| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5744 Registered: 1-2003  |
local_1_crew, you've inspired a few thoughts for me. I don't know why I am moved to argue against some radical notions, but I suspect it has been useful for me. Libertarians resent the fact that people feel entitled to certain things. When I feel inclined to criticize others, I often find it is a good time to look at myself and see where I need improvement. In a case like this, for every entitlement, there is a duty. And I find I don't have a problem with the notion that we, as members of society, have duties to our fellow citizens. Perhaps different people are brought up differently. I do agree that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish, and I also believe that fishing poles should be within easy reach. Another analogy is that it is good for us to build up our own muscle strength, but it's better to do that if we have strong bones to support our bodies. To build up muscle strength in the absence of bones (to speak highly hypothetically) is not such a great plan. Societal infrastructure, such as an expectation of a decent education, is good for all of society, not just individuals. To think that everyone should make his own way sounds decent, until I realize it isn't possible. We are interdependent. To think that we have no obligations towards each other, however, is foreign to me. And that is the inference I get when I hear that folks say that people should not feel entitled to anything. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 608 Registered: 3-2004 |
Thanks, Tom, for a good, genuine posting. I like the Roman idea embodied in "republic," res publica, which translates as the "public thing," and which in practice was "social concern." Some would say that Rome was healthy, mighty, vibrant, until it lost its bearings and its social concern, and citizens and leaders became too focused on their own individual well-being instead of how the res publica was doing. One may argue with the theory, but I like it and can't help but see parallels with trends and directions in our own society. IMHO. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1374 Registered: 9-2001  |
Tom, they should put your picture next to the word "mensch" in the dictionary. I often wrestle with the concept of social responsibility versus individual responsibility when I read the newspaper or stuff on MOL. Not sure where one draws the line, or if a line is even possible. Let's play the other side of your thought experiment out. What if the fishing pole is within relatively easy reach, but a person does not try to reach for it? Or makes a half-hearted attempt? Most libertarians are not heartless, nor are they total nihilists (even anarchists believe in structure, only small-scale and decentralized). But they come from the flip side of the social responsibility coin--how to make sure others are not getting a free ride while you and I (presumably) work hard for the social betterment. Most people wind up somewhere in the muddled middle--leaning more or less towards one pole or the other. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1668 Registered: 1-2003  |
Libertarians resent that other people feel entitled to take their money for things they may or may not agree with. Your ideas of what is for the good of the people are totally different than mine. (how are those ferries running by the way?) The argument is less that they are angry with people who expect the entitlements than they are angry with pepole that impose their views on charity (or whatever else) by governmental fiat. I believe in welfare, I believe that troubled and people should be helped, but I don't believe for a second that they should feel entitled to that help. It should be there and they should be thankful for it, but it should be what it is, charity. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5750 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mark, please don't elevate me, because I'm having some uncharitable thoughts now. So whatever I say is for my own benefit, not for those who disagree with me. For those who don't reach for the fishing pole, we give them a meager subsistence, so that they and the rest of society does not suffer the worst indignities. I feel this is our duty and therefore the recipients' entitlement. But welfare is just one thing. I'm also talking about things like public roads and education. What is charity, Michael? Is it something the giver can take away at his whim? If so, then it isn't a duty, is it? Governmental fiat, what is that? You don't want the government to decide how to spend the people's money? Does that mean you are against taxation? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3234 Registered: 8-2003 |
Fiat implies no legislative process (like voting) took place. Like the left using the judiciary to get things into practise that they wouldn't be able to get the votes for -- that's what hacks people off. Same with using the executive branch to say -- impose a fee via the FCC on phone service to fund wiring of the schools for the education department's goals. It's a slimy and gutless way to get tax the public without them or their representatives in Congress vote on it. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5751 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yeah, that's a good example of slimy financing. Those tick me off, too. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 458 Registered: 3-2004 |
libertarians believe in the common good. we dont want to isolate everyone in a every man for himself free-for-all. we do , however, think that we should not be forced to subsidize programs that are forced upon us. we do not agree with government subsidies in any form and feel that the free market system and the law of supply and demand will ,over time, regulate industry in a manner to which the consumer wants. we also feel that all charitable institutions,(social security, unemployment,etc), should be abolished and that private charities should be used in these instances. people could choose to donate or not. now i hear you say, "people will not be taken care of because there wont be enough donations". well, whose fault is that? people dont want to donate then they must not be too concerned with the societal infrastructure. things will go to hell and donations will increase. the free market system over time regulates itself according to the needs and wishes of society. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 459 Registered: 3-2004 |
