(October 2, 2012 at 6:04 am)Tiberius Wrote: In a communist society, those that refuse to work are still looked after by the society. They are rewarded with food, etc.

Would that be so horrible? Some lazy sonofabitch you don't like still gets to eat..the horror.

Quote: A person can quite happily do nothing and still get to eat, since the distribution of food and supplies in communism is based on needs, not on who has earned it.

On the flipside, a person can work their ass off and still get nothing, happens all the time. We call those people "the working poor". They comprise the majority of the society I live in. Their time is spent securing the most basic of needs to the point that nothing else gets much consideration. Cogs in the wheel, and why? Because without that perpetual motion machine running at the core of our societies some lucky kid somewhere (lucky, mind you, by means of birth, not hard work) couldn't afford a fucking IPhone. Yay.

Quote:In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in.

Um...not exactly.....

Quote: Work hard, and you get more.

Whenceforth cometh the working poor?

Quote: Be successful, and you get more. The only help that slackers get would be from charities (though I suspect not many charities would support known work-avoiders).

Definitely agree with you there, be more successful and you get more, but that's almost a tautology isn;t it, since success is measured by "how much more" you get in the first place. Of course, "being successful" is a big camp...and might just include quite a few lazy...work avoiding motherfuckers....don't you think?

Rather than approaching this ideologically, wouldn't it be more effective to approach it practically? Government is a tool for organizing society right? A screwdriver (communism) is great when the goal is to turn a screw, but if you see a bolt you might want to try a wrench (capitalism). I see nothing wrong with managing our basic necessities in some communistic manner, whilst leveraging some form of capitalism for everything that falls outside of that arena. I'm not sure that "life" should be a for-profit industry, while I have no qualms about IPhones being a for-profit industry. For example, I would support local ownership of state sponsored food production (which, in a heavily jacked up way is what we already have). I would also support private enterprise in the same market (which we already have, and which has no problems competing with gov sponsered ag in markets that aren't grain and potatoes). It really has to be mentioned..that under a "pure" sort of capitlism certain jobs, though essential and full of hard work, are forgotten. It doesn't have anything to do with the laziness of the person, or a measure of their success, but that as the very bottom of the pyramid scheme that is capitalism we simply can't pay them more without the whole house of cards falling down. Food production is a great example of this. Consider the investment and opportunity cost of owning a single acre of land for a moment...and then imagine looking at making 14$ US as your annual net on said acre...working your ass off for it. That's the situation for a corn grower, and I think that this makes a great study in those often obscured or unconsidered bits of capitalism that allow it to succeed. There's some farmer in Nebraska subsidizing capitalism.............

(October 2, 2012 at 6:04 am)Tiberius Wrote: In a communist society, those that refuse to work are still looked after by the society. They are rewarded with food, etc

So what YOU are saying is that the lazy should be left to starve to death as an example to the rest of us? am I right?

Quote: A person can quite happily do nothing and still get to eat

how evil

Quote:, since the distribution of food and supplies in communism is based on needs, not on who has earned it.

how do you define what is earned? how do you define what is needed? And shouldn't the government's sole and only pupose to be to satisify the most basic needs of society? 100 years ago the only form of transportation I needed was a plain beast of burden..... in modern society I need a car, I am born with the need for a car, so why shouldn't the same society, that has given these needs, provide with this resource? Is it because said society uses things like this, to seperate ween, and filter, the unwanted, or as you seem to want to call them, the "lazy" from society?

Quote:In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in. Work hard, and you get more. Be successful, and you get more. The only help that slackers get would be from charities (though I suspect not many charities would support known work-avoiders).

or how much work your father put in, or your grandfather, or great-grandfather, or however long your blood, has begun accumulating capital

Quote:What makes a person lazy? No idea. I'm not including people with mental health problems who are made lazy by their illness. I'm talking about people who make an active choice not to go and work.

why not? your libertarian (or what I'm trying to make you realize is at best a ultra-extremist anarcho-capitalist) idealogy would have ALL mental health victims left for dead, or as Hitler put it "euthanized"

Quote:Why am I not lazy? A few reasons:
- I don't like having to depend on other people (I'd rather help myself).
- I like working.
- I like enjoying things, which in this society requires money, and work gets me money.

Nothing to do with race, culture, or my upbringing (no race or culture survives if it is inherently lazy). I never said I was a better person from birth. A person may become lazy over time.

that's your main problem, you think it's scientifuckly possible for ANY RACE OR CULTURE TO BE INHERENTLY LAZY

Quote:

Quote:if it wasn't for your country's "labour party" you'd be your king's personal slave............

Explain...

Who do you think is responsible for your freedom? your king?

Quote:Indeed, if the slave in question actively chose to be a slave, then Libertarianism would allow it. There is a massive difference between these kinds of slaves and the traditional image of slavery. Any slave under a Libertarian government would still hold all their rights, and would at any time be able to stop being a slave if they changed their mind. In reality, they are a slave in name only. The state would always support the right to own your own body, so even if you state that it is owned by another person, the state would support you if you wanted to own your own body again.

Unconscionable contract laws prevents just that, you sign a contract going into debt, you are then a "slave", and any judge will uphold said contract..........it's illegal thanks to the civil war, would you like another?.............???

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...e+contract

Quote:I never said I know more about communism than karl marx. Indeed, I thought the entire point of this conversation was for you to convince me of communism? Anyway, a "successful" communist nation would be one which adheres to the ideology of communism. It would be classless, moneyless, and stateless.

I would like to have a discussion about the difference between the terms "state", country, and nation, but more pertinent to the issue, is the fact no such nation has ever existed, therefore your original request "is there a successful communist nation" is impossible to answer

Quote:I'm talking about in general, a US citizen is allowed to buy a barrel of oil. The same cannot be said for North Koreans. Government control over an economy can be measured by how many restrictions a government places on its own citizens in terms of what they can buy. The trade decisions of other nations does not form part of the measurement.

nobody in north Korea can buy oil from america or OPEC, I know they get oil from China, but I have a feeling your not referencing that, and you just don't know what an embargo means.

Quote:

Quote:so let's say I go your house with a gun and force you family to not eat food for 3 days.......... then I call the neighbor's and tell them "look at how horrible this man treats his family look there starving!" then you say "hey you held us hostage and forced us to starve at gun point", and all the neighbor's do is call you a liar.

Not sure I understand what your analogy is even meant to be about. Please explain.

North korea is at war, it is under embargo, I don't how I can be more clear about this?

Quote:Ok, first off I'm not watching ron paul conspiracy videos. I do my own research into global politics. Whether the US is still at war with North Korea is complete irrelevant to the fact that North Korea's economy is government controlled.

Controlled by the US....???? then yes!

Quote:Oh, you mean the mountain of evidence which you promised but were never able to actually present? Your evidence involved equating "Ron Paul" with "every Libertarian", and "Neo-confederates" with "White supremacists". Both are false equivocations; definitions are not so black and white.

neo-confederates are white supremacists.....newsflash

Quote:You have yet to present actual evidence of Ron Paul speaking at that Nazi rally which you promised repeatedly. All you did was present videos of him speaking about state's rights to secede (in itself, not a racist thing at all). On the other hand, I can present numerous videos of Ron Paul talking about the unfair discrimination against black people, and how as President he would help, as well as testimony from black and interracial couples whom he helped whilst he was a doctor.

I don't think we should wait for 1 person to kill 6 million jews all by himself, before we call him a nazi

Quote:So, why do I still refuse to believe? Because you haven't actually presented any evidence that validates your claim. Your claim is that Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement is a white supremacist movement. Evidence that validated that claim would show directly that this was the case. Showing that Ron Paul will stand for photos with racists, even assuming he knew how they were, is not evidence of that. Showing that Ron Paul will talk about state's rights to succede in front of neo-confederates, is not evidence of that either. Provide the evidence you promised and I'll believe you.

You shouldn't require this amount of evidence, unless you are harboring some kind of deep resentment to a group, you are not willing too admit, you hate

you can private message me with this info if you want

(October 2, 2012 at 8:46 am)Stue Denim Wrote:

Quote:On a other note.
Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?

On security nets and social services:
You're right in that there is opposition to most of what government does including welfare, but the proposed solutions for welfare and social services are often more sophisticated than simply 'abolish all of it'. After all, what is to be done with people who have paid into it their whole lives and are now dependant on it? What about children? Those who enter adulthood with severe illnesses? I believe Ron Paul was talking about wanting to allow people to opt out of social security, rather than simply 'abolishing all of it'.

Certainly, the more extreme you get, the more of government you would want to cut, I understand 'Minarchy' to be pretty much just national defence as well as law and order. It's pretty much as far as you can go (except for anarcho-capitalism, they are the ones who want rid of all government), so yes, the minarchists would want to abolish it (perhaps not immediately though). But yeah, it would be a mistake to lump all the libertarians into one group and say they all want absolutely none of something. I'd say that all would want reductions (perhaps drastic reductions, depends on your point of view), and some would want to abolish (and of those, many would want a phasing out).

(Damn spell check keeps turning minarchist into monarchist =P)

No TGAC, you are not wrong in your assumption. At least as far as the US libertarian party is concerned. Their official party platform includes the following statement. "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution." I don’t know how familiar you are with the US Constitution, but there are not a lot of programs or services required by it. No social services and safety nets, no roads, no education, no NASA, no FAA, no FDA not a lot of anything is required by the constitution.

Interestingly enough though Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution gives congress the power to tax specifically to provide for the general welfare. (Read social programs and safety nets) The 16th amendment also specifically gives the federal government the authority to impose an income tax. As such I find the official US libertarian party platform contradictory in that it wants to use the Constitution to take away powers the same constitution grants to government.

The basic things essential for a voluntary, free market society where aggression and force (unless it's consensual ) are not tolerated, yeah. I'm not exactly sure why Somalia was mentioned here.

Law and order and defence?
The drug war, and all national 'offence' for starters. It's called national 'defence' let's have it focused on actually defending us (I should note that I'm an Australia, not an american, they have much more of an empire to cut. Australia needs to just stop attacking people on the U.S's say so). That's for starters. Privacy invasions, newspaper raids (we had one here in Perth, looking for sources n stuff) they're gone of course. So then we then look at how much military we would actually need to defend ourselves, rather than blow up people half way across the globe.

I'm getting to healthcare, give me a bit (and I am interested in talking more with you)



Pop: on the 16th amendment

Quote:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Quote:"We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution."

Notice how it says it shall have the power, not the obligation (it is not required). I really don't see how the American Libertarian Party is being at all contradictory here.

The "blowing people up halfway across the globe" bit is the legacy of the Cold War, where the ability to do precisely that -was- a measure of whether or not you could defend yourself. Whether or not this is still the case is arguable, of course. The same can be said for privacy invasions and any sort of intrusive intelligence gathering. Kennedy had a great speech lined up about that btw, with regards to how far we should be willing to go to defend ourselves, and if, in the process of "defending ourselves" we turned into the enemy...what exactly had we been defending in the first place. Never got to give that speech..lol. Eisenhower also had a great speech related to the defense issue, which he -did- get to give.

(October 2, 2012 at 6:35 am)jonb Wrote: I think there might be a problem with the practicality of your argument Tiberius. A society which does not directly support those at the bottom, tends to have large sections of population predisposed to crime.

When did I say a libertarian society didn't directly support those at the bottom?!?

(October 2, 2012 at 6:43 am)frankiej Wrote:

(October 2, 2012 at 6:04 am)Tiberius Wrote: In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in. Work hard, and you get more. Be successful, and you get more.

Well, that just isn't true...

It isn't true in corporatism. It is true in capitalism, where everyone is free to work however they want to (i.e. anyone can start a business). There are of course jobs where working hard gets you less than in other jobs, but that is simply the market at work. With the invention of machines, we have less need for physical labour, so physical labourers tend to earn less. We have more of a need for workers that are less physically demanding, but more mentally demanding. These jobs often require the worker to have completed extra education, which in most cases they are not getting paid for whilst completing (it's a loss that makes up for itself later).

(October 2, 2012 at 7:05 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: So the liberterian wouldn`t question a induviduals decision to commit suicide? I do believe in euthenasia as it is legal as for example in the Netherlands (and if i`m not wrong the states of Oregon and Washington in the USA), but I dont think i actualy need a statistic to prove, and can actualy assume that most suicides are the result of depression. Depression I believe, and probably most of the sane world would believe, is a illness, and in most cases - a mental illness - wich concludes that the patient might not eaven be certifiably sane, and requires medical treatment through therapy rather than letting the patient end his life. Depression can have various causes wich lead to that state and proposing to let these people simply commit suicide to me comes awfully close to proposing a eugenic sociaty.

If a person is judged to be suffering from a mental illness, then it is reasonable for the government to intervene. However, if a person is found to be sane, and simply wants to end their life, whether it be for reasons of euthanasia or others, the government should let them.

Quote:Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?

You are wrong. No libertarian proposes the abolishment of all social services. We propose that they are left to private businesses and charities to control, rather than the government.

