you say a wealthy person don't have enough cash to support others so they don't have to struggle with daily lives. There are tons of people supporting others lives.

Does that mean the money they are using to support others is free to use/take? If you take that money that is supposedly free to use, won't the people whom those wealthy chose to support (friends, family, etc) suffer?

I think one possible way to create something like what I said would be inflation. People get a basic amount of money from a central bank, enough to live and maybe to pay school. Basically how Cuba (and yeah, when it comes to stability they are doing very well when you think about the US sanctions, even if the government is damn oppressive and stuff. Many people there even seem to be very happy, even if they have a good reason to complain about there government and do so) has been doing it for a while now, but I guess "normal" money would be better.

That's still not free money. Someone has to print it, someone has to distribute it, and even worse, that wealth has to come from somewhere. It comes from the fact that the money in someone else's savings account is now worth less. In that closed system, there is very literally NO difference between the government printing money to give to poor people, and the government taking a few pennies from everyone who holds any amount of money and giving it to poor people. E.g. imagine you are a shop owner. You sold a big TV for $3,000. You Gave away something worth $3k, and got something in exchange that's worth $3k, that's now sitting in your safe. The government prints out another round of money to give to those in need. Suddenly, the guy you sold the TV for still has $3,000 in value, but you only have $2,750 worth in exchange, or rather, if you wanted to buy another $3,000 TV to sell, you now have to pay $3,250 for it. Does this makes sense?

I think a big problem is that people forget about money and economics are tools for society. Society should be independent of it. It's imply stupid to create systems where you can have a financial crisis and it's a huge problem for the world. It certainly is a problem so it needs to be fixed. I guess it will be fixed at some points. I just think (and fear) a lot more people will have bad luck (wrong time, wrong place) until then.

First, I want you to explain to me in detail what you think money is. How do you see it, how do you believe it works, and what kind of an idea or thing do you think it is? I am really having trouble wrapping my head around your thinking, so hope that will help me.

Then, do me (and yourself) a favor. Try to imagine money as just a commodity, no different from sugar or wheat, following the exact same principles of supply and demand. That's all that money actually is: a commodity we use to measure things against. Let me know if that changes your view of money in any way.

[neptop]

I don't want anyone to spend any money on anything.

What you are saying is you want to create things from nothing and without any effort. Money is simply a representation of things and effort.

Again: I don't want to. I am just thinking about stuff.

Besides that you are wrong. It does not depend on how much money you have. Look at history. How many forms of society have been based on someone with money starting that.

I don't know my history well enough, so I'll ask you, what changes in society, or revolutions, began without any money or work?

Work is not money. Revolutions usually are independent of money.

You are also wrong when you say a wealthy person don't have enough cash to support others so they don't have to struggle with daily lives. There are tons of people supporting others lives.

Does that mean the money they are using to support others is free to use/take? If you take that money that is supposedly free to use, won't the people whom those wealthy chose to support (friends, family, etc) suffer?

That's exactly it. I didn't say anything about taking money. I just said people can support others. Family and friends are examples.

That's still not free money. Someone has to print it, someone has to distribute it, and even worse, that wealth has to come from somewhere. It comes from the fact that the money in someone else's savings account is now worth less.

It's called inflation and in various situations it's actually a good thing. Especially because it causes money to be moved. Most systems are based on money that needs to move.

The government prints out another round of money to give to those in need. Suddenly, the guy you sold the TV for still has $3,000 in value, but you only have $2,750 worth in exchange, or rather, if you wanted to buy another $3,000 TV to sell, you now have to pay $3,250 for it. Does this makes sense?

In an evolving and growing society it does.

Also you could argue about financial crisis, now and 90 years ago. The factories have been there, the workers and the resources. But there is this big crisis, so the whole economy has to stall. Doesn't make a lot of sense either.

I think a big problem is that people forget about money and economics are tools for society. Society should be independent of it. It's imply stupid to create systems where you can have a financial crisis and it's a huge problem for the world. It certainly is a problem so it needs to be fixed. I guess it will be fixed at some points. I just think (and fear) a lot more people will have bad luck (wrong time, wrong place) until then.

First, I want you to explain to me in detail what you think money is. How do you see it, how do you believe it works, and what kind of an idea or thing do you think it is? I am really having trouble wrapping my head around your thinking, so hope that will help me.

Well depends on a number of things. Do you mean what it is now or what it used to be? First and foremost it is an abstract scheme to define/convert values of goods and services.

But the view on things can be different depending on whether you are a government, a central bank, see money in the cash market or see physical money.

Then, do me (and yourself) a favor. Try to imagine money as just a commodity, no different from sugar or wheat, following the exact same principles of supply and demand. That's all that money actually is: a commodity we use to measure things against. Let me know if that changes your view of money in any way.

No. It's simply one perspective.

What do you know about political economy? What do you know about terms like controlled inflation? Central (banker's) banks do create more money (in form of interest) under certain circumstances.

[Rassah]

Money is an abstract scheme to define value. Specific money, be it Dollars, Euros, or Bitcoin, is just a controlled/regulated commodity, and follows all the exact same laws of such.
I know everything about political economy. That's pretty much what my degrees are in.

[Mageant]

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?

The assumption is that in a society with a minimalist state then big corporations would wield even more power than they do currently, because the "protection" that the state currently offers would be gone.

I propose that it the big corporations that would suffer the most from much reduced government. The big corporations receive much more benefits through subsidies, bailouts, near-monopolies regulatory capture and the like than disadvantages through regulations and laws. It is the small companies that would benefit more than the big one from a reduced or absent government.