For info see the Libertarian party: http://www.lp.org/ and the libertarian issues and platform page: http://www.lp.org/issues/ | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5752 Registered: 1-2003 |
Someone famous -- I forgot who -- said that for every problem, there is a solution which is simple, elegant, and wrong. That's what the free market system is. Actually, it is a beautiful thing, but it does not address everything perfectly. It doesn't even address everything imperfectly. It assumes that everyone knows about everything all at the same time. I recently heard a story about American made baby food that killed some babies in a foreign country because the formula was untested and unregulated. The free market response to that is that when enough babies die, people will stop buying that brand. That might be true, but it's not acceptable in my view. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 461 Registered: 3-2004 |
It assumes that everyone knows about everything all at the same time. so the problem is an uneducated public that must be saved from itself by government. a damn disgrace. wouldnt this be a much better world if the system required everyone to start educating themselves in order to make good choices due to a free market system? i think it would. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5753 Registered: 1-2003 |
Actually, that was a typo of mine. It assumes that everyone knows everything about everything. Not to know everything about everything isn't laziness; it's impossible. So do you think the free market system can replace things like restaurant health inspections? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1672 Registered: 1-2003 |
Tom, People don't patronize restaurants because they are certified by the state, they go because they are good. Bad ones close, good ones stay open and clean or they risk losing their customers. Restaurant inspections are useless. Dirty restaurants close down, clean ones stay open. The market IS perfect. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1376 Registered: 9-2001 |
Libertarian: So your idea is to wait until things go to hell as an incentive for people to realize an enlightened self-interest? Bad way to run a society. And what happened when things went to hell in the early industrial revolution? We got government regulation to save the market from itself. And we got labor unions, because left unfettered, capitalists tended to not be very charitable on their own. Should we wait until factory owners realize it is better for society if the voluntarily reduce toxic emissions into rivers? No thanks. Yes, people need to have individual incentives and accountability, but the world ain't as simple as you would have it. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7845 Registered: 5-2001 |
I will agree that restaurant inspections are often little more than a source of income for the inspectors.  However, many restaurant with a nice spanking clean front end have kitchen facilities that you wouldn't want to feed your dog out of. Been there done that. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 462 Registered: 3-2004 |
yes, if we changed to a libertarian system overnight things would go to hell. of course. any radical and sudden governmental shift would be chaotic.its a silly point to take. a gradual shift though would be to the betterment of us all. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1377 Registered: 9-2001 |
C'mon Michael--dirty restaurants close down? Gimme a break. If a restaurant is a cesspool in the back of the house, yet is clean up front, who would know without a government inspection? If someone gets ptomaine poisoning there, or hepatitis, who would know without the government collecting data and checking on the cause? How does the "market" get the information? Without the fear of government inspectors, the incentive for short-term profit might well be to serve cat meat and not spend money on cleaning the back of the house. The owner can make more money in the short run, which unfortunately is incentive enough for some to mess with the well-being of their patrons. Do we all have to do personal inspections of every restaurant we eat at? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 463 Registered: 3-2004 |
People don't patronize restaurants because they are certified by the state, they go because they are good. Bad ones close, good ones stay open and clean or they risk losing their customers. Restaurant inspections are useless. Dirty restaurants close down, clean ones stay open. a beautiful illustration of what i am talking about. as applied to, oh lets say Amtrak, you can see how government subsidies fail us all. amtrak is a sink hole because legislators in districts with rarely used amtrak service keep subsidizing amtrak in their area. stop the subsidies, we save money, amtrak becomes more efficient and a private operator will create a transit service if demand in those areas warrants it. farm subsidies. the gov't pays farmers not to grow things at all rather than having the free market make them change their crops to something that will sell. its absurd! | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 935 Registered: 7-2004 |
Libertarian: I'd like to live a world made entirely of chocolate. I think that, ultimately, would be to the betterment of us all. I wonder if there is a reason it couldn't happen... | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 464 Registered: 3-2004 |
The owner can make more money in the short run, which unfortunately is incentive enough for some to mess with the well-being of their patrons. ah, but in the long run people will learn that ou get sick if you eat there and the place will close or clean up its act. |