(October 2, 2012 at 10:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: Would that be so horrible? Some lazy sonofabitch you don't like still gets to eat..the horror.

It would if the food was bought with my tax money. I will gladly voluntarily give money and food to homeless people and those less fortunate, but that is my choice. I would never give food to a person who has actively chosen not to work when they could have. Others might, but that is up to them. People shouldn't be forced to support those who have done nothing to deserve it.

Quote:On the flipside, a person can work their ass off and still get nothing, happens all the time. We call those people "the working poor". They comprise the majority of the society I live in. Their time is spent securing the most basic of needs to the point that nothing else gets much consideration. Cogs in the wheel, and why? Because without that perpetual motion machine running at the core of our societies some lucky kid somewhere (lucky, mind you, by means of birth, not hard work) couldn't afford a fucking IPhone. Yay.

In corporatism maybe, but under capitalism if you work, you get paid. It is part of a contract that is legally binding. Anyone who works their ass and gets literally nothing either did not read their contract properly (and should quit their job), or was scammed by the company they work for (at which point they are entitled to compensation). I doubt this is as widespread as you seem to think, but I'll gladly be proven wrong if you can provide evidence that the majority of people in America work hard and get absolutely nothing.

Quote:

Quote:In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in.

Um...not exactly.....

More or less. Work takes into consideration multiple factors, such as the skill involved (i.e. can everyone do this, or just a few people), how qualified you are to do the job, etc.

Quote:

Quote: Work hard, and you get more.

Whenceforth cometh the working poor?

What jobs are they doing? Likely low-skilled labour that almost everyone could do. Such work counts for less comparatively with other high-skilled jobs.

Quote:Definitely agree with you there, be more successful and you get more, but that's almost a tautology isn;t it, since success is measured by "how much more" you get in the first place. Of course, "being successful" is a big camp...and might just include quite a few lazy...work avoiding motherfuckers....don't you think?

I meant being successful at your job. Being successful at being a lazy "work avoiding motherfucker" does not get you more...nor should it.

Quote:Rather than approaching this ideologically, wouldn't it be more effective to approach it practically?

I this case, I see no difference. I do not believe the government has an adequate success record for organising society. I think private enterprise has a much better success record, since it operates with self-improvement in mind (i.e. whilst a government will spend and spend knowing that they can never be held accountable, a corporation will always try to get costs down in order to out-do the competition).

-"Deserving" is a personal value judgement that you've made which..in this case, involves someones life. I'm not comfortable deciding who gets to eat and who doesn't based on what I think they "deserve". This is the fundamental difference of opinion that we have on the matter. I'm not telling you that you're wrong, I have no idea what they deserve, specifically with regards to your tax money. I'm just telling you that I'm uncomfortable with that sort of decision.

-"Nothing" is relative, and we are talking "how much," arent we (you'll have to allow me a little hyperbole)? The "working poor" is widespread, and is again..the majority of the society I live in. Their labor and their skill are modified by what the market can bear.

"In corporatism maybe, but under capitalism if you work, you get paid. It is part of a contract that is legally binding. Anyone who works their ass and gets literally nothing either did not read their contract properly (and should quit their job), or was scammed by the company they work for (at which point they are entitled to compensation)."- or....the job they currently toil away at, though essential, and very much full of hard work....cannot command a higher rate due to the myriad influences of the market which go into establishing said rate in the first place. I'll keep mentioning it until you acknowledge it. Sanitiation workers can't just -quit their jobs-, neither can farmers (and you wouldn't want them to either..they're subsidizing your lifestyle, that's that unspoken tax on their labor that benefits you, do you "deserve" that?).

-Almost anyone could do almost anything..unless you think that some unique confluence of Tiberiusness makes you more competent at what you do (and of course at least competent enough at what they do). "Low skill" jobs like framing a house (minimum wage or less where I'm from). Can you frame a house Tibs...would you confidently live under a roof you threw up? Operating a gantry crane or driving a semi (low skill low wage in all cases.....where I'm from). Lets suppose all the computer programmers of the world miraculously disappeared tommorrow. Horrific, right? Now, lets suppose all the farmers of the world disappeared tomorrow..... This is, again, a fundamental difference of opinion between you and I. I cannot value my labor (or your labor) over the labor of others....specifically in certain industries which are chronically underpaid (going by the poverty rate in this country, anyway). Sometimes the essentials are a zero sum game, I don't think this should be the case, but if it's going to be the case..may as well socialize it (just so you know where I'm coming from on that count).

