• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Libertarianism -- I just don't buy it.

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
I just can't see how anyone who takes a holistic view of society, with each person like a cell in a body or a player in an orchestra, can defend each person just doing as they please, and expecting everyone to look out for their own ass and nobody else's.
I just can't see how anyone who takes a holistic view of themselves and others, with each person like a unique person, can defend a central body using violence to do whatever looks like it will reduces numbers of certain crimes, and expecting everyone to actually follow these restrictions on their basic rights like sheep

---

i own myself. she owns herself. and the other girl owns herself too. your legislation to "reduce rape" (LOL) impedes our basic right to do with our own lives, consensually, what we think is best

how many things do YOU do that, when other people do them, increase the statistic of some crime...?

you're not talking about players in an orchestra, you're talking about cogs in a machine...
 
I don't think so, because I don't see why a centralized government couldn't do the best job providing and funding these more compassionate infrastructures. I think if the government were scaled back entirely, leaving private companies to provide these services, A) the profit motive would diminish the potential for real compassion coming from them, and B) they'd likely become unaffordable to many.
me too. my only problem is the prohibition-like legislation
nation operates like clockwork.
nations still operate fine when there aren't any prohibitions against consensual crimes. it doesnt all come "crumbling down". the difference is, people arent jailed and lose their livlihoods for wearing their hat facing the wrong direction
 
Last edited:
MDPVagrant said:
What is real freedom? IMO, it's always freedom FROM something. Freedom from fear/anxiety, freedom from boundaries, freedom from limitations, etc. No such thing as being "free to" do anything. Since when have any of us NOT been free to do whatever it is we basically have to?
I don't know if you're american or not, but that is THE EXACT opposite of the entire notion of freedom espoused in most western nations. For example, you have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Otherwise no one would be able to build a church or say a prayer in public or put up a christmas decoration on their house.

That said... I'm not big into the whole libertarian thing either. It's often wrapped in conservativism, which I strongly disagree with. Social Security is the most awesome, actually useful social service program ever, and some idiots want to do away with it. I guess because they are selfish as friggin' hell and would enjoy watching the elderly & mentally ill die on the streets. At least until THEY end up falling into one of these categories some day.
Sorry, but I had to giggle. Are you serious????? Social Security is the most bankrupt, worthless piece of shit the American government has. It's a pyramid scheme that is doomed to failure. There are literally not enough people to fund it over the course of the next generation. Period. And even if there were, the pittance they give you is nearly worthless, if you can even manage to collect it through the disgusting amount of paperwork you have to do. My family took care of a 90 year old man (my great aunt's boyfriend to put it as simply as possible) up until the day he died, and we relied largely on government programs like social security to help pay his bills. My mom is a corporate attorney and even she had a hard time getting his benefits.

This is the exact kind of horrible organization and bloat that libertarians rail against. Not only is the government really doing close to jack shit for the elderly and ill, they're WASTING *my* money to do it. I would much rather donate to a charity of my choice where I know for a fact that my money is directly clothing and sheltering a homeless person or feeding the elderly than watch it get pissed away by an inept, massive government where half of it goes to pay the eighty billion people involved in the bureaucracy of getting the money to those who actually need it.
 
There is no question that Social Security/Welfare (speaking from a Canadian prespective here) is a big joke, and from what I heard, I have to agree with Kitty's assesment of the American situation.

However, I personally do not think Libertarianism is the answer...
 
^^^^

from what I heard

Actually, what you heard is propaganda bullshit. SS is not bankrupt. Its not even close to bankrupt:

http://zfacts.com/p/784.html

The investment brokers and bankers are behind this propaganda because they want to get rid of SS and get 'private' accounts so they can skim your 'private' account, just like they are already skimming 401k's, pension funds, and everything else.....
 
