Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Rights and Self-Defence
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Rights and Self-Defence (Read 3708 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #50 - May 28th, 2019 at 7:41pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
Defense of the Nation, secure the blessings of liberty, and protect the rights of the citizens.

Did I leave anything out?

No, that's just fine.

Cleveland believed, as I do, that free people can create whatever form of local government they think will work for them, as long as republican principles are observed.

As free citizens, they are at liberty to do such things. (People in penitentiaries are not free citizens.)

Cleveland knew, as I do, that the object is individual liberty in a civilized society.


  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12095
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #51 - May 28th, 2019 at 10:09pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 10:53am:
You can't see it because of your perspective. Probably you are on the libertarian spectrum closer to the anarchist end, so you tend to be leery, dismissive, or afraid of, any sort of community based action that involves telling government to do something that will have a good effect throughout the community, like using local property taxes to fund local schools or hiring some police...

If you focus entirely on the pure philosophy and throw up a barrier in your mind that says all taxation is theft and any government action is wrong, you will be blinded by your ideology from recognizing that governments can be put to good uses to produce good practical results that are largely beneficial.


If this was a programme you disliked, you would insist that if people really benefited, they could be expected to see that themselves and pay for that themselves. Voluntarily.

In every other instance, government can only make things worse. Government is not as alert to the tradewinds of the free market as individuals.

Yet here, you want me to believe everyone besides the government is just blind to these benefits they'll supposedly receive, and the government alone knows best.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you like it because it's a direct transfer of wealth from the working class to the employers, who now get each and every employee trained for them on the backs of the taxpayers.

I get it. You won the argument with your ridicule about me being blind. Congratulations. Free public school is fine and not a transfer of wealth, and free food is impermissible and theft. You're just altering definitions so you can get and stay rich. This is what many people believe about libertarians, and probably because it's true.

Oh, and just to prove I'm not an anarchist, fine, tax me for public school, but let me opt out by taking double the tax you're asking for and burning it. It won't be worth it to most people to lose double to get out of it, so you'll still get your money.

I've always thought this should be an option on every tax return. A little checkbox that says, "Here, take double, but let me choose what I pay for and what I don't." If everyone checks it, and no one wants welfare, then we get no welfare. Same for roads and bridges. If enough people are willing to pay double to get out of paying for them, let them crumble.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #52 - May 29th, 2019 at 7:33am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 10:09pm:
If this was a programme you disliked, you would insist that if people really benefited, they could be expected to see that themselves and pay for that themselves. Voluntarily.

In every other instance, government can only make things worse. Government is not as alert to the tradewinds of the free market as individuals.

Yet here, you want me to believe everyone besides the government is just blind to these benefits they'll supposedly receive, and the government alone knows best.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you like it because it's a direct transfer of wealth from the working class to the employers, who now get each and every employee trained for them on the backs of the taxpayers.

I get it. You won the argument with your ridicule about me being blind. Congratulations. Free public school is fine and not a transfer of wealth, and free food is impermissible and theft. You're just altering definitions so you can get and stay rich. This is what many people believe about libertarians, and probably because it's true.

Oh, and just to prove I'm not an anarchist, fine, tax me for public school, but let me opt out by taking double the tax you're asking for and burning it. It won't be worth it to most people to lose double to get out of it, so you'll still get your money.

I've always thought this should be an option on every tax return. A little checkbox that says, "Here, take double, but let me choose what I pay for and what I don't." If everyone checks it, and no one wants welfare, then we get no welfare. Same for roads and bridges. If enough people are willing to pay double to get out of paying for them, let them crumble.
Your (and others) insistence that free markets can replace government in every instance is naive and only the lunatic anarchist fringe of libertarians believes it.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12095
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #53 - May 29th, 2019 at 9:47am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 7:33am:
Your (and others) insistence that free markets can replace government in every instance is naive and only the lunatic anarchist fringe of libertarians believes it.


I don't insist that, you do.

If you didn't, you would need some evidence other than "free market > government" that the free market is better than government in the instances you prefer it to be used.

You laugh at Skychief and insist that OSHA can't possibly save lives, because why would a business kill its employees? Businesses know best, of course!

But concerning education, the government knows best, and you need no evidence for that, either.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #54 - May 29th, 2019 at 10:52am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 9:47am:
I don't insist that, you do.

Sorry, I do not. I recognize that free markets can do better many of the things our current governments are doing (usually with no legal authorization) but I also recognize that there are things that can be done much better by government.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12095
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #55 - May 29th, 2019 at 11:00am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:52am:
Sorry, I do not. I recognize that free markets can do better many of the things our current governments are doing (usually with no legal authorization) but I also recognize that there are things that can be done much better by government.


