Are libertarians our enemies?
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,032
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Yes but even if costs go down people still need money to afford things...and jobs are still the main way to get any substantial form of money. So if there are too few of them its bound to cause problems unless there is some other way.
_________________
We won't go back.
RetroGamer87
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,124
Location: Adelaide, Australia
There have been gaudy churches like that built lately. Below is a picture of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro, Africa. It was built in the late 1980s (not by Lutherans). It's officially the largest church in the world and cost $300 million to build. Surely $300 million could have been put to better use in Africa.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 23 May 2015, 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,032
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
I'm sure he's not going to ask for the same care if something happens to him, though.
So, it's fair.
Giving people the choice to pay for the welfare of others seems like the most just thing (don't pay, don't receive it either). See, Churches and donations. You just have hospitals and an organized welfare center that collects money, and since many people see it how you do, there'll be enough money to go to those in need.
Forcing someone to pay for someone else for services they in turn don't want to receive (and refuse it), is stealing, no matter how right or wrong the reason for the services. Doing a bad thing in the name of a good thing still means you've done a bad thing. You do a good thing in the name of a good thing.
We should include all ways of life in society, as long as people don't directly through physical [or negligent] violence, harm others (that's when you face consequences).
Is requiring citizens to pay for roads, or national defense, stealing? What if I don't think a new street is required, or that a war is immoral and shouldn't be supported? Is that then stealing to use my money?
And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need, nor do they have the scope the government has in order to reach everyone needing help.
Roads can be made privately too, you know. It's not like the state has this magic wand that only it can swing to put roads in place. Some people hire private contractors to build roads as well. Heck, I know someone personally who owns an asphalting business.
National defense is stupid as well, people can (or at least, they could, if they had guns) defend themselves, either through organized local militias, or hiring private military companies. Both are better solutions than what many countries have today.
As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Taking away my money and using it on services that I could provide for myself, without me agreeing to it, is in fact, theft. I could have done much better choices with that money on my own.
Just because you are incapable of building a road by yourself, doesn't mean other people are incapable of getting together and hiring someone to build that road for them.
Yes and if all the roads where privately owned then there could be costs for using them it would just give large companies more power over peoples ability to travel...being public they have to be maintenance and are for the use of everyone seems much more effective.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,032
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Humans needn't be social creatures, nor do they owe their fellow [wom]an anything if there's no goods received (and a price for said goods was agreed upon).
No one gave us a choice to sign into society. It's not implied, no matter what anyone says. It's forced. It's not for "our" own good, rather a "good" that is defined arbitrarily by people in authority (see: force).
We have been social creatures from the very beginning; it's quite simply part of our biology, not a choice on our part. We can't simply turn off our biological programming for the sake of ideology. Without society, humans die, regardless if you're talking about the person who needs to be cared for in a hunter-gatherer tribe, or a person in need in a modern industrialized country. That's why every human religion and moral system emphasizes caring for the needy, even if there's no payoff.
Just because we're social creatures, doesn't mean that socialism is the way to go. I think neurotypicals find being social to be easier than most of us, so I understand that you may have trouble getting this, but people can, in fact, be social without the state putting a gun to their head telling them to do so.
Also, I sincerely doubt that caring for humans without getting paid back is something universal in all religious and moral systems, there are people out there who think differently than you do, even if you're not aware of it.
Aren't you being a little dramatic....oh woe is me, having social responsibilities like having to pay taxes otherwise facing legal penalties is not the same as literally having a gun held to your head or do you get the death penalty for evading taxes where you live?
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,032
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Also, what do you mean by "tempered with a sense of responsibility for your neighbors"? Clearly define where you think the line should go, and then we'll talk.
You'll find that it's the parasitic ones, the ones that are in perpetual need, the takers and non-producers, that screech the loudest about helping one's neighbor (through forced redistribution of wealth, of course). But, of course, they are the one's always benefiting, not contributing, so it stands to reason that they dote on it....
It's enough to make one want to vomit.
And what about all the various people that work or contribute in various other ways that think having a social safety network is important? You just seem to like looking down your nose at people and finding whatever you can to justify that despicable behavior. Or do you have some proof that the majority of those who are the loudest about needing such things do not and have not ever contributed and have only ever benefitted from said programs?
