The Enemy is ALWAYS the State.
Offline If you are libertarian like me, I'm sure you are used to people misunderstanding your views.
Depending on the issue at hand, I will be blasted or praised by the traditional liberal or conservative ideologues.
For example, on one day I may come out in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry and enjoy the same priveledges and rights as any other couple. For this, I'll be praised by liberals and blasted by conservatives.
Another day I may say that affirmative action programs are simply reverse discrimination and really only serve to furthur disenfranchise the very people they are designed to benefit by creating a State mandated scheme of victimization. For this, the conservatives applaude, and the liberals think me an insensitive and racist or sexist bully.
What is typically lost in such issues is WHERE I'm arguing from, and why. My enemy, as it has always been, is the State, the Powers That Be.
Libertarians advocate freedom from oppression, and oppose State programs which benefit a select few at the expense of others - regardless of the perceived utlility of it.
Forcably taking from one to benefit another without consent is WRONG. Period. It doesn't matter how much or how little you have, and shouldn't. Denying a person the right to ingest any substance they wish to in their own home is equally wrong. As is denying any person priveledges based on something as inconsequential and petty as sexual preference.
So, yeah, you'll see me advocate capitalism and free trade, but you'll also see me get pissed off when the government bails out a failing mortgage firm or airline. I'll get equally pissed when the government proposes to bail out homeowners who bought estates they clearly couldn't afford on adjustable rate mortgages.
So let it be clear. I'm NOT necessarily pro-business. I'm NOT even necessarily pro-equality (this simply follows from my philosophy). In the end, what I realy am is ANTI-STATE.
In any situation, you can typically count on the libertarian in the room to side with personal liberty and against the state.
I case that was not clear enough, I think this article sums things up fairly well:
The Enemy is Always the State, by Lew Rockwell:
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
I think this is mainly due to the fact that we expect a government to pick up the slack - and it does a shitty job of it. It essentially becomes, I paid my taxes, I've done what is required of me. If ALL there was was private charity, it would make ALL of us PERSONALLY responsible for the state of the world. We'd have more of an individual and vested interest in it, which we do NOT have now. We are shirking personal responsibility, IMO.
Now look at Bill Gates. That man, by himself, is trying to eradicate malaria, typhoid, dysentary and other such diseases that claim millions of lives every year. He's doing a better job, and giving nearly as much capital, as any governmental or religious agency, but with a difference - The Gates Foundation is actually getting results.
People don't do more, because we've been conditioned to believe that the State is supposed to care for us. That's why there is a push for soicialized health care. Letting the government do it frees you from personal and social responsibility. It's easier to pay taxes than actually care. To actually look the suffering in the eye.
I spend at least a day a week at my local FoodBank. I've worked in soup kitchens. I give blood several times a year (in fact it was my idea to organize the first atheist bood drive through the RRS).
Charity is very near and dear to most libertarians hearts, if only because we realize that it is ONLY through taking personal responsibility and action that a difference can be made.
That concept terrifies most people, and that is a sad reflection on how weak, uncarring and dependant we've become.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I would argue that giving women the vote and freeing slaves was the 'practical' thing to do, the fact that it was the moral or 'right' thing to do was irrelevant to why it happened. Of course protests /non-cooperation/direct action can make it more practical for an action to take place
People/society/governments do not make decisions based on what is right that make them on what is best for them (or at least what they think is best for them). I believe that most forms of human rights/morals as basically evolutionary creations. Ideas originate from a variety of ideas they are implenented and if they work (as in the society survives and its ideas destroy over ideas) then its a 'good' thing
Or to put it another way if Nazi Genocide ethics had allowed the Germans to build up a larger industry/military then we would be celebrating genocide as the peak of human morality
Of course if you think there is some sort of 'natural morality' then everything I've just said will mean nothing to you
Indeed it is, and this is actually my opinion on the matter. Personally, I fail to see the point of marriage altogether.
