Thread: SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

I understand the problem of government, but would you please, for god's sake, acknowledge the problem of an unregulated private sector and a society absent of communal structure?

Now that we both agree (if not there's no reason to continue having this conversation) let's stop bickering and think of solutions to this problem. I don't understand what you're talking about with education. You want only people who like public education to pay for it? That's the opposite of social infrastructure. That would ensure that no one who can afford to support the public education system pays for it because they'd just pay for private school. That wouldn't even be public education anymore, just a collective of private schools.

I propose consensus based democracy. I know this sabotages my proposal to ban private schools but I could never get away with that shit in the first place and my belief that schooling should be optional invalidates it anyways.

A consensus based community can keep things running because they're required to keep things running in order to survive and without the power of majority they're no longer able to push fundamentalist, impractical garbage up the lines of government. They all have a stake in the community and are therefore driven toward the most practical ends.

The problem is sometimes I like when government does things that not everyone agrees with. Like forcing racist business owners to let black people use their stores. I support that anti-discrimination law. But it goes both ways because you can't regulate that sort of power. Maybe it begins with acknowledging corporations are different from people, and while the government can create more rights for people, they cannot create more rights for corporations. That could at least cut down on some of their corporate backers to ensure they're better held to a constituency of voters instead of share-holders.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I understand the problem of government, but would you please, for god's sake, acknowledge the problem of an unregulated private sector and a society absent of communal structure?

I don't think that an unregulated private sector would be an issue if it weren't for the absence of a communal structure of some sort. If the community itself had more power then it could do something to stop private sector problems. But none of this needs to be done with force(meaning violence or threats of violence;this includes fines).

Now that we both agree (if not there's no reason to continue having this conversation) let's stop bickering and think of solutions to this problem. I don't understand what you're talking about with education. You want only people who like public education to pay for it? That's the opposite of social infrastructure. That would ensure that no one who can afford to support the public education system pays for it because they'd just pay for private school. That wouldn't even be public education anymore, just a collective of private schools.

Not really, why are people who don't use them okay with paying taxes for public school now? Because they realize that some form of assistance is needed for poor children. There are a large number of people who are not only okay with this but actually advocate for it despite that they have no kids in school.

I am against public schools of any kind. They lead to indoctrination. I think instead we ought to just have private schools and make grants available to people who make under a certain income through voluntary means(donations). Basically like charter schools now. Some of these schools could run for less time each day, pay teachers only part time and do other things to lower the cost*. I really don't think there's any way you can make it so that children who's parents have no means of educating them can educate them to the same level as those who do have the means without just lowering the level of education for those who do have money. There are an infinite number of things you can do to improve the level of education for the poor, but there is no justification for using force in this situation. Many of the important changes don't require money and are actually just a change in approach.

I propose consensus based democracy. I know this sabotages my proposal to ban private schools but I could never get away with that shit in the first place and my belief that schooling should be optional invalidates it anyways.

A consensus based community can keep things running because they're required to keep things running in order to survive and without the power of majority they're no longer able to push fundamentalist, impractical garbage up the lines of government. They all have a stake in the community and are therefore driven toward the most practical ends.

Wouldn't those with wealth and means still be able to get by without consensus? How would you prevent this? Social programs might not be functioning well but those who don't need them can obviously still get by.On top of this what about all the issues that you can't get a consensus on, what happens then? What about when most people want something but not any kind of consensus? And you still have the problem of propaganda and public relations convincing people to do things that are in their own worst interest.

The problem is sometimes I like when government does things that not everyone agrees with. Like forcing racist business owners to let black people use their stores. I support that anti-discrimination law. But it goes both ways because you can't regulate that sort of power. Maybe it begins with acknowledging corporations are different from people, and while the government can create more rights for people, they cannot create more rights for corporations. That could at least cut down on some of their corporate backers to ensure they're better held to a constituency of voters instead of share-holders.

I think that sort of thing can be done non-violently, there's no need to physically force the business owner to do that. Just make it well known that the owner of that business is a racist and organize a boycott of his business. If society is predominantly racist you have an issue, but if society is predominantly racist so is the government. I could be wrong about this but it seems to me that there is a higher percentage of racism or at least racial superiority in gov then in the general public. It's not until public opinion starts to change that the law changes.

And by doing this you actually deal with the issue of racism instead of just forcing people to be good. They are forced to face the truth of their own ignorance. And it encourages people in the community to think about the issue and have an active place in it. It's very hard to get good people to do or go along with bad things unless you make them passive first.

*I'm a very strong advocate of something like the Lancaster schools where children become teachers starting at a very young age; 5th graders teaching first grade math, etc. This cuts costs immensely and creates incentive for students to do well. It also creates a more equal level between teacher and student; students are not taught down to as much. I would probably try to start a school like this if child labor laws didn't make it impossible.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Taxation isn't theft if you can get people to agree on it! Which is easiest how? Local level.

It isn't taxation if you give it voluntarily, then it's a contractual payment or a donation of some kind. And the only way you could get people to agree to pay this would be if they decided exactly how the money given was spent and have some way of holding them accountable if the spend it differently. You could have some kind of contract people signed when they bought a home in an area saying they had to pay for x but if they already own the property you or any other entity have no right to impose a tax on them. That's just a bunch of garbage that some people who died hundreds of years ago made up so that they could live off of others.

Originally Posted by Xei

You shouldn't have to work to pay for basic needs.

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

*Or get voluntary charity from those with means. Let's not scare people off by making it look like libertarians are against helping your neighbour. It's government welfare schemes we oppose.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

But the problem is people are being punished for abundance because everything is put on a scale of scarcity to determine its value. Your model puts man in direct competition with technology.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!

I agree. First people think money grows on trees... and now FOOD?! I get my food from the STORE, not from some magical "farm" or "garden of eden" that just spontaneously grows apples on trees. What next? BUSHES covered in raspberries?! Absurd.

Growing food consists of working regardless.

I forage quite a bit, and it is not an easy way to live. Hunting and farming; same deal.

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.

I don't see them getting punished much, they get subsidized despite this alleged "scarcity".

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

What cmind said. If this is your attitude then you are a libertarian for all the wrong reasons. I am a libertarian because I believe that people shouldn't use force to compel charity; they should just be charitable. I find the Randian scorn of altruism to be quite despicable, personally.

Some people are unable to work. For instance, people who are mentally retarded. Mentally retarded people should be left to starve because they can't provide for themselves? Lovely.

There's no economic reason that a society should even provide an adequate amount of employment for the subsistence of its competent population. There's no formula that causes the amount of available labour to be necessarily greater than the amount of labour that the population requires to survive.

And no we are not in a utopia with infinite food, but that analogy is ridiculous. People in the developed world are living in a society which could pay for basic subsistence a hundred times over. My adherence to the non-aggression principle only goes so far. If there is man on the street starving to death and the only remaining means to feed him is to compel some decadent billionaire to buy him a meal, no I wouldn't object to the use of force.

Originally Posted by cmind

*Or get voluntary charity from those with means. Let's not scare people off by making it look like libertarians are against helping your neighbour. It's government welfare schemes we oppose.

I guess we should make a distinction between the disadvantaged and the delusional.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.

Why not on scarcity? What value system do you feel is better then the subjective desires of individuals?

Originally Posted by Xei

Some people are unable to work. For instance, people who are mentally retarded. Mentally retarded people should be left to starve because they can't provide for themselves? Lovely.

And there is a difference between those who are capable of working and those who are not.

Originally Posted by Xei

And no we are not in a utopia with infinite food, but that analogy is ridiculous. People in the developed world are living in a society which could pay for basic subsistence a hundred times over. My adherence to the non-aggression principle only goes so far. If there is man on the street starving to death and the only remaining means to feed him is to compel some decadent billionaire to buy him a meal, no I wouldn't object to the use of force.

Then you are a hypocrite and you are not a libertarian if you do not expressly follow non-aggression. You have accepted the principle of violence and your only difference between a criminal and yourself is scale, not principle. A criminal steals for want a great deal of the time, you steal for want a little. Where is the moral suasion in the example? It was not even given lip service. You just see someone who is in dire straights and your first response is to use violence against someone else in order to better his/her condition.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!

Yes, 6 billion people are going to frolic through the forests berry picking. Or wait, did you magically go to some far off land in your dreams?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And there is a difference between those who are capable of working and those who are not.

This doesn't address what I said about the total employment not being sufficient, does it?

In 20 years technology will have made all kinds of menial jobs obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't enough jobs for 50% of the population. How is your philosophy going to work then?

Then you are a hypocrite and you are not a libertarian if you do not expressly follow non-aggression.

Libertarianism is a sliding scale. You seem to be confused with anarchy. A libertarian can be a constitutionalist who believes in inalienable human rights.

You have accepted the principle of violence and your only difference between a criminal and yourself is scale, not principle. A criminal steals for want a great deal of the time, you steal for want a little. Where is the moral suasion in the example? It was not even given lip service. You just see someone who is in dire straights and your first response is to use violence against someone else in order to better his/her condition.

Why did you feel the need to set up a strawman?

I said as a measure of last resort. That doesn't mean 'first response', does it?

I would exhaust all non-coercive means, and only then, if necessary, would I force the billionaire to pay for the man's life rather than another caviar smoothie.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not on scarcity? What value system do you feel is better then the subjective desires of individuals?

One which enables farmers to benefit from technology rather than be punished by it.

Or we could stop wasting our precious resources on producing meat, which has an efficiency of only 10% compared to simply eating vegetable proteins... That's a lot more food for a lot more people, saving a lot more water (80% of our fresh water used is devoted to food production and agri-business).

Nevermind. People like their hamburgers composed of 500 different anti-biotic filled, hormone-injected cows too much to eat more vegetable proteins and less meat. DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

One which enables farmers to benefit from technology rather than be punished by it.

Would you be referring to the state enforced agri-patent system that was put in place in the 1970s?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Or we could stop wasting our precious resources on producing meat, which has an efficiency of only 10% compared to simply eating vegetable proteins... That's a lot more food for a lot more people, saving a lot more water (80% of our fresh water used is devoted to food production and agri-business).

Nevermind. People like their hamburgers composed of 500 different anti-biotic filled, hormone-injected cows too much to eat more vegetable proteins and less meat. DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM.

God damned corn subsidies.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes, 6 billion people are going to frolic through the forests berry picking. Or wait, did you magically go to some far off land in your dreams?

7 billion. And no.
If people weren't forced to live in blocks with zero land, we could all grow our own food.
But people need to work! So they have to live close to where they work. So they have to live in a house with no land 99% of the time. Unless they want to be a farmer.

Apparently you can feed yourself easily on 50ft2 of land.
We don't all need to go out picking berries form the forest.

Originally Posted by tommo

7 billion. And no.
If people weren't forced to live in blocks with zero land, we could all grow our own food.
But people need to work! So they have to live close to where they work. So they have to live in a house with no land 99% of the time. Unless they want to be a farmer.

Apparently you can feed yourself easily on 50ft2 of land.
We don't all need to go out picking berries form the forest.

So... you either work for MONEY to buy food. Or you work to make the food yourself. So far it looks like there is work involved. (Berrypicking is work, too. hasslesome, what with all the pointy pricklies.)

However, we live in the 21st century. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to trade off between free food and working to buy stuff that we can't get or build ourselves.
The only reason it is like this is because the houses are packed in so tight in cities and urban areas.

Originally Posted by cmind

Would you be referring to the state enforced agri-patent system that was put in place in the 1970s?

No.