| Author | Message | ||
     Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1465 Registered: 6-2003  |
Why should we go back to what failed already? Ignorance is the only explanation (but we knew that). | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 521 Registered: 3-2004  |
name calling only makes you look like the fool. | ||
| thoughtful Citizen Username: Thoughtful Post Number: 162 Registered: 6-2001 |
Local, With regards to your obsessions with funding public education: You are not financially responsible for anyone's decision to have children. You are not paying to raise anyone's children. You have not been made a part of anyone's parenting decision. Raising a child and educating a child are not the exact same things. What you are partially paying for is our literate and educated society which, as you already admit, is a benefit. When you accuse people have taking money out of your pocket by having children, you're really conflating the argument, to no one's benefit. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1086 Registered: 8-2003  |
or trolling. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 950 Registered: 7-2004 |
Libertarian ideology is certainly fun to think about, but it’s still merely a utopian ideal and there’s a reason not one single society of any size has ever adopted its tenets, unlike other extremist credos such as Marxism. It presents an attractive doctrine in many ways, and as Local has proved, its easy to defend by boiling down most answers into simple, dogmatic retorts that come across as logical. However, the fundamental flaw in its philosophy is a belligerent refusal to understand that the ideal is at odds with the greater, practical good. In short, Libertarians are just radical Right-wingers who have not one care for anything or anyone other than themselves. It’s a personal and political selfishness that borders on anarchy, with the basic requirement for inclusion being a callousness of human spirit and a transcendent egocentric outlook on life. Is there any surprise they are forced to knock door-to-door to promote their agenda? Libertarianism is fun for those asocial, usually web-savvy people to consider as they sit in a dark room day after day wishing they had some real-life friends…or maybe some children to keep them company. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5804 Registered: 1-2003  |
Robert, you didn't need to say any of that, because our hero has proven all of your statements with his own words. local, you have acknowledged that well educated people are good for society, and then you tell me I can't prove that you benefit from the existence of my kids. I see this as a contradiction. In any case, as Robert said, you are motivated by your own individual concerns. It appears that you have trouble that some people can concern themselves with the greater good, even when it doesn't benefit them directly. There is evidence all around you, yet you deny it. I count this as something you haven't yet grasped which most others have. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 951 Registered: 7-2004 |
Tom: Consider Libertarianism the Hare Krishna of political beliefs. It's like a religious cult in that most of the tenets are based on unproveable axioms and a militant insistence on being right. On the surface, the answers are logical, but dig a little deeper and there's nothing of substance there. It's easy to champion hypothetical idealistic beliefs when there's no practical example to back any of it up. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1087 Registered: 8-2003 |
actually libertarianism assumes that the greater good will indeed be served. It won't be served directly through tax-supported funding or legislation, however, but through the sum total of all citizens self-interested decisions. The self-interested actions of all people make up the unseen hand of the all-perfect free market. In the liberarian view, this unseen hand, if unfettered, works for the good of all. that they continue to assert this, despite our history showing this not to be true, is why libertarians are perceived by many of us to be unrealistic idealogues, pursuing an unattainable utopia. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1722 Registered: 1-2003  |
Everything both Doc and RL have said could be totally re-written and just replace libertarianism with socialism, and right with left. Neither extreme works. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5806 Registered: 1-2003 |
Michael, I agree! Extremes don't work. The trick is to know when to apply which principle. That can't be codified, which is why pure ideology isn't as useful as it looks. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 952 Registered: 7-2004 |
Well, you do have a point about extremism, Janay. However, do you think that kibbutz socialism works? Socialism seems to be doing just fine in those Scandanavian countries. However, there has never been a working model for libertarianism. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1088 Registered: 8-2003 |
Michael, you write that as if you assume I'm a supporter of pure socialism. actually, our system is a blend of libertarian political ideas (freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc.), and in the economic realm, socialistic ideas (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) that soften the edges of pure free market capitalism. Any pragmatic person recognizes that pure ideology makes for an interesting philosophical discussion, but would be disastrous as public policy. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2003 |
Uh Michael, how does what Doc said apply to socialism? "greater good will indeed be served...through the sum total of all citizens self-interested decisions. The self-interested actions of all people make up the unseen hand of the all-perfect free market." Anyway, this theory is of course based in part on the assumption that these self-interested decisions will be made with free and perfect information. Even with the wealth of information (nevermind the disinformation) on the Internet this assumption is still far from reality. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 524 Registered: 3-2004 |