Ok, now that is something I agree with as well. I think it would have taken longer to get to the Moon for example without public funding - perhaps we'd never have gone at all without it.
This is why, even as a libertarian, in the current system I do support SBIRs (small business innovative research programs). Essentially, the government, or specifically agencies like NASA, DOE, EPA, etc give out grants to develope new technology focused on areas of interest and concern. I've actually worked on projects through such grants to develope oxygen recyclers for future Mars missions, technolgies to sequester CO2 emmissions from power plants and developed devices to reduce emmissions in locomotives (that is currently running in GE trains).
The thing I have a problem with in these cases is that the public, who funds this research with their taxes, never get dividends. Sure, we get a new technolgy, but we pay full price for it. IMO, IF you accept tax dollars to develope a new technology, you should either provide that tech to the tax payer at a reduced cost, send dividends to them, or pay into a fund that reduces the income tax burden to all citizens.
This far from ideal, but within the current system it is a more acceptable way of doing such things.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
If it is merely a question of practicallity, why are women still denied the vote in serval countries? Why does slavery still exist?
If this were the case, we'd still have slavery in the US. Emancipation was a HORRIBLE decision in terms of what was best for the country. It resulted in economic ruin and a civil war.
No, I do not believe in objective or devine morality. I do however, believe in the morality of people. The morality of people and the State often clash. Be it abolishing slavery or moving from depotism to democracy.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Like they are de facto now? Yes, only without the denial. (Insert perfunctory awkward laugh here.)
The only simple constant is that an individual and the individual's right to property are inviolable. So despite differences of opinion, those rights (being the basis of any human rights) would not change.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Slavery was ended on economic grounds, in the UK to hurt American (and promote British interests) and probably more to the point its cheaper to have low pay but free men who you arent resposnbile for feeding/housing etc. Doing the 'right' thing was purely coincidental.
Same with womens rights an economic issue right or wrong really has very little to do with the history of mankind you know.
As for why appalling regimes still exist thats pretty simple because the West allows them to still exist (doesnt mean we created them through we did in some cases) but we allow them to exist. It's in our interest, you seriously think a democratic Saudi Arabia would be more pro Western than the foul regime that exists there now?. Iran has an active political scene (no its not a full democracy but its way ahead of Saudia Arabia) but they are hardly our best buddies ?.
I just dont agree with human beings good state bad, Hitler did not produce a morally corrupt and war mongering Germany. A morally corrupt and war mongering Germany created Hitler (with economic conditions helping of course).
Human can often be complete arseholes and they produce governments of the same nature. You never get a good people and a bad government its just absurd
Gates is, indeed, proving that business' "get us results or piss off" framework is better than government's "lowest bidder, accept the result" method - but Gates is an exception. You and Will are also exceptions. Were a greater number of folks motivated to both care for themselves and make sure their community was caring for itself, I'd be more supportive of the libertarian ideas myself.
For me, it boils down to: People in general tend too strongly to lazy and uncaring by nature to support a looser framework for society.
Other than my innate distrust of people, I can easily see why libertarian ideals are so attractive.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Trust me when I say that the incentives toward charitable action are not as rewarding as you might think (financially, that is). You don't get a hell of a lot back, frankly, so when people donate to charity, they're really doing it out of the kindness of their hearts (or because it makes them feel good). That's how humanitarianism will thrive.
I understand that you distrust people, and I believe they can be good. I also believe they can be bad, I just don't think I can control an entire society, and I think trying to control it is wasted energy. Here, of course, I'm not talking about policing and a legislative system, which is, of course, necessary even in a libertarian system to enforce contract violations.
Why would the same people who were concerned about the world now not be concerned about the world in a libertarian system? Lots of people just care about the world.
The same as exist now: it's often in an individual's best interests to cooperate.
Kinda, since with that one, I'm not sure why you think it's possible to enforce people being nice to one another. You used the word "guarantee", which, in terms of humanitarian activity, doesn't fit to me. I don't think you can guarantee people being nice to one another.