Alright, I will not talk about the US. Although I wasn't talking so much about it being bankrupt, rather than it being adequate (ie., tax money is not being used effectively for social service)

But in Canada, it definitely is problematic. At the very least, social welfare is not adequate - taxes largely go to fat pigs and their banquets while we have statistics like 1 out of every 5 kids in Canada suffers from malnutrition due to poverty... Not to mention that the government is steeped in debt.
 
^^^

Here in the US I have seen many Government social programs run fairly efficiently and serve the interest of the people until being taken over by saboteurs who serve for corporate or other interests. And then after sabotaging the government programs, the saboteurs tell us government is inherently inneficient and the solution is for it to be 'privatized', which is just a way for them to get their hands on more of the money. Medicare is a perfect example. NASA, FEMA, and EPA are good examples too. When you elect someone like Bush then of course government is going to fail, in many ways. He wants government to fail. That enhances coporate power.
 
I meant bankrupt as in morally bankrupt, not monetarily bankrupt.

But no, it is not propaganda - Social Security is a pyramid scheme. End of story. And now there are more old people than young people. Social Security will be completely unable to support itself within the next 25 years. And given the current budget deficit, I'm not seeing where that extra money is supposed to come from. Unless you want to raise *my* taxes to pay for *other* people's benefits, which I am wholeheartedly against. *My* money should only go to *other* people when there are extenuating circumstances, but everyone gets SS.

And what is this business about private investors skimming off private accounts? All they mean by "private accounts" and "lockboxes" and all that terminology is that *your* money would actually go to *you* instead of going into a pool to pay other people (people who usually aren't anywhere close to being in your peer group, to make matters worse). This is not like me opening up a savings account where my bank gets to skim off all the profit they make by having my money on hand. Perhaps some people are suggesting that fucked up notion, but anyone with half a brain in their head knows that privatization does not mean private investors being allowed to skim off the top, it means me (*privately*) owning/handling my money.

I stopped reading your link after this:
Oddly, the Treasury has borrowed billions for every other reason; why not to pay back the Social Security it owes us?
Haha, yeah, let's just shift the debt from one place to another and that'll make it alright!

Yes, duh, privatization will incur a HUGE cost (and likely add to gross debt) because of its current *horrible* structure (repeat after me: pyramid scheme). The privatization method may run out of trust fund money faster, but it won't ever run out of anything ever again after that, because *you* will be keeping all the money *you* put into it. If they keep the scheme going the way they have it now (and I do mean "scheme" in the con-artist sense), there will NEVER be any financial security in it. Period. End of story. Any time there are more old people than young people, the young people will get fucked.

This is one of the main reasons I skew so heavily libertarian. Government functions as a whole, and it views itself strictly as a whole. The government didn't seem to have any problem tapping into SS funds when there was a little extra to go around to fund other programs. Most people on a small scale basis realize that that's a very stupid idea. When you're planning for retirement, you don't put 200 bucks in the bank, and then take 100 out when you're 35 to pay for a new TV. The bigger the government, the more excuses they have to divert money from where it belongs. And moreover, the less insight they have into where money needs to go. In a city with high homeless rates, more money needs to go into shelters and programs geared to the needs of those people. In a city with children doing badly in math, more money needs to go to after-school tutoring and programs geared to the needs of those people. Instead, right now we have all the homeless and all the poor math students being funded through two overreaching programs that can't possibly address the needs of a community, even on the state or county level, let alone the city or neighborhood.

The only shared tax I would ever support for something like social security is an additional tax that would be levied on the highest income levels and distributed proportionately into the *private* accounts of those with the lowest incomes. For example, those that make more that 500,000 in 2007 will have to toss, say, an extra 500 bucks in the pot, and that pot will be divided proportionately into the accounts of those who made less than, say, 1, 1.15, or 1.25 times the poverty level (adjusted for number of children or disability as well). Not only does that ensure that everyone is getting the money they have earned and deserve, those that need a little bit of help are getting a little boost every year. Take that boost cumulatively over 40 years (a reasonable estimate of the working lifetime of an American citizen) and that's a decent chunk of change stashed away. And no one had to worry about whether the funds would run dry or not!

