Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.
Have YOU heard that that silly story was made up? The water was turned back on MONTHS ago.
See, the real problem is that you get your news from one source and you don't check what you've been told. Because that story was discredited and isn't true. Please check your facts before you lie to me again. I don't like it.
The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.
I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.
why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.
I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.
why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)
You're right as usual. I've as much chance of them listening to me, as i have of convincing people that prawns are not shrimps. sigh.
The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.
I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.
why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)
You're right as usual. I've as much chance of them listening to me, as i have of convincing people that prawns are not shrimps. sigh.
im not always right.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?
I never understood why people associate callousness towards our fellow man with Libertarianism. I view it as the most compassionate of political ideologies which fosters volunteerism and tolerance above all of the others. To me, it contains the social conscience that most associate with the "left" combined with the work ethic and drive to accomplish things as efficiently as possible that people typically associate with the "right." What we are against is coercion. Force. Take away the government programs which take our earnings from us, which are frequently looted from all angles, and there will be a need for everyone to step it up, and do things right. Where there is a need to help your fellow man, it will be filled. It is in the best interests of everyone to make their community a better place, it does not require a government mandate. I would argue that both the incentive, and means of accomplishing a better life for everyone is greater when we are given the choice of how and when we want to help, AND, we are allowed more time to do so once those of us who work are allowed to keep our earnings, and no longer have to devote 55 hours a week to our jobs.
But, in the interim, and reality.... You are not likely to find a Libertarian who will oppose disaster relief from the federal government, especially if voluntary and charitable donations can't cover the bill. If it's going to cost 100 million to cover the costs, what you will find is Libertarians who want that 100 million to be used out of the Iraqi nation-building budget on the disaster relief rather than the war and all the bullshit that's come with it.
Generally speaking, the more a situation is beyond one's control, coupled with the exhaustion of other resources and hence the NEED to get the biggest gun (the fed gov't) involved, the more permissible it is in the eyes of a Libertarian to use the federal government. Natural disasters would certainly be one of these cases for how rare, catastrophic, and beyond one's control.
Flood insurance sure couldn't hurt, though-- however, these companies may go bankrupt in trying to insure tons of houses in a flood zone. However, that is their problem. If they take on the risk, they are required to keep all of the reserves necessary for the payout in case of such an event, else it is FRAUD. They should not be bailed out. If each state or individual cities were run more efficiently, to the point where they actually had budget surpluses, that money should be considered first if public money were to be used. After all, it would be people in the affected city actually using their own money to take care of each other, versus people in Pennsylvania providing for people in Louisiana, with their money making a week-long layover in Washington, before it gets to where it needs to be... at half the value.
Health care would be an ongoing thing that would continually take from people who work to (inefficiently) provide for people that do not. It doesn't exactly fit that "rarity" description that a natural disaster might. A libertarian-free market solution would be to maximize competition within the medical industry, bringing costs down. Mal-practice reform is needed. Allowing insurance or the government to continually come between the patient and doctor should be eliminated-- as again, insurance is fraudulent and is providing this "grab bag" that is driving prices up all the way around. Private hospitals should not be extended public money, and should be run on donations, and therefore should be run frugally and efficiently. No public money = no government obligations, because after all, that's how the MACHINE works. Debt = control.
Basically, it is really the only fair system in my eyes.
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?
Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.
In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?
Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed
Agreed. Hence the winky at the end. But why? I think it's because people have accepted government as more than a safety net, but a full provider of EVERYTHING for us. Where this has probably eroded intelligence, rationality and reason in a lot of people, I do believe that there is still the human spirit and compassion in most of us that provides the BEST safety net. Basically, I think it should be sink or swim, but if I have any capacity to help a family member, friend, or even a stranger from sinking, I will certainly try. I believe most people would.
If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?
Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed
Agreed. Hence the winky at the end. But why? I think it's because people have accepted government as more than a safety net, but a full provider of EVERYTHING for us. Where this has probably eroded intelligence, rationality and reason in a lot of people, I do believe that there is still the human spirit and compassion in most of us that provides the BEST safety net. Basically, I think it should be sink or swim, but if I have any capacity to help a family member, friend, or even a stranger from sinking, I will certainly try. I believe most people would.