I worked in a bureaucracy with some very clever people, and the nature of the bureaucracy was able to defeat their cleverness. It left an indelible impression.
I beg to differ. Hospitals will never have enough money, the poor will never be well off, and charitable work will always be an uphill climb, but that doesn't make those efforts futile.
None - we cannot achieve perfection.
Keep in mind that they would not have access to government subsidies or influence. If you believe that the current form of corporation could exist without governments, you're mistaken. Corporations are able to become the hulking monsters they are because of a government's blessing.
Only the principles. Giving the individual all the rights, and removing a formal state. Groups obviously still exist, with their problems, but a libertarian "government" essentially does not exist.
I'm interested in your desire for a government that controls more of what we all do, but I don't like the idea as much as you do.
Your relative equality is mandated by a constitutional declaration of your right to your inviolable person and property. You don't actually have a right to not want for anything. That's not a right in any system.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That's an interesting take on history. There were a lot of people (William Wilberforce, for example) who were outraged by the conditions imposed upon the slaves, and took it upon themselves to fight the economically advantaged slave owners of the time. Slaves were actually really cheap. The only thing is that they were shipped in conditions worse than that of cattle. Much worse, in some cases.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I think we'd be surprised what human beings are capable of when they are charged with responsibility. I think a lot of people would step up, if only they KNEW it really was up to them to do the work. I've seen it. When Bush and Fema utterly failed us in the Bayou, and that story began to come out, for weeks straight I saw regular people in the parking lot of the supermarket collecting food and personal items for the folks down there, and I saw people give.
I'm not an exception. I'm just as selfish as anyone else, probably more so. I simply realize that human beings are responsible for creating the sort of world they want to live in. No god or government will do that, we have to do that. We are hypocrites and cowards if we don't do that.
I liken it to people standing around a guy bleeding to death and nobody calls 911. Why does nobody call? They all think somebody else already has. We are NOT unwilling to help, we ASSUME somebody else already is.
The only way to change this is to change the system. To finally make it ineffably clear that the human race is responsible for its own maintenance and elevation.
And if we cannot, or will not do that (because eventually this is what it will come down to), maybe it is simply time for us to check out.
I don't think so. We clearly care enough, or a large proportion of us anyway, to be pushing for welfare and socialized health care programs. Clearly, many of us want to help and are willing to sacrifice for it, we just usually go about it in inefficient and micromanaged ways. They don't know any better.
And they should be attractive, they speak to an enlightened sense of justice.
The bottom line though is, governmental systems do not provide the sort of assistance you would like them to. Even in the most affluent countries in the world, people go hungry every day.
And more than that, we cannot simply wish problems like poverty away. No matter how much money we throw at it, the only lasting solution to poverty is to provide opportunity and the ability to generate and save capital. Governments are not in that business, in fact, governments are in the business of denying exactly that.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
This is where libertarianism can be called pessimistic and optimistic all at the same time. Telling people society will always have problems isn't popular. Forget that it's true, and has always been true, it's just not popular.
No clearer way to say it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
At any rate: Time will tell. I'm just bummed I won't be around to see =^_^=
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
See, I'd call that freedom, and libertarianism is all about maximizing freedom. So ... shall I get you a membership card?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
By "without nation-states" do you mean a completely borderless society (the world's resources used for the world) or the devolution to city-states that Will is describing?
[mod edit for hugeness]
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm jumping in to address the idea that city-states would emerge as the only political unit. Organization would be based on agreement, so there could be mixes of all kinds of regional governments within a libertarian framework. The libertarian part is only concerned with the freedom of individuals and their property. Beyond that, it's a matter of group agreement. Form a group corporation or cooperative or cartel? That's up to the population.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
World resources brings about an interesting discussion (perhaps better off for another thread?). The raise and fall of several civilizations (Rome, Copán) seem to follow a regular pattern (expansion and concentration of wealth, high taxes, high government spending, dependency on imports due to insufficient local natural capital, foreign war, inefficient central government, and debasement of the currency / hyperinflation).
When we limit governments to local governments, we we get rid of much of that regular pattern, but it did not get rid of the tendency to become dependent on the unsustainable exploitation of natural capital until we run into the limits of said exploitation. The consequence of which have been that about half the population (or more) dies as the complex system of natural capital exploitation can no longer sustain the human population. Humans tend to recover by migration or reverting to smaller, local governments, but each time we try the civilization experiment with better knowledge, trade, and technology, the number of lives at stake become exponentially higher.
To me, the answer to this problem is simple: implement birth control before we reach the limits of sustainable usage of natural capital. Better technology can allow us to utilize our natural capital better than before, but it is still just a tool with its limits and at best will only delay the point where we are no longer in equilibrium with our natural capital.
So how would a system of local governments work to keep us in equilibrium with natural capital?
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Freedom is cool but alas one mans freedom is another prison. Just about every action a person a can make has a negative effect on others including breathing.
Do you think a person should every be locked up for no other action bar being alive? . I can think of someone who has a contagious disease being hospitalised against his will. I would justify that I suspect most other people would too?
What about someone with a really bad cold on a packed train?, their mere prescence is infecting others possibly people who are more vulnerable to infection that they are. Most people would say they were being anti social but they are probably not committing any crime?
Freedom and encouraging the individual is a good thing but its not something to worship.
In a historical context with epidemics the Libertarian would argue that providing inoculations to stop the spread of disease and the deaths of millions would inhibit on a person's freedoms. Therefore the majority must all endure death and disease for the sake of a minority. Because to eradicate disease like smallpox, polio, influenza, etc. would be oppression.
So on one hand you have the Libertarian model which leads to millions dead, billions in lost revenue, etc. Or you have the socialist model like we have where people don't die of those problems except for the rare occasion, in which social, non-profit institutions like the Center for Disease Control, FEMA, etc. work to contain a problem to insure that others aren't injured. Currently though years of the Bush administration leaning us towards a Libertarian model we've had a weakening of programs which are intended to prevent tainted food, lead in toys, etc. and as a result the problems have grown. So one model works, the other doesn't, but for some reason only one is supposed to grant us freedom. Somehow I don't feel oppressed by not having polio or smallpox.
When you say "providing," do you mean forced inoculations or to "make available" (voluntary inoculations)? If voluntary, I would say that can be compatible with Libertarian values.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
There exists no form of government I know of that could address this issue adequately. It's a wonderful question, but it could hardly be addressed by a government system. Like any other population of biological creatures, we consume what we can until we can't any more. As you said, it's happened before, and it'll happen again.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That's pretty ridiculous. Organizing a group of people to become inoculated doesn't take an oppressive government. It's in a person's best interest to be inoculated. It's also that person's right to refuse. At that point, the individual has decided to take an unusual risk and may suffer. There's no oppression there at all.
Holy hyperbole, Batman!
Yeah, neither do I. I'm not seeing how voluntary vaccinations are oppression.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hence my point that a disease will be permitted to spread with Libertarian policies. Vaccines were required and that requirement is what ended the epidemics. To permit people to avoid vaccination makes the entire point of disease elimination pointless since it will carry on to the next generation, etc. etc.
Because the people demanded and end to diseases (and they continue to do so) the government responded and was successful. In other nations where you have freedom to reject vaccination problems like polio persists and continues to grow. Due to their "freedom" to be infected the disease will be allowed to spread to America where a population, which no longer receives mandatory polio vaccinations, will have the "freedom" to be infected again.
How is your Libertarian policy better than a policy that works?
Wha-at? I'm not sure what you mean, in a practical sense. I have specific personal freedoms, therefore you don't? That doesn't sound right. Besides, didn't you just say that societies that allow all their citizens to use their skills and talents tend to be stronger? Is that not an example of allowing personal freedoms?
Sure. We're still people who can figure shit out for ourselves. If someone needs to be quarantined, that's a completely reasonable situation wherein that person simply has to be quarantined, or he/she is infringing heavily upon the rights and freedoms of others.
Honestly, now. You can't escape biology through a political system. Libertarianism isn't about attaining Nirvana, just maximizing freedom. Obviously there would still be difficult situations. There are always exceptions to rules.
No, but it's something to reasonably strive for.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Here is the polio eradication effort in Africa:
http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_25953.html
Due to the "oppressive" inoculation program cases of polio are down 99%. According to the Libertarian model that means the people are worse off.
Mandatory inoculations. When inoculations were allowed on the voluntary basis, as in the case of smallpox, the disease continued to spread. When there were isolated outbreaks everyone one the region was required to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease. Had it remained voluntary then it would take just one person to spread the disease.
As is seen with the AIDS virus when people remain on the voluntary method of disease prevention, the disease spreads.
Why wouldn't the people still organize a vaccination strategy, then? Look, you're blowing the idea of absolute-total-maniacal personal freedom way out of proportion. Libertarianism doesn't mean that nobody ever has to partake in a group. Consider inmates of a prison: their freedom has to be revoked.
If a community considers an unvaccinated individual a threat to health (which they would be) then they would use exactly the same methods to convince that person to get vaccinated as were employed for the polio vaccine. A loss of travel privileges by virtue of the fact that no community would accept a tourist who had not been vaccinated, for instance. AND since it's in the interest of every community that every other community be vaccinated, the same thing would happen: the US provides tons of money for everyone else to get vaccinated, as would any wealthy community.
Considering they're exactly the same, I'd say just as well.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Uh ... what would the mandatory method of disease prevention be with AIDS? It's not like there's a vaccine.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yes, I am unaware of any government that would address this issue adequately. I would say that China and perhaps other nations are better at this. The US tends to think about the next quarter or the next election, and China is thinking about the next two or three generations.
I was thinking, this top heavy government would not be as bad if we could somehow wedge in some kind of scientific method (including independent peer review) into the checks in balances of government. It could be used for keeping the budget in check, reduce spending on programs that are unlikely to work, optimizing the education system, and prevent circumvention around the checks and balances. We need to integrate the best of our human knowledge into our government somehow, which means science needs to play some role in the government.
One problem that I see is that one representative is supposed to vote on all sorts of issues. I do not think that there are very many humans that are experts in all fields. They tend not to get elected due to our bias for unintelligent or dishonest representatives, in that to be elected in the current environment you have to say that you are a Christian. A friend of mine said to me recently, we need better citizens. Unintelligent citizens will always cause problems for a democratic system. Unfortunately, today's world is too complex to expect everyone to intelligently vote on all issues. This is why I think we are better off with smaller government. Most people are not smart enough to make decisions about complex systems. They are too easily satisfied with a superficial understanding of things, and will vote on that understanding. Smaller governments make things more personal, and simpler systems are more easily understood.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
There is a lovely invention called the condom.
Mandatory ... condoms? I'm not sure I follow.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That's all I'm sayin'.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
AIDS is a sucky example because it's bloodborne and a slow killer (when untreated, when treated it's not even a death sentence anymore.)
Influenza is a good example, especially like the one that went pandemic on us not so very long ago. The example is stopping such a pandemic by romping all over one right (choice in getting the vaccine) to preserve another right (to live). A central government can make this decision and halt the spread of a dangerous pandemic. A series of smaller government units would give rise to the likely scenario of the pandemic spreading because one or two government units allowed the choice of not receiving the vaccination, thus becoming a vector for the pandemic.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
The people have organized a vaccination strategy. A government is an organization of the people and through elected representatives they have implemented vaccination programs.
Having people's travel restricted is a form of oppression so you can't have that otherwise it would go against Libertarian principles. To provide money for a vaccination program would require taxation, which is oppression in the Libertarian mindset, so there couldn't be such a program. It seems to be that you are arguing that Libertarianism is Socialism.
Your example of prisoners needing to have their freedom revoked isn't Libertarian. As with the title of this thread the State is the enemy. A State creates prisons to hold people and a State creates laws to restrict behavior (freedom). Should the enemy be abolished then no laws, no prisons, no courts, no taxes to pay for such a system. The same is with a system that controls disease outbreaks. With Libertarianism there is no public funding of science for a vaccine, no means to implement it on a wide scale, no means to inoculate the populations to control the spread of disease, no form of public education to inform people about the risks of disease and the need for vaccination, no means to enforce a quarantine, etc. Any attempt to do so would mean oppression.
No, in a Libertarian system we would still suffer from outbreaks.
Here's one recent example of a problem that arose involving TB.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/30/tb-flight.html
One passenger carrying TB was held in Europe and prevented from returning to the U.S. He found he was being oppressed and snuck into Canada where he risked the health of other passengers. Had the person been contagious then hundreds of thousands of people could have been infected with an untreatable strain of TB. Libertarians say he is permitted his freedom and we all must have our freedom to remain healthy sacrificed at the potential cost of our lives.
The inherent flaw of Libertarianism is that it is reactive; problems are only dealt with once they become a problem, and even that response is restricted. Other forms of governance are proactive so problems are limited or prevented before they have a chance to become a bigger problem. One just need to look at the removal of regulation like the Glass-Steagall Act and the effect it has had on the housing market and venerable institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (not so much Bernie Mac, but stay away from the Big Mac). Or another example is the Enron Loophole that resulted from deregulation of the energy market and the result unregulated commodity trading has on oil prices and the energy crisis in California in 1999.
But those governments whose populations organized a vaccination program would be fine, and incur only the costs associated with encouraging other governments to seek vaccination ... kind of like now, only without the extra centralized bureaucracy. Each government unit, acting in self-interest, would reach the same conclusion or have a very sick population. It would also be in the interest of each government to encourage neighbouring governments to pursue vaccination of their population in order to protect their population from possible infection.
Not to mention the fact that a pandemic is an exceptional emergency that calls for unusual action. It's not even a dust-bowl, where mass stupidity not only affects your farm, but it affects an entire continent's farm. Such organization would require cartels of regions, but why a large government to manage such an agreement?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But, it doens't take a lot of imagination to envison a libertarian version of the WHO and CDC. It's a nessesary function of a society and in everyone's best interest to monitor disease and health trends. Even the tiniest municipal corporation would have likely given this thought and signed on to a pre-made system to deal with threats they don't have the resources to deal with.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Hey brother Yellow, and world citizens, some cool pissed off "Bob" for ya ! ......Work and Libertarian ideas ....etc. Evolution communication is the solution to most all of the unnecessary obvious chaos ...."Eat the Rich", eliminate them .... them lying fuckers like it the way it is ....
"THE ABOLITION OF WORK" , By Bob Black , essay
http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm
Here in 2 podcasts. The first one, is dry and too the point, with no music and the reading is fast. The second one is with trippy music and more fun.
1 : Episode 093 - click the pod button, not the title.
http://radiofreeliberty.libsyn.com/
2 : with trip out music,
http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/twilight016.htm
Starts reading the essay at about 1/3 in .... with additional music breaks ....
http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/shows/64k/twilight16.mp3
OR See Show 16 - (lots of other cool shows too)
http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/playlists.htm
What a crap ass system we are handing the kids. Yeah I don't have all the solutions, but sheezzz, so many fucked up things are obviously changeable for the better. Wake up the neighbor robots. Sue the FCC. Over 500 trillion dollars trying to steal Iraq's oil, was who's brainy idea and why? .... and no universal health care .... why inflation? ... why mega profit making rich dynasties? .... etc ....
the rich --->
.... smash them NOW, for the kids ....
Atheism Books.
Lets face it human beings are dangerous wild animals that need to be civilzed to live among others, the process includes parents, teachers, laws, organised government etc.
What human beings arent is nice social animals who are left in peace from the 'evil' government/society to just get on with it. Both libertarianism and communism have is a fatal flaw in that they assume most human beings are decent when quite simply they arent.
In poking around some of the Libertarian stuff here on RSS I find myself wondering if it does, indeed, make the mistake communism makes.
Where communism assumes fulfillment of needs will be enough to sate the human animal, requiring people to repress individual needs and wants in favor of the community need - it seems Libertarianism requires only an "enlightened self-interest" to function, a far more achievable state for the human animal.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Well, the rich vacuum cleaner dynasties must be eliminated .... period.
a no brainer
Atheism Books.
D-cubed, the only problem I'm having with discussing this with you is that you don't seem to be reading what I write. I'm well aware that a libertarian system doesn't solve outbreaks. We're discussing politics, and a goal of libertarianism is the reduction of the state to increase the autonomy and freedom of the individual. Am I deluded enough to think that we'll make it to that goal into Perfect Libertarian Freedom Utopia? No. We're grown-ups, here.
That's ridiculous. A libertarian system merely seeks to maximize the liberty of its citizens. It's just a place to start, with the goal of limiting the resources and power of a large government bureaucracy. That's all. You're reading some kind of total-personal-freedom-no-matter-what into the libertarian ideal, and I'm not sure where that's coming from.
No, you completely misunderstand. Land taxes in a region would amount to a kind of "subscription" to a region, the same way they do now. A municipal corporation would still exist to manage the affairs of its shareholders (or stakeholders, if you like, to include those who rent and contribute indirectly to the system). Should those corporations organize, a cartel of municipalities would constitute a regional treaty area by contract. The libertarian system is fairly flexible and scalable at the same time.
Says who? Criminals are merely members of a group who have broken a social contract with their group. They have to be dealt with in some way. In the libertarian version, instead of a prisoner being a ward of the state, a prisoner becomes the ward of a detainment corporation. Essentially the same process is followed.
Not true. All law becomes focused around an individual's right to inviolable person and property. The law of the land after that is based on contract. The individuals involved in contract disputes hire arbitrators. In the case of criminals, the violation is against the municipal corporation, with which an agreement has been made regarding the freedom and inviolability of other members of the corporation.
Again, not true. An individual still has a contract with a group. If that individual becomes a serious danger to health of the group, the group can definitely claim contract violation. Libertarianism is just a system and a framework, not a solution for every problem you can think of. That's because nothing is.
Of course we would! Politics cannot save us from biology.
No, that person would find himself in a violation of contract with many organizations and individuals. Indeed, his punishment under a libertarian system would be very harsh.
Really? An example would be nice. Your outbreak examples don't apply, as thousands of people died of smallpox and measles before any action was taken. In fact, all government action has to be reactive. No government can predict the future.
You've just quoted two examples that have nothing to do with proactive governance. They're examples of transition pains on the one hand, and (in Enron's case) inventing ways to be corrupt. I mean, they were so smart they were INVENTING ways to meddle with the power system. And if you don't believe that environment was left to them by the state power authority, you haven't read enough about it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's worth mentioning that smallpox is the only human disease to have been eradicated globally in this way. It was done gradually, and by wealthy groups/countries. Smallpox wasn't a wildfire spread, it had been around for centuries, and only through cultural attitudes about vaccination could it be eliminated. You're right, by the way, that populations would not be fine, and that viral mutation creates a problem for any organized population. A central act of control has worked a couple of times over a period of 300 years of the knowledge of inoculation.
My point is that central acts of control give the illusion of security, but cannot deliver on that promise. Biology can always get us, no matter how much a state tells us we're safe as long as we give it money. In a libertarian system, the population does its level best to protect its interests and health, but no expectation of a perfect solution to all of life's problems exists in the system. Canada, which has a fairly socialist mixed economy, still has difficulty managing the influx of disease: the same difficulties that a libertarian cartel of municipalities would face. In fact, that any group would face. The only difference is that the state is not elevated to Grand Protector. However, a cartel may hire the services of a border protection firm. That firm would have to satisfy its customers' need for security of their members' health.
Sure, and it makes for good discussion. Thanks for bringing up these problems, too, because there are many nuances that hadn't occurred to me, and I always like hammering out ideas like this.
Exactly. Now don't get me wrong - I don't think that private corporations are better because they're somehow more efficient. I've worked for both private and public sectors, and I can tell you that both are equally inefficient on a large scale. Theoretically, the private sector is supposed to be more efficient, but that's garbage. Middle management is middle management. No, I think private corporations should supplant public corporations because that shifts quite a lot of responsibility onto private corporations, which otherwise can get away with "externalizing" all sorts of things (like pollution, etc.). In a libertarian framework, the private corporation is forced to take into consideration the damage it does to others' property and person, because otherwise it opens itself up to suits based on social contract violation.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
In fact, libertarianism only requires self-interest, without the enlightenment. Beyond that, it's up to an individual or group to decide how they want to build on top of that.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Will , that was darn good reading ..... just saying .... (((( pubic office, I'll vote for ya ....
Atheism Books.
*Sigh* Everyone ignore this post. I tried to use the quote function and somehow failed. I fear that I have revealed myself as an internet noob.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Just give me a non stop party please, I will be most productive. What's it gonna take? I'm Will ing .... Help make it happen .... please please .
Atheism Books.
Here is something you might enjoy in that same vein of thought. I'm not if I agree that you can only come to the conclusion he reached. Unlike god, states actually exist and can be observed and (maybe) understood. The rejection of religion eventually comes down to the lack of a god showing himself or being compelling or necessary. It's not a given that the same empty foundation underlies all government functions.
Instead of a Blog
Think this can't work? - Think again.
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction
Why of course local communities / municipalities can survive without the heavy hand of the State, one need only look to the African Nation of Somalia. There are numerous independent municipalities that are self-governed ( by war lords ) and who easily operate without the oversight of any type of Federal Government ( because their isn't one. )
There may be small governmental / procedural differences between each individual municipality but the citizens of each have found a system to resolve their differences with other local municipalities. They kill each other.
( ps, a real world example from the pages of history where people from an individual municipality are solving their own problems without the interference of a central government. )
I really don't get where some atheists think because you don't believe in god you don't belive in strong laws, governments, rules, order and similar.
I have zero time for non-existant mythical man made deities influencing how I should live my life.
I do not have that problem with democratically elected government doing the same which have hopefully to some extent been elected rationally and which tries to act rationally based on reality not the spirit world. If they make laws I don't agree with and it bothers me that much I will try to get another a new government elected which will change them.If I fail part of living in a civilized society is obeying the law even bad ones (or at least accepting the punishments if you get caught).
I'm not a believer in democracy. Democracy is abuse of the minority at its worst, because democracy in and of itself is supposed to be a check against abuse. In 1855, if there was a democratic vote in Georgia as to whether or not black people should get the right to vote, what would the outcome have been? Gay marriage is another one of these referenda that is continuously voted down by democratic means.
Government needs to be strong and tell the people what to do - because people by and large are sheep and don't know their elbow from their asshole. It's the reason why savings accounts for retirement instead of Social Security is a bad idea - because the average American has no conception of the future. It's all instant gratification. Governments shouldn't be elected - they should be appointed by the intelligent and benevolent who realize that most people need to be controlled, because left to their own devices, they're a bunch of stupid animals who are down at the mall, scratching themselves, charging up their credit cards to buy sneakers with lights in them. (Thanks, George.)
I don't pretend to respect society - I see people as failures, that get worse every generation because we keep allowing the unfit to reproduce. Libertarians misuse the term 'freedom' to mean 'leave me alone'. Freedom is knowing that you're safe and secure and able to live, within the constraints of the government, who is protective. I think it's shortsighted at best and deliberately obtuse at worst to claim that the state is the enemy - the state is what makes us free.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG