Page 9 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

17 Oct 2013, 11:17 am

LKL wrote:
Potato famine time again: the poor in Ireland ate potatoes because it was a nutritious food that was easy to grow on very marginal land, which was the only land that they could afford. Rich landowners also grew great deals of grain for export to England and other areas, on the better land. When the famine hit, some of those rich landowners chose to give some (or much) of their grain to the starving people, rather than see their tenants and neighbors as corpses with green-stained mouths along the hedgerows. Many of those landowners subsequently lost their own land because the needed the profit that the grain would have made in England to stay afloat.
Is that ok? That some landowners had to take the full work of feeding a nation upon themselves because no one else was doing it, and subsequently lost their own land for their compassion?
Or would it have been better if everyone were required to give a little bit, and no one lost their land, and no one starved?

Better for whom? Who decides what's best? What if the majority decides that it's better for the aggregate to let the starving people die?

What can't I decide what's best for me?

Quote:
Another example: My parents live on a non-county, and thus non-paved road. When it needed to be re-paved, they went around to the neighbors and asked everyone to contribute $50 to pave the whole road, because it was too expensive for any one person to take on. Most of the neighbors said yes, but two or three said, "No. No, we won't contribute to your paving fund.... but we'll still drive home on this newly paved road, once it's nice and smooth." The consequence was that the road didn't get paved at all; no one wanted to support the freeloaders, so everyone drove over potholes.

I don't consider it acceptable to force those other two or three people to pay up through violence or threat of violence, but that's for them to decide.

The neighbors decided that it was more important to them that everyone contributes than it was for them to have a fresh paved road. I don't see a problem here.



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

17 Oct 2013, 2:15 pm

It's just a hit piece, democrats jabs at libertarians.
A bunch of gross exaggerations.

As a libertarian, I believe the government should be the servant of the people, not their parent. And for the most part government needs to keep their nose out of everyones business.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

17 Oct 2013, 7:51 pm

ADB

Your last post was more or less a repeat of your post before that. It did not interact in a substantial way with my position so unless you have something to add I will consider the matter closed.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Oct 2013, 8:22 pm

adb wrote:
LKL wrote:
Potato famine time again: the poor in Ireland ate potatoes because it was a nutritious food that was easy to grow on very marginal land, which was the only land that they could afford. Rich landowners also grew great deals of grain for export to England and other areas, on the better land. When the famine hit, some of those rich landowners chose to give some (or much) of their grain to the starving people, rather than see their tenants and neighbors as corpses with green-stained mouths along the hedgerows. Many of those landowners subsequently lost their own land because the needed the profit that the grain would have made in England to stay afloat.
Is that ok? That some landowners had to take the full work of feeding a nation upon themselves because no one else was doing it, and subsequently lost their own land for their compassion?
Or would it have been better if everyone were required to give a little bit, and no one lost their land, and no one starved?

Better for whom? Who decides what's best? What if the majority decides that it's better for the aggregate to let the starving people die?

What can't I decide what's best for me?

You are assuming that 'the aggregate' doesn't include the starving people themselves. Don't they get a vote, or are they discounted from your society entirely because they're so weak from hunger that they can't help themselves?

Quote:
Quote:
Another example: My parents live on a non-county, and thus non-paved road. When it needed to be re-paved, they went around to the neighbors and asked everyone to contribute $50 to pave the whole road, because it was too expensive for any one person to take on. Most of the neighbors said yes, but two or three said, "No. No, we won't contribute to your paving fund.... but we'll still drive home on this newly paved road, once it's nice and smooth." The consequence was that the road didn't get paved at all; no one wanted to support the freeloaders, so everyone drove over potholes.

I don't consider it acceptable to force those other two or three people to pay up through violence or threat of violence, but that's for them to decide.
The neighbors decided that it was more important to them that everyone contributes than it was for them to have a fresh paved road. I don't see a problem here.

It's not a problem, exactly, but it is an example of a libertarian social contract at work.

Starving people and unpaved roads are the result of libertarian social 'agreements.' To me, that seems objectively bad, because I tend to try to base my system of morality on the utilitarian principle, at least in general.

@pete: these examples are in no way exaggerations. They are true, historical things that have actually happened when there was no government regulation or support.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

17 Oct 2013, 9:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Correction. Libertarians advocate a minimal political state that has these functions.

1. Keeping peace domestically --- police and law courts.
2. Maintaining an armed force to protect the body politic: -- army, navy and airforce.

Period!! !! !

Your government should beat the bounds to keep out the lawless and the scoundrels and maintain a constabulary to deal with ruffians, thieves, killers and defrauders. Also it should see to it that the night times are kept quiet so people can get their sleep.

Your government should NOT redistribute incomes nor set up a privileged class such as the current crew in Washington that does nothing but live off tax revenue and the Corporate Cronies that have bribed the government to give them unrightful privileges.

ruveyn

A "minimal" state is still a state, and no matter how "minimal" you make it, it will always come back to what we have now over time. The number one priority of the state is to keep itself alive.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

18 Oct 2013, 2:04 pm

adb wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think political activism, lawmaking, regulation and "red tape" are better ways of improving worker conditions. In any case, isn't "Union-imposed regulation" just as bad for business as "government-imposed regulation"?

The difference is that government-imposed regulation is done by threat of force. You face violence if you refuse to participate and the parties involved have no ability to resolve things themselves

Let's pretend there is a safety feature for expandable ladders that helps prevent them from collapsing unintentionally. This unintentional collapse has resulted in four deaths and 30 injuries out of 20,000 sold. The safety feature increases the cost of our example ladder from $100 to $120.

In our first case, the government has mandated that all ladders have this safety feature. If you don't have this safety feature, you face fines. If you refuse to pay the fines, you are criminally prosecuted. All consumers must pay the $120 to get the ladder with the safety feature.

Except before the government pass the law, they will hold a period of consultation in which all parties will be able to give their say.

Better examples are those taken from the real world... like the minimum wage, the WTD (which imposes breaks, sickness pay, maternity and paternity leave...