These are the things that big, icky, sprawling, inefficient governments just can't do. Sure, of course they *could*, but they *won't*. And that's where my libertarian streak kicks in.
 
I could respond to your post point by point, but I'd be spending a whole lot time educating you in basic economics, how finiance works, and not to mention, simple mathematics, and you still probably wouldn't get it. If you want to trust the corporate criminals to manage your SS the same way they've bankrupted the treasury, thats your prerogative. Fortunately, the rest of the country is waking up to it, which is why Bush's SS plan fell on its face.

myth #2: Social Security Is a "Ponzi Scheme"

"We have this Ponzi scheme called Social Security, which in its current form cannot survive," Anne Kates Smith patiently explains in U.S. News & World Report (7/3/95). A Ponzi (or pyramid) scheme, is a con-game in which one person receives money from two people, who then receive money from four people, and so on. Such a scheme breaks down the moment its participants are unable to convince new people to join; when no new people come into the system, those at the bottom of the pyramid lose their money.

Critics of Social Security say that the en masse retirement of the baby boom generation will create an overwhelming imbalance in the ratio of workers to beneficiaries, leading to a Ponzi-like collapse of the system. The problem with this argument, according to Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute, is that the ratio of dependents (retirees plus children) to workers will actually be significantly lower in 2030, the year Social Security is supposed to melt down, than it was in 1960, before the baby boom entered the work force. In other words, the boomers' much-hyped retirement ought to be no worse for the economy than were their student days.


And what is this business about private investors skimming off private accounts?

It never occured to you that an investment account needs to managed? On mutual funds, 401k accounts, pension funds, etc. fund managers typically take 1% or so per year. On 2 trillion dollars of private accounts (the amount in the SS fund now), thats $20 billion per year in fees for the fund managers and stock brokers. Good good news for them.

Haha, yeah, let's just shift the debt from one place to another and that'll make it alright!

The treasury debt has nothing to do with how SS is managed. The treasury is being looted by tax cuts for the rich and your friendly neighborhood military industrial complex and the pathetically stupid war that you support, not social security, not poor people. And you want to turn SS over to the same people that are looting the treasury. How trusting you are them lol.
 
Last edited:
gloggawogga said:
^^^

Here in the US I have seen many Government social programs run fairly efficiently and serve the interest of the people until being taken over by saboteurs who serve for corporate or other interests. And then after sabotaging the government programs, the saboteurs tell us government is inherently inneficient and the solution is for it to be 'privatized', which is just a way for them to get their hands on more of the money. Medicare is a perfect example. NASA, FEMA, and EPA are good examples too. When you elect someone like Bush then of course government is going to fail, in many ways. He wants government to fail. That enhances coporate power.
Yes, I do agree totally with this. Social Welfare seems to be yet another paper-only thing, just like Marxist thought (at least in the current state of humanity). I will admit now that I am not very well-versed in economics, mostly due to my severe number dyslexia... my approach to the subject is mostly sociological. Though to reiterate, yes, what you said does go well with my opinion :).
 
>>I don't know if you're american or not, but that is THE EXACT opposite of the entire notion of freedom espoused in most western nations. For example, you have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Otherwise no one would be able to build a church or say a prayer in public or put up a christmas decoration on their house.>>

This is a rather muddy issue.
Most philosophically liberal conceptions of freedom conceptualize freedom as freedom-from. Rights need be legislated by the state insofar as the state itself or other bodies begin to encroach upon this freedom-from. Marxist, Hegelian, and hell, even Kantian conceptions of freedom center around autonomy, ie self-determination. This notion is rather similar to positive freedom.

>>... my approach to the subject is mostly sociological. >>

The sociologists are also willing to deploy plausible axioms. ;)

ebola
 
Here's what Ron Paul, the US libertarian, has to say about SS:


HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 8, 2003

Introduction of the Social Security Preservation Act
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest-bearing instruments.

The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America's seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues, regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to stand up for America's seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.


