Libertarianism is the best ideology

[NineOneFour]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I wouldn't say so. I would say it encourages people to be individuals, to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent other individuals from doing the same.

I could probably word that better but I've been awake for rather too long now...

Except that some people CANNOT live their lives as they see fit.

And those people are the people that libertarians would be okay seeing die off.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

You did see the graph on the flat tax, right?

Yes I did. However I see no reason to take a higher percentange of income from people who have been sucessful. I'm not wealthy by the way, I just finished uni, I only have a part time job and I have a rather large student loan to pay off. I am one of the people who would benefit from progressive taxation. I just don't think that it is fair.

Did you hear that there are other countries that exist other than America? Shocking, I know.

Socialism is a pretty extreme view in most nations. (Social Democracy, not so much)

Libertarians fail to understand that only in a perfect world does everyone have sufficient information to make informed choices. But companies lie all the time and the sole counterweight to corporate power is government power.

Once again you are confusing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Punishing companies who engage in fraud and deceptive business practices would be a perfectly legitimate function of a libertarian government.

Except that some people CANNOT live their lives as they see fit.

Who? Some people will have to work harder than others to live the life they want to live, sure, but for whom is it totally impossible?

[NineOneFour]

You did see the graph on the flat tax, right?

Yes I did. However I see no reason to take a higher percentange of income from people who have been sucessful.

Maybe because:
1. They can afford it easier.
2. They should put back what they take out of society.

I'm not wealthy by the way, I just finished uni, I only have a part time job and I have a rather large student loan to pay off. I am one of the people who would benefit from progressive taxation. I just don't think that it is fair.

Yeah, I'm sure. Most libertarians are either in college or just finished. I was a libertarian back then too.

Did you hear that there are other countries that exist other than America? Shocking, I know.

Socialism is a pretty extreme view in most nations. (Social Democracy, not so much)

Ok, that's fair.

Libertarians fail to understand that only in a perfect world does everyone have sufficient information to make informed choices. But companies lie all the time and the sole counterweight to corporate power is government power.

Once again you are confusing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Punishing companies who engage in fraud and deceptive business practices would be a perfectly legitimate function of a libertarian government.

Again, perhaps if you BOTHERED to give us your idea of what is different between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, I could take this comment of yours more seriously.

Except that some people CANNOT live their lives as they see fit.

Who? Some people will have to work harder than others to live the life they want to live, sure, but for whom is it totally impossible?

Children, the elderly, the unintelligent, the disabled, etc.

Besides, we aren't all going to be a nation of 300 million millionaires. Someone is going to clean toilets for a living and they shouldn't be punished for it by not having health care or being unable to get by.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Maybe because:
1. They can afford it easier.
2. They should put back what they take out of society.

I can see your point with number 2. That is probably the only good argument I have ever heard for progressive taxation.

Yeah, I'm sure. Most libertarians are either in college or just finished. I was a libertarian back then too.

Why the change of heart?

Again, perhaps if you BOTHERED to give us your idea of what is different between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, I could take this comment of yours more seriously.

fair enough:

Anarcho-capitalism: No government, all usual government services such as police protection, national defence and the courts are placed in private hands.
Libertarianism (of the minarchist type at least): Government exists only protect individuals from aggression. In reality though many libertarians will support some government actions which are outside this limited scope, commonly things like the maintanence of roads.

Children, the elderly, the unintelligent, the disabled, etc.

Well, under no government is a child going to be an astronaut before they grow up, nor is a 70 year old man going to be the world heavy-weight boxing champ, nor is Dubya going to understand quantum physics, nor is a man paralysed from the neck down going to get up and run a marathon. There are some natural limitations in the world obviously and no government can change that.

Besides, we aren't all going to be a nation of 300 million millionaires. Someone is going to clean toilets for a living and they shouldn't be punished for it by not having health care or being unable to get by.

What makes you assume everyone wants to be a millionare? I sure as hell don't. It would take far too long to earn that kind of money that is time I would rather spend with my partner or maybe drawing or learning things.