-I don't think that private enterprise has any better track record in that regard. How did we go from organizing society to -maximizing profits- btw? I'm not sure they're the same thing Tibs. If they are, then why have some of the most horrible examples of industry malfeasance been nothing more than the outward expression of the internal drive to "maximize profits"? From where I stand, maximizing profits isn't anything to pin your trust on anybody from. One man lemonade stand, multinational, or the state. Couldn't I make a "maximising profits" argument for a complete and utter safety net for food btw? Wouldn't there be a whole hell of alot of discretionary income floating around for people to spend at those "hardworking business owners" stalls at that point....

(October 2, 2012 at 10:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: If a person is judged to be suffering from a mental illness, then it is reasonable for the government to intervene. However, if a person is found to be sane, and simply wants to end their life, whether it be for reasons of euthanasia or others, the government should let them.

I understand and support the proposal to have the option of euthenisia for people suffering of illnes were a chance of survival is 0 and ending that persons life would result in far less suffering for that individual.
But were are the lines between sanity and insanity? A fit healthy person with no medical issues wants to kill himself? let him? it doesn`t sound reasonable in any way to me.

(October 2, 2012 at 10:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: You are wrong. No libertarian proposes the abolishment of all social services. We propose that they are left to private businesses and charities to control, rather than the government.

But judging from the WHO`s list of nations with the best healthcaresystems, the United States wich have a private-provider system are ranked 37, and the nations ranked between 1-36 are with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Singapure, United Arab Emirates and Morocco democracies and not (as some republican liberterians claim) communist nations. Of wich most, including the top 10 have socialised healthcare providers. Cant I also make a "moral" argument on the base that a private insurance company would probably be more interested in it`s profits rather then in the health of it`s costumers, wich is (since 1948) a basic human right. So can I trust a private company with providing the essential services wich are needed to uphold a human right?
A viable question since a lot of companies have outsourced their production into nations where laws on laborconditions dont exist and in history many companies have oposed the interduction of such laws in western sociaty.

.edit: correction: The right to Health is a human right since 1948.

So is it just a matter of degrees then? Your country has a limit on when it's no longer willing to force other people to pay for somebody's care, just as I do. I just draw the limit based on whether or not the person is an adult, who entered adulthood (relatively) healthily (and even then, it has to be proven that charity can't handle it, I doubt it can't (where will most of the charity money first go to?)).

Can we look at this more broadly? The libertarians want to scrap a fair amount of government, reducing taxes. It's not just a proposal to reduce some welfare, its a proposal to not take as much money from people, and to not stop people from doing voluntary, consensual things. Look at the taxes (and inflation), are some of them not regressive and harming the poor? If those were eliminated (and money stopped being taken from the poor and middle class and given to corporations) mightn't everyone be better off (except the corporatists and the politicians)? It's not all "stop taking from others to giving them welfare", it's also "stop screwing them (and future generations) over by taking from them".

Yup, you've hit on the problems of trying to run it like an 'insurance' scheme. Its a complicated fix. How to transition exactly? Depends on the current system.

Socieity, Non interest in helping? I disagree. (I do however have a non-interest in being forced to help, and forcing others)

Quote:I understand and support the proposal to have the option of euthenisia for people suffering of illnes were a chance of survival is 0 and ending that persons life would result in far less suffering for that individual.
But were are the lines between sanity and insanity? A fit healthy person with no medical issues wants to kill himself? let him? it doesn`t sound reasonable in any way to me.

No locked in syndrome exception? No agonising pain exception?...

(October 2, 2012 at 10:00 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in.

Um...not exactly.....

Quote: Work hard, and you get more.

Whenceforth cometh the working poor?

I'm working my ass off in my business. Competition from Chinese outsourcing has sliced one of my departments into a third of its former self, when we peaked in 2001. That, in turn, has affected my other major department since work from one feeds into the other. The systematic destruction of the middle-class in America has also impacted my business, so now the pie has shrunk and I'm competing with China for a slice of it.

I know we'll make it through these times but it's a stressful struggle and my work and stress aren't exactly yielding a high lifestyle. I'm still deep in debt from my wife who had the nerve to almost die on me twice in the last two years. Fortunately, we're one of the lucky Americans who have health insurance so her care was only ruinously expensive.

There was a time when I saw a stronger relationship between hard work, dedication and success. Now, I'm not so sure. The banksters on Wall Street seem to do well but small businesses like myself are scratching and clawing just to stay alive.