I think it's just that technology has made it so easy for us to survive, there's no longer any evolutionary thinning of the herd, so too many people our gene pool would be better off without are not only living, but thriving and breeding. It's dragging us down.
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.
In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.
I don't see it happening, though.
There are a whole lot of things in this life that I am a lot more concerned about protecting than just my "stuff" like wages and property. You're dreaming of some delusional ideal of westward expansion where rugged plain folk lend each other sugar and help each other plow fields. Life will never be like this again. The world is too interconnected for the kind of isolated depencence that built that kind of communal spirit, and it has nothing to do with government and everything to do with computers, the internet, phones, tv, mass media and telecommunications, etc. In addition, such small communities are vulnerable, there is power and strength in numbers and always will be. The moment you reduced things to the local, they'd start working their way back up to gargantuan size again... because being just a bit bigger than your neighbor means the next time your community is in trouble, the easier it will be to take what you need from the weaker community next door. This is the one recurring pattern of history... imperial buildup, top heavy excess, a collapse, smaller fractured society, move to rebuilding and alliances, back to imperialism. The US, British Empire, Rome, Greece, Persia, etc...
I think it's just that technology has made it so easy for us to survive, there's no longer any evolutionary thinning of the herd, so too many people our gene pool would be better off without are not only living, but thriving and breeding. It's dragging us down.
I'm sure technology has something to do with it, but so is the system that provide for these people to have the same access to technology as those who work hard to earn it.
this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.
i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?
a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.
And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.
In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.
I don't see it happening, though.
There are a whole lot of things in this life that I am a lot more concerned about protecting than just my "stuff" like wages and property. You're dreaming of some delusional ideal of westward expansion where rugged plain folk lend each other sugar and help each other plow fields. Life will never be like this again. The world is too interconnected for the kind of isolated depencence that built that kind of communal spirit, and it has nothing to do with government and everything to do with computers, the internet, phones, tv, mass media and telecommunications, etc. In addition, such small communities are vulnerable, there is power and strength in numbers and always will be. The moment you reduced things to the local, they'd start working their way back up to gargantuan size again... because being just a bit bigger than your neighbor means the next time your community is in trouble, the easier it will be to take what you need from the weaker community next door. This is the one recurring pattern of history... imperial buildup, top heavy excess, a collapse, smaller fractured society, move to rebuilding and alliances, back to imperialism. The US, British Empire, Rome, Greece, Persia, etc...
I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.
In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."
I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.
In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."
We had something like that. It was called feudalism. It's never "up to them" when it comes to sharing property. Somebody will always try to simply take it from you and if you can't stop them, you're sol. Inevitably, the bigger and stronger will take more and end up ruling. So do your prefer the guy on top to be a warlord that took everything you had and turned you into a serf working on what is now his property; or a giant, bloated bureacracy without the means or incentive to care much about you and that would rather give you a few free perks to keep you quiet than try to take shit from you? At least now we sorta get to vote for who's in charge. You decentralize things, there will be no vote. The ones that try will be rounded up and executed. Like good old Africa... where there is no empowered central authority/government, you just have a bunch of small communities and tribes killing each other for resources endlessly and the only ones capable of offering any sort of protection from the slaughter are the most brutal human beings in the area.
I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.
In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."
We had something like that. It was called feudalism. It's never "up to them" when it comes to sharing property. Somebody will always try to simply take it from you and if you can't stop them, you're sol. Inevitably, the bigger and stronger will take more and end up ruling. So do your prefer the guy on top to be a warlord that took everything you had and turned you into a serf working on what is now his property; or a giant, bloated bureacracy without the means or incentive to care much about you and that would rather give you a few free perks to keep you quiet than try to take shit from you? At least now we sorta get to vote for who's in charge. You decentralize things, there will be no vote. The ones that try will be rounded up and executed. Like good old Africa... where there is no empowered central authority/government, you just have a bunch of small communities and tribes killing each other for resources endlessly and the only ones capable of offering any sort of protection from the slaughter are the most brutal human beings in the area.
