America needs libertarianism

[hiphophippy]

therefore, as a socialist, you're doing it wrong

And this is the conclusion I came to a few days ago. Which is why I will be voting for the tea party.

 

[Vlatrone]

it makes sense unlike libertarianism?

Libertarianism doesn't make sense? I'll tell you what doesn't make sense: supporting a huge, ineffective, corrupt bureaucracy that taxes everybody as it pleases, imposes on people's right to liberty, and tells businesses whats fair.

turn everyone against the idea of capitalism altogether.

Makes sense considering communism works so well.

 

[Vlatrone]

What's wrong with socialism sir?

It doesn' work.(reduced incentives, lower living standards, etc.)

Also healthcare needs to be handled by the government mainly... as it's one of those basic rights that all humans should have, just like food, and clean water.

No its not.

but lose the war of having a less pleasant, happy, healthy, life, overall?

My life would actually be better in a true libertarian society.

separate you from the herd of jaded, malinformed, cynics out there?

You don't agree with me so of course I must be malinformed.

 

[hiphophippy]

Also healthcare needs to be handled by the government mainly (with various private organizations providing extra services to those who can afford them, of course) as it's one of those basic rights that all humans should have, just like food, and clean water.

Health care is not a human right. Should a government as large and powerful as the US provide it to its citizens? yeah probably.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

^If a human has the natural born right for "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" then healthcare is just as implied in that statement as the right to minimum wage and clean water. It's plain as day. Isn't it generally agreed that, whether or not those rights appeared in writing, they were sort of implied simply by the virtue of us being in a wonderful age of enlightenment (or at least we were at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, I realize that "we" are far from enlightened as a whole these days).

And Vlatty baby, it's not about disagreeing with your points, it's about the attitude that seems to make you devalue your fellow human being. The word "malinformed" is not equivalent to "misinformed." I would never be so arrogant to think that simply disagreeing with me equals misinformation. Malinformation is information or beliefs, true or not, that does physical/psychological/financial/social/other harm to yourself or other people with little to no upside (again, whether or not the facts you hold are the truth, if they are doing then they are necessarily incomplete, this is a concept I'm just incorporating into my worldview, and a further debate on it would be outside the reach of this thread). Cynicism is a phenomenon of malinformation, I'm not talking about libertarianism, as dubious as I might be as to its merits.

Also, it's just as valid to say that "capitalism" works no better than "socialism." The answer is obviously some sort of blending of the two systems as it'd be willful ignorance (andor revisionist history) to think that laissez-fair capitalism is a faultless system.

Also Vlatty, I'm curious as to any thoughts you may have on the main question of my previous post which is, do you consider freedom to be merely a technical term purely relating to the size of the public sector, or would you admit that private organizations also can have the ability to affect your personal freedom? I feel like this question is important when talking about the role of government and differing ideologies.

EDIT: BTW, on a lighter note, the two of you guys have increased the number of right-wingers by something like 100% to 200% around here and it just reminded me of this Bill Burr routine: "Now there's 2 of 'em!"

 

[qwe]

Libertarianism doesn't make sense? I'll tell you what doesn't make sense: supporting a huge, ineffective, corrupt bureaucracy that taxes everybody as it pleases, imposes on people's right to liberty, and tells businesses whats fair.

yeah, businesses are great at telling themselves what is fair, at the expense of their bottom line... because we banned practices like child labor not because companies were working kids to death, but we just wanted to remind them *just in case* 8)

your rant against socialism is misguided. business and markets have ebbs and flows, and like other natural systems, markets can have looping/runaway issues and impediments to its own sustainability (e.g. monopolies). regulations are needed sometimes, and when our society allows people to starve or die from treatable diseases or spend nights out in the cold, i think something should be done.

businesses can be inefficient at anything, btw, as long as the bottom line stays high. eg, this time your grandma really is in trouble of dying--if healthcare is fully privatized, your grandma will not be as important to the powers that be as that bottom line. glen beck turned on its head

businesses can even be inefficient, and entirely unstable and toxic. but then they buy the government to keep them afloat. if you want to keep bankers and institutions out of government, vote socialist...

 

[Vlatrone]

business and markets have ebbs and flows, and like other natural systems, markets can have looping/runaway issues and impediments to its own sustainability

Unlike an oversized government. 8)

businesses can be inefficient at anything

Unlike an oversized government. 8)

businesses can even be inefficient, and entirely unstable and toxic.

Unlike an oversized government. 8)

 

[qwe]

what do you mean by "over sized?"

how does stating the fact that government, like business, also makes mistakes, invalidate my argument that businesses cannot operate sustainably or ethically in a laissez-faire environment?

obama is allowing another, larger crash to occur, because those banks were supposed to fail. now we're stuck with a senseless writhing financial system, and this system is how we determine everything in this country, down to what we can eat and who can eat.

we need a socialist leader, not a corporate sellout, so that small businesses can continue on their natural course (without being run over by giant concentrations of capital), and "too big to fail" businesses can continue on their natural deconstructions, with new systems of capital filling their place (more distributed, decentralized systems... aka not too big to fail).

i really think the answer to a lot of our conflicts is a less concentrated distribution of wealth, and at least, a minimum wealth for each human being. this eliminates the primary issue fueling violence and poverty: people have unnecessary power and authority over others, at an ever increasing rate.

socialism isn't about big government, it's about caring about the guy who got laid off, caring about the junky who can't quit, caring about any human being and telling them you're willing to share a piece of the pie so they don't have to suffer.