_________________
We won't go back.
RetroGamer87
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,124
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Also, funny how you say that ragtag groups of men with guns is ineffective, I know some people in the middle east who beg to differ!

Pay what you want? If we privatized everything you could pay what you want? Sure, it's something like pay TV, if you feel the price is to high, no sale. But if it's something essential like healthcare or national defense there is no pay what you want because you have to buy it. If we privatize everything and then they jack up the price on something you absolutely need, it's no longer pay what you want, it's pay what they want.
The other problem with national defense through mercenaries is that in peace time they could set up a protection racket like the Mafia used to. The Mafia would sell shop owners protection from other gangs but really it was protection from their own gang. A fee paid to not attack them. There was also a "fire insurance" scheme. Which was actually a fee paid for them to not burn down your building.
If you pay mercenaries to protect you from your enemies during wartime, in peacetime you might be paying the same mercenaries to protect you from themselves. In other words you might be paying at the same rate, just for a promise they won't attack you.
And if your nation doesn't have a taxpayer funded military of it's own and relies entirely on this mercenary group for defense, there will be no one to oppose them if they decide to set up a protection racket.
You said before that the difference between buying something privately and getting a tax funded service from the state is that the state can put a gun to your head and force you to pay your taxes. Private companies can't do that? Wrong. If they are a company of mercenaries they can put a gun to your head and force you to pay. Even during peacetime.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
I'm sure he's not going to ask for the same care if something happens to him, though.
So, it's fair.
Giving people the choice to pay for the welfare of others seems like the most just thing (don't pay, don't receive it either). See, Churches and donations. You just have hospitals and an organized welfare center that collects money, and since many people see it how you do, there'll be enough money to go to those in need.
Forcing someone to pay for someone else for services they in turn don't want to receive (and refuse it), is stealing, no matter how right or wrong the reason for the services. Doing a bad thing in the name of a good thing still means you've done a bad thing. You do a good thing in the name of a good thing.
We should include all ways of life in society, as long as people don't directly through physical [or negligent] violence, harm others (that's when you face consequences).
Is requiring citizens to pay for roads, or national defense, stealing? What if I don't think a new street is required, or that a war is immoral and shouldn't be supported? Is that then stealing to use my money?
And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need, nor do they have the scope the government has in order to reach everyone needing help.
Roads can be made privately too, you know. It's not like the state has this magic wand that only it can swing to put roads in place. Some people hire private contractors to build roads as well. Heck, I know someone personally who owns an asphalting business.
National defense is stupid as well, people can (or at least, they could, if they had guns) defend themselves, either through organized local militias, or hiring private military companies. Both are better solutions than what many countries have today.
As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Taking away my money and using it on services that I could provide for myself, without me agreeing to it, is in fact, theft. I could have done much better choices with that money on my own.
Just because you are incapable of building a road by yourself, doesn't mean other people are incapable of getting together and hiring someone to build that road for them.
Yes and if all the roads where privately owned then there could be costs for using them it would just give large companies more power over peoples ability to travel...being public they have to be maintenance and are for the use of everyone seems much more effective.
Yes, we could privatize roads-- if we wanted to cripple business. Every road would be a toll-road, imagine all the stopping and going to pay tolls, talk about inefficient. Furthermore, state, local, and federal departments of transportation are one of the few highly efficient government entities-- they can't construct on their own so they have to have bids to build projects, this forces construction companies to constantly lower costs of construction so as not to be underbid by a competitor. Granted, if privatized this efficient model would be adopted by said private road companies, but now they'd want their 10% cut on top of said cost.
Then add in that said companies would eventually consolidate (if not immediately) and use this new power to threaten other companies: Hey UPS, you wanna use our roads next year you're gonna have to pay an extra 100 million surcharge. Why? Because you have no choice, we own your roads and thus your business that's why. You think UPS is gonna eat the cost, hells no, that's getting dropped on the consumer as well.
Net result of privatizing roads: inefficient travel, consolidation of power among a few wealthy individuals, and more cost to the average citizen. Sign me up for that one and give me a Darwin award while you're at it.
