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

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

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.)

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol

Originally Posted by cmind

Do you even know what I'm referring to?

Yes. Do you know what I'm referring to?

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol

Libertarians are obviously opposed to property taxes.

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol

I'm fine working! I just think I should be allowed to give my excesses to the charity that I CHOOSE, not to the government so they can go murder more people abroad. I understand that they need 1 or 2% to fund serious things, like interstate highways and NASA, but everything else, I can handle myself.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I'm fine working! I just think I should be allowed to give my excesses to the charity that I CHOOSE, not to the government so they can go murder more people abroad. I understand that they need 1 or 2% to fund serious things, like interstate highways and NASA, but everything else, I can handle myself.

You can do that you know.... It's called tax deductible donations.

Originally Posted by cmind

Libertarians are obviously opposed to property taxes.

Cool fuckin story bro.

Originally Posted by tommo

Cool fuckin story bro.

Is this your standard response for when you have nothing intelligent to add?

You just said that for absolutely no reason. Why do I give a fuck if libertarians are opposed to property taxes? How does that change anything or add anything to the discussion?

Originally Posted by tommo

You can do that you know.... It's called tax deductible donations.

I find those to be a little different than not paying the taxes in the first place, though From what I understand I can't deduct more than 50% of my income tax for that...

And that doesn't count Capital Gains. Non-deductible :/ Somehow, they get their money to help pay for wars that they wouldn't have been able to afford anyways xD I definitely do enjoy tax deductions, but the principle of taxation without representation is pretty silly to me. (I never consented to an income tax, it was forced upon me. Same thing with Social Security.)

Originally Posted by Xei

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?

Really? Mechanization is going to lead to unemployment? What are we back in the mid-Industrial revolution times? Human desires are constantly evolving and never satisfied. You are presuming they are static and capable of being fully fulfilled by machines. Let us see how ridiculous your notion is through an example. Say I invent a solution that causes people to never have to go to the dentist or brush their teeth again. Hooray for me. My teeth solution is sold, I make people happy, I get profits. What about all the dentists you say, all the dentist assistants, the toothbrush industry, etc. etc. Well now their labor is freed up for trying to supply the demand of consumers in the teeth industry. They can now move into other areas of employment which service the new or existing demand of consumers. That is of course if people actually like my tooth solution. Perhaps there are some people who like going to the dentist. They find the experience exhilarating. Well the then still can be dentists, still be suppliers of toothbrushes, there can still be a market. Basically your argument is akin to "We cannot make cars because all the buggy drivers will lose their jobs!"

Originally Posted by Xei

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

What are those inalienable rights? Life...liberty and....Property? Oh wait not property because then you would again be shown to be a hypocrite by calling yourself a libertarian, believing in natural rights while at the same time giving justification for stealing for a "worthy cause." Anarchy is the logical conclusion of Libertarianism. Constitutionalism permits the empowerment of government with rights that common individuals have. It falsely assumes it has the ability to tax (to steal) and to conscript (to kidnap). It is nothing more then highwaymen and thieves looking for legitimacy. You do not have the right to murder and call it war, you do not have the right to steal and call it taxation and you do not have the right to kidnap and call it conscription, so by what right do you empower the government to do so?

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

My point still stands. You are justifying the coercion of an individual. You are not a libertarian even in the slightest degree. Even if libertarianism was just the non-aggression principle, you are even passing that. This is not some case of "get off my jungle-jim," ideas have power and so do the words that go with them. You falsely assigning yourself the title of libertarian dilutes not only the definition of the word making it more ambiguous and unmanageable but you are diluting yourself into thinking you are something you are not which in itself is pathetic.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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

That is ambiguous. Can you be a little more detailed?

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.

Actually 6,840,507,000 according to Google but who knows, babies can be popping out right now as I write this. People are not really "forced" to live in blocks with "zero land." True there is urbanization but there still is rural areas. In fact look at the western coast of the United States, in most states the government owns half or more of the land and nobody can build on that. Also this self-sufficientness in agriculture is getting really annoying . I do not want to plant corn. I am not a farmer, I do not care to farm. Apparently this is true for 98% of the American populace because only 2% actually does farm and most of them are corporations. If you wish to return to a feudal era, then be well and good luck. Engage in animal husbandry and tame the land with your plow. I will stick to my books, my education and my hopefully good future teaching career. I speculate that many people will agree with me but this does not make my argument "right." Numbers do not mean "rightness."

7 billion according to the United Nations. (Google isn't always so truthful ) And urbanization is a serious problem, causes massive amounts of waste and transportation costs for food (fossil fuels to transport the food and spoilage mostly), if more food was localized it would be less wasteful, healthier (no need to be frozen/canned/genetically modified to last longer).

You don't have to give it all to agri-business, it can be localized without that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is ambiguous. Can you be a little more detailed?

Tractors and other such inventions of the 1920s drove down the price of the food putting farmers into a depression long before the rest of the nation. Part of the new deal to help farmers was to pay them subsidies to destroy all the extra crops they were making in order to keep the value of food high enough for them to make a living.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually 6,840,507,000 according to Google but who knows, babies can be popping out right now as I write this. People are not really "forced" to live in blocks with "zero land." True there is urbanization but there still is rural areas. In fact look at the western coast of the United States, in most states the government owns half or more of the land and nobody can build on that. Also this self-sufficientness in agriculture is getting really annoying . I do not want to plant corn. I am not a farmer, I do not care to farm. Apparently this is true for 98% of the American populace because only 2% actually does farm and most of them are corporations. If you wish to return to a feudal era, then be well and good luck. Engage in animal husbandry and tame the land with your plow. I will stick to my books, my education and my hopefully good future teaching career. I speculate that many people will agree with me but this does not make my argument "right." Numbers do not mean "rightness."

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.
It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are
not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.

Originally Posted by tommo

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.
It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are
not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.

Nah. People seem to prefer virtuality to reality. A shame, really, because I like growing vegetables and picking berries... but it's their loss!

So I figured this might be worth posting.

Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal | WebProNews

Also Switzerland was (and still is) smart enough to stay out of other countries' business. They just accept their money if they need a stable place to store it. They might be on to something...

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Really? Mechanization is going to lead to unemployment? What are we back in the mid-Industrial revolution times? Human desires are constantly evolving and never satisfied. You are presuming they are static and capable of being fully fulfilled by machines. Let us see how ridiculous your notion is through an example. Say I invent a solution that causes people to never have to go to the dentist or brush their teeth again. Hooray for me. My teeth solution is sold, I make people happy, I get profits. What about all the dentists you say, all the dentist assistants, the toothbrush industry, etc. etc. Well now their labor is freed up for trying to supply the demand of consumers in the teeth industry. They can now move into other areas of employment which service the new or existing demand of consumers. That is of course if people actually like my tooth solution. Perhaps there are some people who like going to the dentist. They find the experience exhilarating. Well the then still can be dentists, still be suppliers of toothbrushes, there can still be a market. Basically your argument is akin to "We cannot make cars because all the buggy drivers will lose their jobs!"

I see no quantitative analysis here. Zero numerical argument that the number of jobs created equals the number made obsolete; just a qualitative assertion. It is hence utter bunk.

Simple question: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?

The only technologies required for this to happen are advances in robotics and the in-silico simulation of neural networks. Both of things are going to happen this century.

What are those inalienable rights? Life...liberty and....Property? Oh wait not property because then you would again be shown to be a hypocrite by calling yourself a libertarian, believing in natural rights while at the same time giving justification for stealing for a "worthy cause." Anarchy is the logical conclusion of Libertarianism. Constitutionalism permits the empowerment of government with rights that common individuals have. It falsely assumes it has the ability to tax (to steal) and to conscript (to kidnap). It is nothing more then highwaymen and thieves looking for legitimacy. You do not have the right to murder and call it war, you do not have the right to steal and call it taxation and you do not have the right to kidnap and call it conscription, so by what right do you empower the government to do so?

My point still stands. You are justifying the coercion of an individual. You are not a libertarian even in the slightest degree. Even if libertarianism was just the non-aggression principle, you are even passing that. This is not some case of "get off my jungle-jim," ideas have power and so do the words that go with them. You falsely assigning yourself the title of libertarian dilutes not only the definition of the word making it more ambiguous and unmanageable but you are diluting yourself into thinking you are something you are not which in itself is pathetic.

If you really want to have the inane argument that to be a libertarian means you believe in zero mandatory state, please just have it with yourself. I'm not interested in such semantic nonissues. Want to define libertarianism as anarchism? Fine, I'm not a libertarian by your definition. Move along.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

7 billion according to the United Nations. (Google isn't always so truthful ) And urbanization is a serious problem, causes massive amounts of waste and transportation costs for food (fossil fuels to transport the food and spoilage mostly), if more food was localized it would be less wasteful, healthier (no need to be frozen/canned/genetically modified to last longer).

You don't have to give it all to agri-business, it can be localized without that.

There is no credence to that argument. Food can just as easily spoil if it were local. The shipment of goods around the nation/world is due to demand. Example, I love Georgia peaches. I love California cheese, wine and meat. There is something about the meat (I am guessing it is the open-air pastures) that just makes it better. I live in Florida. How am I going to get California meat if I can only buy local?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Tractors and other such inventions of the 1920s drove down the price of the food putting farmers into a depression long before the rest of the nation. Part of the new deal to help farmers was to pay them subsidies to destroy all the extra crops they were making in order to keep the value of food high enough for them to make a living.

In all the time we have talked, have I be an advocate for food subsidies or any government subsidies? I want the market to drive prices down because as a consumer, I like abundance. I also like it in terms of morality. However, what you have just said does not contradict what I previous stated which is that scarcity should dictate prices. This does not mean I want people to be protected from competition in the market place by government so that they can raise their prices. I am very much against this. You seem to be too.

Originally Posted by tommo

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.

So says you. I can receive such a connection from a walk in my local forest or a canoe trip in the Everglades. I do not need to plant food in order to feel connected to the world around me.

Originally Posted by tommo

It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are

Again your sentiment. My experiences differ.

Originally Posted by tommo

not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.

Why do you think that consumerism causes people to "lose" their connection to Earth? Because we have more enjoyable lives, have capital to allow us to have libation; this is some kind of disconnect? What good is being under the whim of mother nature? Do we welcome natural disasters on a primal level? Is not the goal to escape her restrictive lifestyle? Perhaps it is not for you but like I said if you want to tame the child then be well.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why do you think that consumerism causes people to "lose" their connection to Earth? Because we have more enjoyable lives, have capital to allow us to have libation; this is some kind of disconnect? What good is being under the whim of mother nature? Do we welcome natural disasters on a primal level? Is not the goal to escape her restrictive lifestyle? Perhaps it is not for you but like I said if you want to tame the child then be well.

You will lead a very frustrated life if you are trying to escape the whims of nature. Because you can't.
Just look at the progression from ancient societies to now. There's more cancer, dementia and chronic and mental illness now then there was
just a couple of hundred years ago even.
Because we decided to go against the grain of how the rest of nature works and build massive, densely populated cities of steel and glass and plastic.
If we'd gone with the grain instead of against it, most of these problems would have never existed.

Originally Posted by Xei

I see no quantitative analysis here. Zero numerical argument that the number of jobs created equals the number made obsolete; just a qualitative assertion. It is hence utter bunk.

Economics is not quantitative. If you are feel like I am wrong and also feel adventurous then present a list of your desires (values) and try to add or subtract them. Does your second desire plus your third desire equal your first desire? Does your first desire equal two second desires? Value scales are not quantitative. I feel safe saying that even Neoclassical economists believe that. So you passing off "oh well its qualitative therefore bunk" not only shows your naivety but also your inability to properly argue the issue. Where has my logic gone awry? That is what economic law is: logic. So I will give you another chance. Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied, do we decry the lose of the buggy industry because it put so many of out work? If your goal is total employment then I will conjure up a great platform for you. Everyone will destroy the capital, the technology and we will all carry sand on our back for one part of the country to another part. Everyone will then be employed and we will not have to worry about those dastardly machines taking our jobs.

Originally Posted by Xei

If you really want to have the inane argument that to be a libertarian means you believe in zero mandatory state, please just have it with yourself. I'm not interested in such semantic nonissues. Want to define libertarianism as anarchism? Fine, I'm not a libertarian by your definition. Move along.

That is the wonderful thing about language, it is never private/agent-relative. It is public/agent-neutral therefore this is not my personal definition of libertarianism, it is the English language's definition. Just like you conform to the grammar and syntax of the English language, how it is written etc. You never invented it nor are you making up words for it that cannot be communicated because that is what language is: communication. It is not a language if it cannot be learned by another or understood by another. Does that not blow your mind?! Now we can argue about possible nuances in the definition but the central tenet to libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Do you follow it in all aspects? No. Therefore you are not a libertarian. Be a minarchist, a Constitutionalist. Discover what your true title is in the world. At least you will have some peace in knowing what you believe and putting a term to it.

Originally Posted by tommo

You will lead a very frustrated life if you are trying to escape the whims of nature. Because you can't.

We have conquered everything but natural disasters which are mother nature's most awesome forces. I think we are doing pretty good on the "escaping the whims" department.

Originally Posted by tommo

Just look at the progression from ancient societies to now. There's more cancer, dementia and chronic and mental illness now then there was
just a couple of hundred years ago even.

Yes, because a couple of hundred years ago people did not know what cancer was.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because we decided to go against the grain of how the rest of nature works and build massive, densely populated cities of steel and glass and plastic.
If we'd gone with the grain instead of against it, most of these problems would have never existed.

There also would not be developed economies, modern medicine, modern technology, the internet, mass publication of literature. Are these things terrible to you? I am honestly curious. Really I find you quite strange. You support things like the Venus project yet want to go back to primitive life.