all of your summations of libertarian ideals are tainted by your expectations of entitlements You are not financially responsible for anyone's decision to have children. You are not paying to raise anyone's children. You have not been made a part of anyone's parenting decision. Raising a child and educating a child are not the exact same things. i would argue that educating a child is a large part of raising a child. if i am not involved then why is 68% of my property tax, actually the rent i have to pay to the government for the property i supposedly own, go to school tax? an educated society is a good society. that is why every parent should pay to send their children to the best school that they can. It appears that you have trouble that some people can concern themselves with the greater good, even when it doesn't benefit them directly. i am all for the greater good. i just want to be able to make my own decision as to what i think the greater good is and strive towards that. if you are making the argument that you had children for the greater good and that is why i should pay to educate them, then i call shenanigans. none of you will ever be able to wrap your heads around the thought that people who decide to have children shoud be responsible for them. having a child with the expectation that other people will pick up the financial burden is an act of selfishness and irresponsibility. you have so justified this act in order to not face the truth that any attempt to hold the mirror in front of you is met with scorn and derision. you call libertarianism a marginal ideal sold by snake oil salesmen door-to-door. you couldnt be more wrong. if you did some research you would find that the libertarian movement is the largest growing political party in the country and had a 37% rise in the number of political offices won in this country. maybe not tomorrow but sometime in the future you are going to feel the push of the libertarian party and i for one welcome it with open arms. today Maplewood, TOMORROW ZE VORLD!!!! lol!} | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5811 Registered: 1-2003 |
Then do you reject the idea that the people can elect someone to execute decisions that society has made collectively? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1723 Registered: 1-2003 |
RL, I can give you some names of my relatives that are kibbutzniks. No, it doesn't work. They get some people that are dedicated to the cause, and some along for the free ride. The tensions between the groups are awful. Then when you get someone that wants to take advantage of some benefit (or entitlement) and others that feel it isn't deserved for whatever reason, and it goes to the council for decision. Its a nightmare. And Kibbutz's are small scale, the problems grow exponentially as the population grows. Socialism in scandivinavian countries is resulting in terrible economies, poor health care, and incredibly high unemployment. Sounds great to me! Must be why every single one of them is cutting back on entitlements, increasing individual responsibility, and tryng to lower their tax rates. (not successfully I might add) Lib, Its more like today the world, tommorow Maplewood  Doc, I was more refering to this quote "that they continue to assert this, despite our history showing this not to be true, is why libertarians are perceived by many of us to be unrealistic idealogues, pursuing an unattainable utopia." It could have easily read: that they continue to assert this, despite our history showing this not to be true, is why socialists are perceived by many of us to be unrealistic idealogues, pursuing an unattainable utopia. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 549 Registered: 9-2004  |
L1C, what answer do you give to people whose economic status is such that they are unable to send their children to the best schools? What about people who can't send their children to school at all? What about children who are concieved by irresponsible parents? Does the parents' apathy automatically condemn their children? If the answer is simply to not have children if one can't afford it, then how aren't we making reproduction a privilege of the well-off? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 953 Registered: 7-2004 |
Janay: I work with a Dane and a Finn who would argue the merits of socialism in their countries better than I could (while also recognizing the drawbacks and pitfalls...and as rule, don't get a Scandinavian going on the politics of their native country unless you have some time to kill...). I, too, have had relatives who've spent some quality time on kibbutzes, and came to conclusions similiar to what you have noted. Nevertheless, kibbutzes and moshavs are still around. The larger point is that socialism, as opposed to libertarianism, is not always run by unrealistic ideologues pursuing an unattainable utopia, but it exists as workable models, with admittedly inherent flaws, in societies both large (Denmark) and small (kibbutzes). A purely Libertarian society has never been tried, therefore its principles are chiefly hypothetical and easier to argue. In any case, more than any of the highly axiomatic ideals, the worst part about Libertarianism is the fanatical proselytizing of the annoying zealots who resemble nothing more than street-preachers with megaphones. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1089 Registered: 8-2003 |
Michael, I still don't understand why you feel the need to reference socialism at all with regard to my earlier post. Was there some socialistic subtext that you read into it? I was commenting on strict libertarianism, not endorsing socialism, communisim, capitalism, or any other ism for that matter. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 526 Registered: 3-2004 |
L1C, what answer do you give to people whose economic status is such that they are unable to send their children to the best schools? What about people who can't send their children to school at all? What about children who are concieved by irresponsible parents? Does the parents' apathy automatically condemn their children? private charities tom, you are insistent on your questions and attacks yet my need to explain my views to you is starting to flag because i can never convince you if you are unable to admit when you are wrong. i use your recent comments on mammographys and annual doctor checkups as evidence. you made the comments and i provided documentation that refuted your statement. you ignored this and steamed on. it is very easy to represent an opinion if you are going to ignore anything that contradicts your opinion. while the doctor stuff is not really related to the libertarian discussion we are having it is evidence of your obstinancy in the face of a differing facts. |