No, you do. If someone else suggests that something can be done better by government, you state that they're wrong. You need no evidence except that the free market does everything better.

The FAA and OSHA are good examples.

This is when Skychief cited his own life as being saved by OSHA. I guess you think he's lying.

Point is, you do hold "the free market does everything better" as unquestionable dogma.

What if I were to suggest that the FDA keeps our food safe better than the free market would?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #56 - May 29th, 2019 at 11:01am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 9:47am:
You laugh at Skychief and insist that OSHA can't possibly save lives, because why would a business kill its employees? Businesses know best, of course!

If you gather enough information and use critical thinking, you can see that industrial accident rates were falling before OSHA was created, and that the rate of decline did not change much after OSHA.

If I remember the graph correctly, the rate of decline actually slowed after OSHA.

It can be plausibly argued from that fact that OSHA actually caused more industrial accidents to occur than would have occurred without OSHA.

"Businesses" don't know anything. The people who own and run them might know something, but it's never a sure thing, just like the various federal Departments.

OSHA doesn't actually know anything, but some of the bureaucrats who work there might...

Simply from a rational standpoint, a business owner has more motivation to look after the safety of her employees than does a bureaucrat at OSHA. There is of course high variability among both bureaucrats and business owners, but again, from a rational standpoint, the business owner is more likely to know how to keep his employees safe than is the typical OSHA bureaucrat.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12095
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #57 - May 29th, 2019 at 11:09am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:01am:
If you gather enough information and use critical thinking, you can see that industrial accident rates were falling before OSHA was created, and that the rate of decline did not change much after OSHA.

If I remember the graph correctly, the rate of decline actually slowed after OSHA.

It can be plausibly argued from that fact that OSHA actually caused more industrial accidents to occur than would have occurred without OSHA.


Sure, if you don't understand that once there's far less of something, it's that much harder for it to decline at the same rate.

Jeff wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:01am:
Simply from a rational standpoint, a business owner has more motivation to look after the safety of her employees than does a bureaucrat at OSHA.


Why? This is where you're not needing any evidence.

Cat food companies do not do melamine tests on their cat food. They don't have to. And melamine poisoning is common.

If I said cat food companies have more motivation to preserve the lives of cats than the government, I'd be a proven liar. I need evidence, and here it is.

https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/think-you-can-avoid-pet-foods-made-in-chin...
Quote:
The million dollar question is, if pet food manufacturers can’t prove the origin of their premixes, why don’t they test every batch of food?

The answer might shock you: it is so cost prohibitive that it’s actually cheaper for them to pay the lawsuits from our dead pets than it is to test their product.


The government has more motivation, because once they've got their hands in the jar, they can pick winners, let people buy favours, rent-seek, and mooch. If they don't actually keep anyone safe, they lose all that. This is the deal with the devil we make with the FDA, and it's worth it.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #58 - May 29th, 2019 at 4:36pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:00am:
No, you do. If someone else suggests that something can be done better by government, you state that they're wrong. You need no evidence except that the free market does everything better.

The FAA and OSHA are good examples.

A good working knowledge of bureaucracies, which you obviously don't have, allows people to broadly state that bureaucracies do everything worse.

Knowledge of the empirical evidence, of which there is a lot, allows people to state broadly that free economies work vastly better than government controlled economies.

That said, both OSHA and the FAA are not unmitigated goods, they cause unintended problems that are costly and have bad effects.

Taken as a whole, my understanding is that they have been costly mistakes.

In general, people favoring government controlled economies make broad unsupportable statements like "without the FAA, flying would be terribly unsafe and without OSHA, workers would be injured and killed almost constantly'', and they want to be allowed to get away with it...
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51344
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Rights and Self-Defence
Reply #59 - May 29th, 2019 at 4:42pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:09am:
The government has more motivation, because once they've got their hands in the jar, they can pick winners, let people buy favours, rent-seek, and mooch. If they don't actually keep anyone safe, they lose all that. This is the deal with the devil we make with the FDA, and it's worth it.
You raise a good point, that regulation has motivations beyond the stated purpose, but in fact the FDA can't be credited with keeping people safe, they simply claim the credit because they like their cushy jobs and good benefits. "Look people, (almost) no one died from bad drugs, and we here at the FDA claim credit for that!", but of course some people did die because the FDA held up approval for a drug that would have saved their lives.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Rights and Self-Defence
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy