I didn't say that.

I said the mugger stopped too soon.

(February 1, 2018 at 4:39 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 9:29 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think our congress would be better divided Libertarians vs Socialists. If these latter two parties could meet each other half way, we'd have a better functioning congress.

Yeah, 100% Socialists, 0% Libertarian.  The minute a Libertarian advocates for a good idea, they cease being Libertarian.

So do you entirely disagree with things like the free market and personal liberties? That's why I like libertarianism - I basically want the government interfering with my life as little as possible. There are definitely times for government intervention (for example, creating the institutional arrangements to structure a proper free market), but governments are so corrupt and inefficient in general that I'd rather let corporations do many functions. Privatization typically has the effect of lowering costs when done right. It's why I like markets.

Quote:Yeah, 100% Socialists, 0% Libertarian. The minute a Libertarian advocates for a good idea, they cease being Libertarian

That's not always true some social libertarian policies are good legalizing weed could be said to be libertarian or even legalization of Gay marriage .

As  for Socialism depends on the kind i think absolute authoritarian strains of socialism would be awful

And there is no necessary conflict  between the two.

---

(February 1, 2018 at 5:25 pm)shadow Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 4:39 pm)Wololo Wrote: Yeah, 100% Socialists, 0% Libertarian.  The minute a Libertarian advocates for a good idea, they cease being Libertarian.

So do you entirely disagree with things like the free market and personal liberties? That's why I like libertarianism - I basically want the government interfering with my life as little as possible. There are definitely times for government intervention (for example, creating the institutional arrangements to structure a proper free market), but governments are so corrupt and inefficient in general that I'd rather let corporations do many functions. Privatization typically has the effect of lowering costs when done right. It's why I  like markets.

Free market capitalism can be as inefficient and corrupt as government . And if government is inefficient and corrupt then it needs to be fixed not thrown away and handed over to a system that can easily be just as flawed but render even more powerless against and has moral interest in your wellbeing.

We find ourselves realizing that "free market" interests are the most efficient agents of government corruption yet discovered by man, and still there's this idea that tilting the scales towards the abuser will somehow reduce the abuse?

All that would do is let them keep more of their blood money..you know, the shit they spend buying politicians?

"Lowering costs" is a euphemism for "impoverishing labor". Not a reason to hand them the keys to a kingdom that they at least have to rent or buy, in the face of competition, no less....at present.

(February 1, 2018 at 5:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 5:25 pm)shadow Wrote: So do you entirely disagree with things like the free market and personal liberties? That's why I like libertarianism - I basically want the government interfering with my life as little as possible. There are definitely times for government intervention (for example, creating the institutional arrangements to structure a proper free market), but governments are so corrupt and inefficient in general that I'd rather let corporations do many functions. Privatization typically has the effect of lowering costs when done right. It's why I  like markets.

Free market capitalism can be as inefficient and corrupt as government . And if government is inefficient and corrupt then it needs to be fixed not thrown away and handed over to a system that can easily be just as flawed but render even more powerless against and has moral interest in your wellbeing.

Yeah, but how do you fix government? The only thing that really impacts governments in NA seems to be cash, and in order to have a government-impacting amount of cash one must be a corportation. It's paradoxical. At least if we keep our cash as individuals, we can then spend it on the actual goods and services we value instead of it disappearing into a void of subsidizing whatever corporations got the incumbent government elected.

Corruption aside, I don't like having to pay for things that I don't value. I'd rather spend my own money buying the things I want and need than pooling all the resources of society and getting random stuff back. For example, apparently here in Denmark I'm supposed to pay a $300 charge for living here 6 months, to fund the Danish entertainment industry so they can make government subsidized TV programs. In danish - whoopdeedoo, I don't even speak Danish. I'd rather not spend my money on that because I don't value it - with smaller government, I wouldn't have to.

Additionally, a more classic argument, when I work hard I want credit for the work. I have no qualms with the government taking a cut to structure society, but many socialist systems disincentivize people from working because it puts them into a higher tax bracket or whatnot. It's silly.

Oh, and one more thing, that's actually really important. The people who pay taxes are very much the middle class - very wealthy people have the resources to avoid taxes almost altogether, whereas most regular people aren't that sophisticated. You tax more, it isn't the super-rich that are paying for it.

So those are a few of the reasons I like small government.

(February 1, 2018 at 5:36 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We find ourselves realizing that "free market" interests are the most efficient agents of government corruption yet discovered by man, and still there's this idea that tilting the scales towards the abuser will somehow reduce the abuse?

All that would do is let them keep more of their blood money..you know, the shit they spend buying politicians?

"Lowering costs" is a euphemism for "impoverishing labor".  Not a reason to hand them the keys to a kingdom that they at least have to rent or buy, in the face of competition, no less....at present.

I always find it funny how hardcore laissez faire or radical Ancaps are the first to boast the virtue of competition. But the last people they seem to want to compete with are public services . They always boast about more choices but they are only ever their choices .

(February 1, 2018 at 5:45 pm)shadow Wrote: Yeah, but how do you fix government? The only thing that really impacts governments in NA seems to be cash, and in order to have a government-impacting amount of cash one must be a corportation. It's paradoxical. At least if we keep our cash as individuals, we can then spend it on the actual goods and services we value instead of it disappearing into a void of subsidizing whatever corporations got the incumbent government elected.

You won't get to "keep your cash", as individuals..and I find that people often fail to account for the effect of subsidy and regulation on whatever tiny little pile of ameros they actually do have.  There's a reason that people who live in places with "free markets" are poor as shit....

More buzzkilling.."keeping our cash" is a euphemism for failing at our civic duty to fellow man through simple avarice. See: this latest tax cut. It;s easy to see why this is a bad idea when you realize that -you- are someone else's "fellow man".

Quote:Yeah, but how do you fix government? The only thing that really impacts governments in NA seems to be cash, and in order to have a government-impacting amount of cash one must be a corportation. It's paradoxical. At least if we keep our cash as individuals, we can then spend it on the actual goods and services we value instead of it disappearing into a void of subsidizing whatever corporations got the incumbent government elected.

Lol you think your money directly used on things you value you want in a free market . And if you want more say in how money is spent then there is this thing called a democracy. Oh and small government can be just as corrupt as big government .

Quote:Corruption aside, I don't like having to pay for things that I don't value. I'd rather spend my own money buying the things I want and need than pooling all the resources of society and getting random stuff back. For example, apparently here in Denmark I'm supposed to pay a $300 charge for living here 6 months, to fund the Danish entertainment industry so they can make government subsidized TV programs. In danish - whoopdeedoo, I don't even speak Danish. I'd rather not spend my money on that because I don't value it - with smaller government, I wouldn't have to.

Again it's called a democracy . You get less say in a free market system because it not democratic .

Quote:Additionally, a more classic argument, when I work hard I want credit for the work. I have no qualms with the government taking a cut to structure society, but many socialist systems disincentivize people from working because it puts them into a higher tax bracket or whatnot. It's silly.

The disincentivization theory is psychological pseudoscience. Government taxation has never resulted in such a phenomenon. It''s trickle down voodoo economics created by the rich to give them tax breaks . 

Quote:Oh, and one more thing, that's actually really important. The people who pay taxes are very much the middle class - very wealthy people have the resources to avoid taxes almost altogether, whereas most regular people aren't that sophisticated. You tax more, it isn't the super-rich that are paying for it.

Yup which mean we need to kill tax loopholes ans streamline taxation not kill government.

So those are a few of the reasons I like small government

(February 1, 2018 at 5:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 5:45 pm)shadow Wrote: Yeah, but how do you fix government? The only thing that really impacts governments in NA seems to be cash, and in order to have a government-impacting amount of cash one must be a corportation. It's paradoxical. At least if we keep our cash as individuals, we can then spend it on the actual goods and services we value instead of it disappearing into a void of subsidizing whatever corporations got the incumbent government elected.

You won't get to "keep your cash", as individuals..and I find that people often fail to account for the effect of subsidy and regulation on whatever tiny little pile of ameros they actually do have.

So often governments are subsidizing industries I actively don't approve of, though. It can have a negative effect just as much as a positive one.

The crucial difference, with our forms of government..is that you have some influence over those things you "don;t like".  Try telling an unregulated (or under regulated) corporation to stop doing x.  They'll laugh in your face and tell you to pound sand - and then send you a bill for the legal or physical ass kicking they delivered to you.

I think that libertarianism, as an ideology, would have been much more compelling when government was largely a bunch of repressive monarchies handing out charters to their buddies, who ..by virtue of charter, were the only people allowed to do business.  When the concept of civil liberties was more an issue of what privileges were granted by the local potentate.  That might explain why, as corporate interests and moneyed elites turn our government into an oligarchy... it starts sounding good again.

At some point, though, a person has to face the reality that it;s those very same corporate interests that are..for example..compelling bought politicians to engage in government waste and subsidy to their benefit and your detriment.  That libertarianism as sold in the us is nothing more than another Koch Bros wedge meant to divide the majority and maintain minority control in a representative government. In the real world, a real libertarianism has had all of it's space sucked up by other ideologies. It has nothing to offer us, and exists only as a historical curiosity for weed afficianados who'd rather not pay their taxes.