I never called for the abolition of the federal government-- just for its role to be limited to enforcing contracts, and providing us with defense, which would not allow for towns to swallow each other whole. This still allows for communities, as in states, cities, and towns to rule themselves as they see fit. What I've always pushed for is limited Constitutional government. The document is there-- it could use some tweaking, but it is still, on paper, the best system out there. It just needs to be strictly adhered to, which takes a certain devotion on the part of the people-- which, seems to be emerging, but isn't quite there yet.
I think I really need to re-read what I write here sometimes. People seem to confuse me as an anarchist for whatever reason.
Latest thing I heard on tv is if you don't purchase the Obama insur. plan there will be a $25,000 fine and could do prison time. How do you like that?!
If there were any truth to that I'd be very angry. Luckily for us both, that's not true. Not even close. There is NOTHING in ANY version of the bill that says if you don't purchase the public option insurance that you'll be fined or sent to jail. Anyone who's telling you any different is full of crap.
And that's the real problem. We haven't been able to debate the REAL issues because we're so busy dealing with bullshit lies. There are no "Death Panels." There is nothing in the bill that limits coverage to people under 40. There is nothing that says any of he things have people so upset.
Under the Finance Committee bill, Americans would be required to buy corporate health insurance or pay an ”excise tax” of $1,900. If you don’t pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to one year in jail, or both. Read that again.
Under questioning last week, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted that the individual mandate would become part of the Internal Revenue Code and that failing to comply “could be criminal.” Mr. Barthold noted in a follow-up letter that the willful failure to file would be punishable by a $25,000 fine or jail time under Section 7203. Failure to pay the mandate would be enforced as tax evasion.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Comments
why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im not always right.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?
I never understood why people associate callousness towards our fellow man with Libertarianism. I view it as the most compassionate of political ideologies which fosters volunteerism and tolerance above all of the others. To me, it contains the social conscience that most associate with the "left" combined with the work ethic and drive to accomplish things as efficiently as possible that people typically associate with the "right." What we are against is coercion. Force. Take away the government programs which take our earnings from us, which are frequently looted from all angles, and there will be a need for everyone to step it up, and do things right. Where there is a need to help your fellow man, it will be filled. It is in the best interests of everyone to make their community a better place, it does not require a government mandate. I would argue that both the incentive, and means of accomplishing a better life for everyone is greater when we are given the choice of how and when we want to help, AND, we are allowed more time to do so once those of us who work are allowed to keep our earnings, and no longer have to devote 55 hours a week to our jobs.
But, in the interim, and reality.... You are not likely to find a Libertarian who will oppose disaster relief from the federal government, especially if voluntary and charitable donations can't cover the bill. If it's going to cost 100 million to cover the costs, what you will find is Libertarians who want that 100 million to be used out of the Iraqi nation-building budget on the disaster relief rather than the war and all the bullshit that's come with it.
Generally speaking, the more a situation is beyond one's control, coupled with the exhaustion of other resources and hence the NEED to get the biggest gun (the fed gov't) involved, the more permissible it is in the eyes of a Libertarian to use the federal government. Natural disasters would certainly be one of these cases for how rare, catastrophic, and beyond one's control.
Flood insurance sure couldn't hurt, though-- however, these companies may go bankrupt in trying to insure tons of houses in a flood zone. However, that is their problem. If they take on the risk, they are required to keep all of the reserves necessary for the payout in case of such an event, else it is FRAUD. They should not be bailed out. If each state or individual cities were run more efficiently, to the point where they actually had budget surpluses, that money should be considered first if public money were to be used. After all, it would be people in the affected city actually using their own money to take care of each other, versus people in Pennsylvania providing for people in Louisiana, with their money making a week-long layover in Washington, before it gets to where it needs to be... at half the value.