Since privatization seems the hot topic here, listen to this story. In America, the so called land of the free, we have a lot of private prisons. When they are built, the government guarantees a minimum occupancy. Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, to continue, we've had documented cases of judges sending innocent people to prison to get a kickback. These same prisons are paid for the care of inmates with our tax money. Their profit comes out of our tax money. What do they do? They turn around and use that (our) money to lobby Congress and legislatures to create more laws to add to the prison population. There have been cases where private prisons 'forget' to release prisoners for as long as possible to get the per diem cost of housing the prisoner. They then can make sweetheart deals with businesses for dirt cheap labor, thus taking jobs away from those that need them. All this in a so called democracy. Imagine if it was all private for everything and everybody. We would have no controls without government...
well stated
well stated
Thanks.
If I were to go into the forest, I would have problems building myself a cottage, because if I do not own the land, it is not mine, and I would be thrown out of it....
No, there are lots of people who live outside the bounds of "normal society" which do so quite successfully.
No, asking people to kill themselves because they cause you an inconvenience is unreasonable.....
The people who live outside of society does so risking being arrested and put in jail.
Asking people to hurt themselves instead of me is perfectly reasonable.
And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need, nor do they have the scope the government has in order to reach everyone needing help.
Well, only if they use the roads and ask for defense. Sounds fair, right? I'm sure there'll always be enough people that will want to pay for services that they and others use.
Church is just an example of where donations can go to help others. Creating the same thing as what's in place now (collection and distribution agencies), just without compulsory attendance, doesn't seem like a problem.
In the end, it's just giving people that want to be independent, a choice to be.
Of course, people can do that now, but they're given punishments if they're caught. So it's not a choice that's without consequences from external sources, even if what they're doing isn't inherently "wrong".
But if paying taxes is a choice, then nothing is going to be paid for. And privatization of public institutions, such as jails, juvenile detention facilities, and prisons, have been absolute failures wrought with corruption, so there's no reason to think that private armies and police forces would be any different. Even the founding fathers understood that involuntary taxation was necessary, as long as it was with representation. After all, Washington as President had suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion, which was a tax revolt, by force of arms.
And look where this representation lead you! It's sh*****g all over the constitution that you once waved so proudly. No thanks, I'd rather decide for myself what I do on my own land.
They seem more focused on their own personal freedoms than any notion common good, democratic freedoms, and this concerns me.
Look into the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, they are two different things. Do you think that everyone should live equally, even if one person has worked harder than another?
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Your right to property is trumped by other people's right to life, I'm afraid. That's also a very simplistic view of "freedom" - if I take some money from Bill Gates and give it to a struggling family, I have massively boosted their freedom without making a noticeable impact on his.
My right to property is absolute. If you cannot sustain yourself in any way, it is your own fault and you should not steal from anyone. Bill Gates earned that money doing some nasty stuff (http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversi ... epaper.pdf) but it is still *his* money. You have no right to take away what is not yours.
If you're really so deep in the hole that you have to resort to theft, I suggest you either go kill yourself as to not cause harm to society, or start begging instead.
Pretty sure telling people to kill themselves on this site because you're a selfish prick is against site rules.

So telling people to not steal from me is being a selfish prick? Alright, I'll just write that down on my list of stupid things heard today.
There have been gaudy churches like that built lately. Below is a picture of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro, Africa. It was built in the late 1980s (not by Lutherans). It's officially the largest church in the world and cost $300 million to build. Surely $300 million could have been put to better use in Africa.

What Africa does is Africa's business, I can't speak for them. I don't know where they got the money to build that church. Sadly, since it's Africa, I wouldn't be surprised that you are right about some of them spending their money that was supposed to go to one thing on something else. I would still like to say that I don't believe what is happening in African churches is that related to where the money from western charities are going, but I may very well be wrong.
Always check who you're giving your money to, you might just be supporting genocide!
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Your right to property is trumped by other people's right to life, I'm afraid. That's also a very simplistic view of "freedom" - if I take some money from Bill Gates and give it to a struggling family, I have massively boosted their freedom without making a noticeable impact on his.
My right to property is absolute.
No it isn't. It granted to you by the state in return for paying taxes and obeying the law.
Also, please avoid personal attacks such as telling other users to kill themselves and calling them stupid. You will be banned if you cannot treat other users with respect and decency.