Here's what he says about privatization:


We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”

Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.

The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances.
 
ebola? said:
>>I don't know if you're american or not, but that is THE EXACT opposite of the entire notion of freedom espoused in most western nations. For example, you have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Otherwise no one would be able to build a church or say a prayer in public or put up a christmas decoration on their house.>>

This is a rather muddy issue.
Most philosophically liberal conceptions of freedom conceptualize freedom as freedom-from. Rights need be legislated by the state insofar as the state itself or other bodies begin to encroach upon this freedom-from. Marxist, Hegelian, and hell, even Kantian conceptions of freedom center around autonomy, ie self-determination. This notion is rather similar to positive freedom.
Indeed, laws themselves have to be with regards to "freedom from", but those are what provide "freedom to." I have freedom to drive a car to get where I need to go because I have freedom from traffic anarchy (because of traffic law, which ostensibly works, at least for the point of the argument). I'd say that the two are pretty intertwined when it come to the real world. But you never hear people talk about how we have freedom from religion or freedom from speech, do you?
 
Its true that half the fun in doing drugs is doing them secretly, a haven from "The Man."

People just arent smart enough to handle a completely free drug market. Those that get caught are often the slowest.
 
gloggawogga said:
I could respond to your post point by point, but I'd be spending a whole lot time educating you in basic economics, how finiance works, and not to mention, simple mathematics, and you still probably wouldn't get it. If you want to trust the corporate criminals to manage your SS the same way they've bankrupted the treasury, thats your prerogative. Fortunately, the rest of the country is waking up to it, which is why Bush's SS plan fell on its face.
I think my college leval economics, finance, and math classes did enough, thank you. And my experience as the sole financial administrator of a multimillion dollar land development company. 8)

myth #2: Social Security Is a "Ponzi Scheme"

"We have this Ponzi scheme called Social Security, which in its current form cannot survive," Anne Kates Smith patiently explains in U.S. News & World Report (7/3/95). A Ponzi (or pyramid) scheme, is a con-game in which one person receives money from two people, who then receive money from four people, and so on. Such a scheme breaks down the moment its participants are unable to convince new people to join; when no new people come into the system, those at the bottom of the pyramid lose their money.

Critics of Social Security say that the en masse retirement of the baby boom generation will create an overwhelming imbalance in the ratio of workers to beneficiaries, leading to a Ponzi-like collapse of the system. The problem with this argument, according to Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute, is that the ratio of dependents (retirees plus children) to workers will actually be significantly lower in 2030, the year Social Security is supposed to melt down, than it was in 1960, before the baby boom entered the work force. In other words, the boomers' much-hyped retirement ought to be no worse for the economy than were their student days.
Myth? The money being paid in now goes to people right now. Not to me. That is the definition of a pyramid scheme. It doesn't matter what the balance or ratio of anyone is now or in the future. Any time the balance is bad, the system breaks down. To me, having a system like that as the backbone of many people's retirement plans is pretty fucked up. Even worse is that the government openly does nothing about the fact that the system is so easily collapsible. And why does that article talk about baby boomers' retirement's effect on the economy? I'm talking about the effect it will have on their pocketbooks and mine. Apples to oranges. Sure, the overall effect won't be bad IF the gov't can manage to put enough money into people's SS checks. Will they be able to, well, I guess we'll see....


It never occured to you that an investment account needs to managed? On mutual funds, 401k accounts, pension funds, etc. fund managers typically take 1% or so per year. On 2 trillion dollars of private accounts (the amount in the SS fund now), thats $20 billion per year in fees for the fund managers and stock brokers. Good good news for them.
You clearly didn't read half of what I said. Or use your little ol' brain to make some reasonable assumptions. If accounts were privatized, the private owner would manage them, NOT a government official. Sure, if you wanted to opt to let the government manage your account, fine, go ahead, but what would the point of privatizing be then??? Like you said, we'd have to pay probably more people than we're paying now to manage the money. And then, like the article mentioned, you run the risk of cozy politicians and investment bankers fucking you over big time. I'm fortunate enough to have enough financial background and family members that do too, that I wouldn't pay much at all, if anything, to manage my retirement fund. And I'm certain I could find someone to do it for a lot cheaper and better than the government would if I had to. (Not to mention that the highly increased demand for investment managers would probably drive the price down a little.)


