| Author | Message | ||
     The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 490 Registered: 3-2004  |
My dog greets me when I get home, but he doesn't do you much good. I'll pay to raise him, thanks. but if my dog starts indiscriminately biting people it causes medical costs to rise. i think for societies sake you should pony up for his obedience school I won't pay for a chauffeur, because it's inefficient, but I'll pay my share of the bus driver's salary. but much as you chose to have children that i have to pay for, i choose to not drive myself. since we want to keep insurance and medical costs down it is better for society if i have a chauffeur who has taken defensive driving courses. you should help pay for my personal choice as i have to pay for yours. I'm happy the town pays for trees in our town on public property. We all benefit from it. the town pays for nothing. we pay for it. plus i want the tree in my front yard. it will raise the value of my home. i will pay more taxes and this extra money benefits society. you should pay for my personal choice. | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 772 Registered: 6-2002 |
Libertarian, you've made your point about kids pretty forcefully. The problem is, the KIDS did not choose to be brought onto this planet - so why should they suffer if their parents aren't able to support them? They are themselves blameless. It's not THEIR personal responsibility that is leading them to starvation. Is that fair? And you say that education should not be publicly funded, so such children would then grow up less able (or even unable) to benefit from this pefectly free society that you envisage. Again - through no fault of their own, they would be brought up ignorant. You have mentioned over & over how "ignorance" is a trait that is really not going to get you far in a perfect libertarian world. And moving beyond children - what about the profoundly handicapped and mentally ill? If you have personal responsibility tattooed on your •••, and I don't doubt that you do, what happens to them? There are people who cannot take personal responsibility for reasons that are not their fault. Do we not therefore have a collective responsibility towards these people, in a just society? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 491 Registered: 3-2004 |
as i have said multiple times but you seem to ignore it when its convenient to your point, i do not advocate the removal of the government. of course there should be programs for the handicapped and mentally ill. they should be funded by private charitable organizations. i would happily take the money i am now forced to give to school your children and donate it to such organizations. think of how much money would be available for private donations if parents would take responsibility for their own choices. just because the government isnt paying for education doesnt mean children wont be educated. how absurd of you to say so. parents will think before having children , making sure that they can afford them, and then pay to send them to school. if there is demand for inexpensive schools then there will be inexpensive schools. i have never said society would be perfectly free, your words not mine, there will always be a need for government. i just dont think government is supposed to force people to pay for other peoples personal familial choices. you want children, pay for them. you dont contribute for my personal choices, why should i have to contribute for yours. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5783 Registered: 1-2003  |
but if my dog starts indiscriminately biting people it causes medical costs to rise. i think for societies sake you should pony up for his obedience school Animal control is paid for by the government. It's cheaper than obedience school. but much as you chose to have children that i have to pay for, i choose to not drive myself. since we want to keep insurance and medical costs down it is better for society if i have a chauffeur who has taken defensive driving courses. you should help pay for my personal choice as i have to pay for yours. I am paying for you, but I won't pay (through my taxes) for the most expensive mode. If you want the best, pay for it yourself. If you want something that is adequate, enjoy public transit. The analogy works for private and public schools. the town pays for nothing. we pay for it. plus i want the tree in my front yard. it will raise the value of my home. i will pay more taxes and this extra money benefits society. you should pay for my personal choice. Call it the town, call it the people. Whatever. The town pays to plant trees that stand in the median. The town pays to keep up the trees in the parks. I learned in economics that most people produce a net gain to the economy, therefore the more people, the better. And better educated people produce more than average-educated people. Everyone benefits. My views are not radical. I believe they more or less reflect society's. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 492 Registered: 3-2004 |
all of those things you dont want to pay for are my personal choices. so if you feel it is ok not to pay for my personal choices why do you feel its right for me to pay for yours? dont say cause society says its ok, that doesnt make it right. | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 773 Registered: 6-2002 |
Some people don't want children, and don't care what happens to them. Not very nice, but also quite true. What happens to those children? The children did not choose to be born to those parents. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 493 Registered: 3-2004 |
private charties. if society cares about these children, society will contribute privately for their care. since we will have thousands of extra dollars from not having to pay school taxes i am sure charities will see a nice bump in revenue. not everyone will contribute but enough will. i know you will. | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 774 Registered: 6-2002 |
And that circles back around to greed. I'll never understand how you think about this, and I doubt you'll ever understand me either. I think it's just a matter of prioritizing different values. I believe that freedom is a good thing, but so is ensuring that nobody starves. I think you agree. But I put preventing starvation first, you put freedom first. That's pretty simplistic but I think it boils the discrepancy down to its essential elements. I've also often felt fairly naive myself (and am often accused of being naive), but I look at you and just shake my head in wonder at the naivetee. Over & out, I'll keep lurking but I'm not posting on this thread any more as I don't think we're moving forward. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 495 Registered: 3-2004 |
i certainly dont keep a list prioritizing starving and freedom. they are both important issues. i dont think that one precludes the other. one can have freedom and prevent starvation at the same time. there are plenty of private charities that give support to starving people. if the government was downsized of its useless, restrictive, redundant departments, there would be lots more money for the private citizen to make his own life and the lives of others better if he/she so chose. that is the point i am trying to make that seems to elude you, its a matter of personal choice. if starvation is a concern to this society then people will do something about it. but who are you to tell anyone how they should donate the money they have fought hard to earn. there are over 500 million people dying from malaria in this world but you dont see our government making a big seal about it. i would rather they use some of my tax dollars towards eradicating malaria. but i dont have that choice. people like you decide how everyone should spend their money regardless of how they feel. you think my tax money should prevent starvation. i think the government shouldnt decide what charitable cause to use my money for, i should. i dont understand where you got the idea that libertarian ideals and the concerns of starving people are at odds. i have never said that or alluded to it. i contribute to charitable causes and am concerned about the welfare of my fellow man. i just think i should make the choice in regards to the money i have earned. i think taxes should be paid, and money put away for emergeny purposes. but day to day charity, my money, my call. you want for starvation, i want for malaria. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1461 Registered: 6-2003  |
The feudal system was based on ownership and worked fine for centuries. Looks like its making a comeback. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 496 Registered: 3-2004 |
now you are just being a silly billy | ||
| Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 775 Registered: 6-2002 |
OK, I'll bite - but then I really have to stop, I have work to do! We actually have a lot in common. You care about starvation, malaria, etc. etc. So do I. You personally donate to help these causes. So do I. You trust enough people to give enough to charity to make a difference, without the necessity of government intervention. I do not. That's what I meant when I said it all comes down to greed. This isn't because I'm a cynical, suspicious, mistrustful type by nature - it's the examples of history that have convinced me that human beings are pigs at heart. (and I'm a big fan of Dickens.) In fact I don't even need to look to history. Right now, on this planet we have people dying needlessly of AIDS, malaria, starvation, childbirth-related complications, dysentery, etc. - we have children in many parts of the world growing up without access to education - and on & on & on. Read about the UN Millennium Development Goals. It is shocking. We also have governments giving money to help, and we have private citizens swimming in cash with enough excess dough to totally eliminate these problems. But they do not. Forgive me if I say that I doubt that they would take what now goes to their tax to help eliminate these problems - evidence from their current behavior suggests otherwise. I don't give up hope for humanity though - far from it - humans are trying all the time NOT to be pigs, and very often succeed. People have passed laws requiring taxation because the kind of society they want cannot be created without them. If they didn't want this, they'd vote to eliminate taxes. Maybe we could get to a decent, just society following the principles of libertarianism. I doubt it though. Now if I don't want to get fired from my job, and put myself at the mercy of charitable organizations to take care of my family, I'd best get back to work. | ||
| ashear Supporter Username: Ashear Post Number: 1712 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'll try one more time and quit. I'll make the question as simple as I can. There was a time in this country when we had no environmental regulation or worker saftey regulation and the railroads were privately owned. Results: love canal, flaming rivers, poisoned lakes, triangle shirt fire, child labor, railroads out of buisiness (with envioronmental and other consequences). Democraticly elected government decide that was bad, passed regulation. Environtment and worker conditions are vastly better than they were 50 years ago, and we have trains. Why should we go back to what failed already? And it would be harder now. Any moderately complex product, comptuers, tvs, cars, etc, has thousands of parts which could come from dozens and dozens of suppliers. The idea that you could realisticaly be educated about all of the suppliers for all of the choices you have in the marketplace is simply silly. And what if 20% of the populace is happy to buy from people who dump and use slave labor, why should the majority, who passed the laws banning such practices, have their will thwarted? Is a regulatory structure perfect, of course not, but you've made no case that eliminating regulation would be an overall improvement. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5784 Registered: 1-2003 |
local_1_crew, I made a point you haven't responded to yet, which is that well educated children create a net gain for society. Also, consider that HMO's noticed that preventive health care ends up saving money, because medical problems don't progress and sometimes don't even occur. By making regular checkups cheap or free, they spend less overall. Similarly, spending money on educating kids of parents who would not otherwise pay (adequately) is a good investment. Also, I'm not clear on whether or not you think that collective decisions are ever a good idea. What do you think? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1696 Registered: 1-2003  |
Maple, Fine, Can we agree that privatization and individual property rights (put into regulation by the government) works better than full on governmental mandate? FWIW, the countries with the least real regulations have the greatest elephant population growth. In other words where the elephants can be killed indescriminantly (as long as they are on your land) has had the greatest increase in elephant population. If you want to call that regulation, fine. Tom, I'm sorry for being a jerk. I've been going through a few bad weeks at work, home, etc. I'm taking it out on you (and I guess others here too because MOL is my only refuge at the moment), and I'm sorry. Really, very sorry. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 533 Registered: 6-2004  |
I think the example shows that regulations with a market-based incentive work better than unenforceable prohibitions. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 504 Registered: 3-2004 |
The idea that you could realisticaly be educated about all of the suppliers for all of the choices you have in the marketplace is simply silly. i agree and have explained a number of times how it would work. you constantly ask questions that have been answered numerous times. please read the thread. I made a point you haven't responded to yet, which is that well educated children create a net gain for society. i agree with this point as well. children should be educated.i have never said otherwise. i also think that the parents of those children should be responsible for thier own children and their education. you want to have a child? great, but make sure you can afford one. its YOUR kid, not mine. dont make it my job to raise your kids. i wasnt in the bedroom with you helping to decide whether or not to have kids. why am i part of that decision now? Also, consider that HMO's noticed that preventive health care ends up saving money, because medical problems don't progress and sometimes don't even occur. i would like to read where you got this info. i recently read in the NY times that doctors agree that yearly checkups are unecessary and a drain on the system. doctors order lab tests and such that cost insurance companies and raise premiums. they also cause a delay in test results due to the back log. the AMA said that unless you are ill you should keep doctor checkups to once every 5 years. if you like i will take the time to link the article. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1718 Registered: 1-2003 |
We're negotiating a new Health Insurance contract, and many if not most HMO's are stopping the preventative option. They say its too expensive and shows no health benefits. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5794 Registered: 1-2003 |
If you agree that well educated children are a net gain, then will you support a tax increase levied on the childless?  Seriously, though, what is there to resent if, in the aggregate, my kids make you richer? I don't know about regluar checkups, but I'm sure you're mistaken about various things such as mammograms. I'm about to go to my doctor for my annual physical, so I'll ask him what he thinks, bearing in mind the bias he is likely to have. Sure, post the link if it's not too much trouble. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 509 Registered: 3-2004 |
Seriously, though, what is there to resent if, in the aggregate, my kids make you richer i resent being financially responsible for your personal choice to have children. you cant prove in any manner that your children will enhance my life. plus, i dont care if they do. the point is you chose to have children without consulting me yet you have made me part of your partenting decision. I don't know about regluar checkups, but I'm sure you're mistaken about various things such as mammograms. actually there was a recent study done that shows that regular mammograms statiscally do nothing to effect the number of deaths to breast cancer. i had this example in mind when discussing the subject in my earlier post. as for the times link you asked for, i just went to the site and found out it was an archived article and therefore had to be purchased. if you do a times search for medical checkups unnecessary a few of the articles will appear and you can purchase them . here is a time magazine article on the subject though: 9171,1101040927-699437,00.html,http://www.time.com/time/generations/article/0,91 71,1101040927-699437,00.html here is an article regarding mammograms: http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/151102/nbccrecagainstmammography.htm |