Health care would be an ongoing thing that would continually take from people who work to (inefficiently) provide for people that do not. It doesn't exactly fit that "rarity" description that a natural disaster might. A libertarian-free market solution would be to maximize competition within the medical industry, bringing costs down. Mal-practice reform is needed. Allowing insurance or the government to continually come between the patient and doctor should be eliminated-- as again, insurance is fraudulent and is providing this "grab bag" that is driving prices up all the way around. Private hospitals should not be extended public money, and should be run on donations, and therefore should be run frugally and efficiently. No public money = no government obligations, because after all, that's how the MACHINE works. Debt = control.
Basically, it is really the only fair system in my eyes.
Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed
And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.
In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.
I don't see it happening, though.
Agreed. Hence the winky
I think it's just that technology has made it so easy for us to survive, there's no longer any evolutionary thinning of the herd, so too many people our gene pool would be better off without are not only living, but thriving and breeding. It's dragging us down.
There are a whole lot of things in this life that I am a lot more concerned about protecting than just my "stuff" like wages and property. You're dreaming of some delusional ideal of westward expansion where rugged plain folk lend each other sugar and help each other plow fields. Life will never be like this again. The world is too interconnected for the kind of isolated depencence that built that kind of communal spirit, and it has nothing to do with government and everything to do with computers, the internet, phones, tv, mass media and telecommunications, etc. In addition, such small communities are vulnerable, there is power and strength in numbers and always will be. The moment you reduced things to the local, they'd start working their way back up to gargantuan size again... because being just a bit bigger than your neighbor means the next time your community is in trouble, the easier it will be to take what you need from the weaker community next door. This is the one recurring pattern of history... imperial buildup, top heavy excess, a collapse, smaller fractured society, move to rebuilding and alliances, back to imperialism. The US, British Empire, Rome, Greece, Persia, etc...
I'm sure technology has something to do with it, but so is the system that provide for these people to have the same access to technology as those who work hard to earn it.
Ah well, Idiocracy here we come!
I don't think any of it has to be isolated or "plain folk" at all. It simply comes down to recognizing that no one has a right to anyone else's property other than their own, and it starts with eliminating all special priveleges granted by giant, unstoppable authority. If people want to share their property, it's up to them. I realize that it is more than just an uphill battle, it's an up Mt. Everest Battle, and therefore hardly worth waging in the minds of lots of people. Basically, who can really disagree with a system that allows everyone freedom to do what they want, so long as other people are not hurt or negatively affected by your actions? I would say that fundamentally, deep down, everyone knows that this is how it should be-- unless they are completely brainwashed.
In the end, all we can do is our own part, right? "Seek my part, devote myself."
We had something like that. It was called feudalism. It's never "up to them" when it comes to sharing property. Somebody will always try to simply take it from you and if you can't stop them, you're sol. Inevitably, the bigger and stronger will take more and end up ruling. So do your prefer the guy on top to be a warlord that took everything you had and turned you into a serf working on what is now his property; or a giant, bloated bureacracy without the means or incentive to care much about you and that would rather give you a few free perks to keep you quiet than try to take shit from you? At least now we sorta get to vote for who's in charge. You decentralize things, there will be no vote. The ones that try will be rounded up and executed. Like good old Africa... where there is no empowered central authority/government, you just have a bunch of small communities and tribes killing each other for resources endlessly and the only ones capable of offering any sort of protection from the slaughter are the most brutal human beings in the area.
I never called for the abolition of the federal government-- just for its role to be limited to enforcing contracts, and providing us with defense, which would not allow for towns to swallow each other whole. This still allows for communities, as in states, cities, and towns to rule themselves as they see fit. What I've always pushed for is limited Constitutional government. The document is there-- it could use some tweaking, but it is still, on paper, the best system out there. It just needs to be strictly adhered to, which takes a certain devotion on the part of the people-- which, seems to be emerging, but isn't quite there yet.
I think I really need to re-read what I write here sometimes. People seem to confuse me as an anarchist for whatever reason.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/200 ... re-reform/
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Very good. Now find a reputable new source, not some blog on a free host written by who knows who.
I can also send you to a blog like that claiming the moon landing was faked and one that says if gravity was real, we'd see people orbiting mountains.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910050002
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 33458.html
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/ ... tion_.html
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'