 

[hiphophippy]

^If a human has the natural born right for "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" then healthcare is just as implied in that statement as the right to minimum wage and clean water. It's plain as day. Isn't it generally agreed that, whether or not those rights appeared in writing, they were sort of implied simply by the virtue of us being in a wonderful age of enlightenment (or at least we were at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, I realize that "we" are far from enlightened as a whole these days).
EDIT: BTW, on a lighter note, the two of you guys have increased the number of right-wingers by something like 100% to 200% around here and it just reminded me of this Bill Burr routine: "Now there's 2 of 'em!"

Thats entirely an assumption Haha. I'm just about as "left" as one can get. anti-government-guy who spends almost all of his time volunteering at a social program trying to unite the community. going to college to get a degree community planning and ultimately make minimum wage the rest of my life to help people and organize systems that allow people to remove themselves from the global and national economy. E.G. co-ops and egalitarian communes. I like LSD and will probably end up abusing the welfare system :D

But still, health care is not a human right. Should it be free? Yes. Why do I say this? for a few reasons. First I will contest your claim: "If a human has the natural born right for "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" then healthcare is just as implied in that statement as the right to minimum wage and clean water." Lets consider this for a moment, why is it implied? Because that is your opinion, its not a matter of fact. Lets critically asses it for a moment, Health care could fall under right to life, and be a function of the pursuit of happiness.
Lets take another another scenario. Lets say there lives a cannibalistic neighborhood; adults only, all of which moved to the neighborhood because they want to eat people and also they are all okay with being eaten. They are using their liberties and having control over their life which is also a function of liberty while perusing the happiness that only eating their friends can bring them. Now it's my opinion that communities that eat each other should be allowed. And I feel it is and have shown it is even more "implied" than health care. This is not a human right to have the ability to eat people. Healthcare is not a human right. Access to health care facilities unrestricted by race, gender, age, political ideology, creed religion, height H/w proportion disability status ect. yes. but once again, it is not a human right.

Also:
The existence of a libertarian government is entirely hypocritical
gov·ern·ment
noun /ˈgəvər(n)mənt/ 
governments, plural

The governing body of a nation, state, or community

gov·ern
verb /ˈgəvərn/ 
governed, past participle; governed, past tense; governing, present participle; governs, 3rd person singular present

Control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events)


lib·er·ty
noun /ˈlibərtē/ 
liberties, plural

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views

Libertarian government is about as contradictory as a genocidal pacifist, that is all.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Libertarian government is about as contradictory as a genocidal pacifist, that is all.

Technically possible in the game "nethack".

Genocide is wiping out an entire species of creature. It's possible via a scroll. Pacifist means not striking a creature physically or magically.

It's also possible to be an pacifist extinctionist. Extinction is caused by the deaths of 120 of the same creature. After that, no others are spawned. Usually the means of accomplishing this is via a powerful pet and looking the other way (pet kills aren't counted against you). There's probably a political analogy that's possible here.

 

[Vlatrone]

caring about the junky who can't quit

Why the fuck should I care and pay for a drug addict who can't quit? I'm all for drugs but if somebody ends up a hopeless addict thats his or her fucking problem, not mine.

They got that way by choice and their own damn fault and shouldn't get government help or a handout because of it.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Why the fuck should I care and pay for a drug addict who can't quit? I'm all for drugs but if somebody ends up a hopeless addict thats his or her fucking problem, not mine.

They got that way by choice and their own damn fault and shouldn't get government help or a handout because of it.

So, all you do is find things that logically fit into your profile, and negate all else. Like workers getting laid off was an example you skipped. Or the hungry. Or the dying. Well shit, when you do that, it is easy to live with yourself.

 

[Vlatrone]

So, all you do is find things that logically fit into your profile, and negate all else. Like workers getting laid off was an example you skipped. Or the hungry. Or the dying. Well shit, when you do that, it is easy to live with yourself.

I'd be A LOT more willing to help out somebody who got laid off or is starving than a drug addict who can afford to get high but not support himself/herself.

 

[Shrooms00087]

You're still negating what to do with the starving, the dying, and even the laid off. Just that you'd be "willing to help". So a laid off worker dying of late stages of cancer in your ideal capitalism...Will die or be in severe debt and too sick for a job. How do you fix this? Pray a more competitive compassionate health care provider comes along?

 

[Vlatrone]

You're still negating what to do with the starving, the dying, and even the laid off. Just that you'd be "willing to help". So a laid off worker dying of late stages of cancer in your ideal capitalism...Will die or be in severe debt and too sick for a job. How do you fix this? Pray a more competitive compassionate health care provider comes along?

Does the guy in your story have insurance?

 

[Shrooms00087]

You're not answering the question. If it's that necessary; you can imagine either or. American insurance comes in all flavors and for a laborer they're pretty awful.

 

[Vlatrone]

You're not answering the question. If it's that necessary; you can imagine either or. American insurance comes in all flavors and for a laborer they're pretty awful.

In the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.

Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.

So my answer is deregulate the healthcare industry, get rid of restrictions of buying insurance in other countires, and create some competition for the insurance companies. Then he'll see his prices go down.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Okay this isn't going anywhere, because you're still not answering the question. More importantly you're wrong and it's an argument for State intervention.
Look at the tax rates of the 50-60's 60-80% taxation. In fact that time period was the largest State intervention in American history and then slowly degraded to your ideal. I appreciate your efforts, but you don't put enough effort into your own ideology, so these discussions you are having are 100% useless.

 

[Vlatrone]

Okay this isn't going anywhere, because you're still not answering the question. More importantly you're wrong and it's an argument for State intervention.
Look at the tax rates of the 50-60's 60-80% taxation. In fact that time period was the largest State intervention in American history and then slowly degraded to your ideal. I appreciate your efforts, but you don't put enough effort into your own ideology, so these discussions you are having are 100% useless.

It wasn't taxes it was the lack of regulation.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

In the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.

And cancer survival rates were far lower than now.