That aside, I agree that insurance in America is too expensive. I just don't think public healthcare is the only solution nor the best solution.

[Valden]

I just don't think public healthcare is the only solution nor the best solution.

UHC = Best solution.

[NineOneFour]

Maybe because:
1. They can afford it easier.
2. They should put back what they take out of society.

I can see your point with number 2. That is probably the only good argument I have ever heard for progressive taxation.

#1 works too.

Yeah, I'm sure. Most libertarians are either in college or just finished. I was a libertarian back then too.

Why the change of heart?

It doesn't hold up. It's a cruel and callous, even evil, philosophy.

Again, perhaps if you BOTHERED to give us your idea of what is different between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, I could take this comment of yours more seriously.

fair enough:

Anarcho-capitalism: No government, all usual government services such as police protection, national defence and the courts are placed in private hands.
Libertarianism (of the minarchist type at least): Government exists only protect individuals from aggression. In reality though many libertarians will support some government actions which are outside this limited scope, commonly things like the maintanence of roads.

Not definitive enough. In your opinion, which government services precisely would a Libertarian countenance whereas an anarcho-capitalist would not.

Children, the elderly, the unintelligent, the disabled, etc.

Well, under no government is a child going to be an astronaut before they grow up, nor is a 70 year old man going to be the world heavy-weight boxing champ, nor is Dubya going to understand quantum physics, nor is a man paralysed from the neck down going to get up and run a marathon. There are some natural limitations in the world obviously and no government can change that.

Strawman bullshit. No one is arguing for exact equality. What we are arguing is for equality of opportunity. Libertarianism does not guarantee that, in fact, it guarantees the opposite.

Besides, we aren't all going to be a nation of 300 million millionaires. Someone is going to clean toilets for a living and they shouldn't be punished for it by not having health care or being unable to get by.

What makes you assume everyone wants to be a millionare? I sure as hell don't. It would take far too long to earn that kind of money that is time I would rather spend with my partner or maybe drawing or learning things.

Either way, we still are not all going to be entrepreneurs, chronically healthy, making good money, etc. Someday you'll understand that.

That aside, I agree that insurance in America is too expensive. I just don't think public healthcare is the only solution nor the best solution.

Oh, I didn't say we had to have public health care at all. Try reading again. The only country that has all public health care that I know of is the UK.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Not definitive enough. In your opinion, which government services precisely would a Libertarian countenance whereas an anarcho-capitalist would not.

It depends on the person. There are as many disagreements on policy among libertarians as among any other political group. The police force, the military and the courts would, I imagine be pretty universal responces. Some might expect the government to maintain some core infrastructure such as roads and power lines. Some, mainly outside the states might also include education and welfare or even healthcare. It is hugely variable.

An anarcho-capitalist would not accept the government doing any of that because, under an anarcho-capitalist system, there is by definition no government.

Strawman bullshit. No one is arguing for exact equality. What we are arguing is for equality of opportunity. Libertarianism does not guarantee that, in fact, it guarantees the opposite.

No system allows for totally equal opportunity. It is just a fact of life that some people are born in a position in society where they have an easier time than others.

Either way, we still are not all going to be entrepreneurs, chronically healthy, making good money, etc. Someday you'll understand that.

I understand that perfectly well. Do you understand that libertarianism does not seek nor does it require that people be entrepreneurs, chronically healthy, making good money, etc?

[NineOneFour]

Not definitive enough. In your opinion, which government services precisely would a Libertarian countenance whereas an anarcho-capitalist would not.

It depends on the person. There are as many disagreements on policy among libertarians as among any other political group. The police force, the military and the courts would, I imagine be pretty universal responces. Some might expect the government to maintain some core infrastructure such as roads and power lines. Some, mainly outside the states might also include education and welfare or even healthcare. It is hugely variable.

Stop dodging. I want your opinion.

An anarcho-capitalist would not accept the government doing any of that because, under an anarcho-capitalist system, there is by definition no government.

Yeah, nuts.

Strawman bullshit. No one is arguing for exact equality. What we are arguing is for equality of opportunity. Libertarianism does not guarantee that, in fact, it guarantees the opposite.

No system allows for totally equal opportunity. It is just a fact of life that some people are born in a position in society where they have an easier time than others.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize that. Libertarianism tries to maximize it.

Either way, we still are not all going to be entrepreneurs, chronically healthy, making good money, etc. Someday you'll understand that.

I understand that perfectly well. Do you understand that libertarianism does not seek nor does it require that people be entrepreneurs, chronically healthy, making good money, etc?

It also doesn't make any provision for those that are not and is apparently content to see them die or lead lives of misery.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Stop dodging. I want your opinion.

I gave you my option of what services a generic libertarian would allow to stay in government hands. If you mean what I personally think should stay in government hands or be government funded then here: The courts, the police, the fire brigade, ambulance services, the military, customs, roads, power and phone lines, education to some degree and welfare to some degree. Maybe even healthcare to some degree. There are probably a few other things as well, that is just what springs from my sleep deprived brain at the moment.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Yeah, nuts.

Yes, anarcho-capitalism is nuts.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize that. Libertarianism tries to maximize it.

I don't think it does either actually. I think it just leaves it alone.

It also doesn't make any provision for those that are not and is apparently content to see them die or lead lives of misery.

People need to make provisions for themselves. However I know that it is no always possible to do so for various reasons. Hence I support a limited welfare system.

[NineOneFour]

Yeah, nuts.

Yes, anarcho-capitalism is nuts.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize that. Libertarianism tries to maximize it.

I don't think it does either actually. I think it just leaves it alone.

It also doesn't make any provision for those that are not and is apparently content to see them die or lead lives of misery.

People need to make provisions for themselves. However I know that it is no always possible to do so for various reasons. Hence I support a limited welfare system.

Dude, over here, you'd not be a libertarian, but a moderate Republican, you know that, right?

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

A moderate repub who supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, is pro voluntary euthenasia and supports the legalisation of ALL drugs? I don't think so.

[NineOneFour]

A moderate repub who supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, is pro voluntary euthenasia and supports the legalisation of ALL drugs? I don't think so.

Well, ok, good point. Still, the libertarians in the US would have kicked you out for supporting what you do support in the way of government oversight and regulation, etc.

[Tortured_Genius]

Stop dodging. I want your opinion.

I gave you my option of what services a generic libertarian would allow to stay in government hands. If you mean what I personally think should stay in government hands or be government funded then here: The courts, the police, the fire brigade, ambulance services, the military, customs, roads, power and phone lines, education to some degree and welfare to some degree. Maybe even healthcare to some degree. There are probably a few other things as well, that is just what springs from my sleep deprived brain at the moment.

Erm, as a social democrat that actually isn't too far off what I'd expect from a government!

To my mind government is there to provide the infrastructure and equality of opportunity society needs to prosper without one group achieving perpetual dominance, and no more than that.

From what I've seen a heck of a lot of "libertarians" slide across towards the social democratic camp when they realise that without basic services provided by the state, at best the whole self-suatainability thing is no more than personal greed, and to the devil with everyone else, or at worst is an open invitation to criminals and aristocrats to rape society.

As I noted on RDF - "libertarianism" these days is such a woolly and broad term that it's hard to figure what the aspirations of a self-declared "libertarian" actually are. They could be anywhere from the utterly deranged anarcho-capitalist/Randian (BTW that was the "Seth" you may have seen mentioned), to champions of social justice indistinuishable from advocates of a welfare state with minimal intervention in personal affairs.

[Chinaski]

Socialism is a pretty extreme view in most nations. (Social Democracy, not so much)

Sorry, but: bullshit. Socialism is only seen as extreme in the US- probably because people aren't able to distinguish it from communism, and communists, as we all know, eat babies.