The treasury debt has nothing to do with how SS is managed. The treasury is being looted by tax cuts for the rich and your friendly neighborhood military industrial complex and the pathetically stupid war that you support, not social security, not poor people. And you want to turn SS over to the same people that are looting the treasury. How trusting you are them lol.
What "you" are you referring to? I have very openly disapproved of America's ongoing military operations for a long time, dumbass.

The treasury debt has everything to do with how SS is managed. The treasury, and the SS system, are both managed by the US government. The US government is one entity, that gets one sum of money every year. They budget that money as they see fit. The fact that they have already several times used SS money for other things proves that they see the money as one big pile, no matter what they said it was earmarked for.

And I certainly don't trust them one bit. If you ever took a goddamn second to read instead of simply going off spouting your inflammatory rhetoric, you'd know that. You don't make arguments, you make insults, and it speaks very little of you.[/personal gripe]
 
co.1nspire said:
Its true that half the fun in doing drugs is doing them secretly, a haven from "The Man."

People just arent smart enough to handle a completely free drug market. Those that get caught are often the slowest.
we are handling alcohol and tobacco, why would other drugs be different?
 
That is the definition of a pyramid scheme. It doesn't matter what the balance or ratio of anyone is now or in the future.

Thats not the definition of a pyramid scheme. Now you are changing the meaning of words because you just don't have a realistic argument.

If accounts were privatized, the private owner would manage them, NOT a government official.

I'd suggest you actually read up on GWB's plan for SS privatization. You wouldn't have been able to manage your money. Bush's plan would have been modeled after the TSP which is a 401k like account for federal employess. All you would have been able to do is choose from the stock or bond funds available in the plan. Fund managers would be skimming off the top the whole time.

And you say every individual Joe and Jane citizen is going to personally manage their own SS private account in the stock market? That's unrealistic. They simply don't have the know how or the time to do all the market research (not to mention all the insider information).

I'm fortunate enough to have enough financial background and family members that do too, that I wouldn't pay much at all, if anything, to manage my retirement fund.

And what about all the people not as fortunate as you? Did you think SS just exists to help the upper middle class like you?

The treasury debt has everything to do with how SS is managed.

Only if you make gross oversimplifications. SS didn't cause the Iraq war, or the military industrial complex, or any other other pork barrels. SS its self is running a surplus and is in no way the cause of goverment debt. And have we also forgetten to that the treasury had an annual surplus before your candidate GWB took it over and started looting it?

The US government is one entity,

and "government == BAD, private == GOOD". That's your entire mantra, kitty. Its all you ever say here, and its nothing but gross black and white oversimplification.

I have very openly disapproved of America's ongoing military operations for a long time, dumbass.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=1832855#post1832855
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=1832827#post1832827

Not long enough. You supported the war when it started, and supported GWB. Its your fiasco, your debt, and blood on your hands. The cost for this war should come out of your 'private account', and not the money that belongs to the elderly and disabled.

You don't make arguments,

Uhm...not only have I made arguments, I've backed my arguments up with sources that provide the correct and factual information, including quotes from the libertarian Ron Paul, who wants to protect the SS fund because he realizes, among other things, that people have already paid into the system and that that money belongs to them, and you shouldn't take from them what is already theirs, which is what GWB's plan would have done.

If you ever took a goddamn second to read instead of simply going off spouting your inflammatory rhetoric,
you make insults,
Sorry, but I had to giggle. Are you serious?????
use your little ol' brain
it speaks very little of you.[/personal gripe]

;)Who's making insults and inflammatory rhetoric? Here's a thread about you, kitty:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=299279
 
Last edited:
Top