Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Retard · 12-24-2002, 05:06 AM

managalar:

Quote:

Roads, schools, health standards, communications (if I had my way), science funding, NASA, FEMA, the Police, the coast guard (soon to be assimilated), NSF, and many more things all contribute to my quality of life, the success of our civilization, and should not be left up to a free market. I will write in detail why these things should not be left up to a free market, some time when I�m not so tired (tomorrow).

Using the phrase "left up to" presupposes that, under the current system, we have a great deal of control over how resources are allocated to these systems. But, in a government like the US, resources aren't allocated by a popular vote, they're allocated by politicians and lobbyists trading votes for dollars. The politicians are in turn put into office by successful maneuvering within a political party, and the prevailing 'political attitude' (like being a sports fan) of their constituency, which is always composed of uninformed voters. We individuals have SOME control over this process, but we have SOME control over a market process as well. Both of them are processes. Both of them are largely out of our hands.

Finally, it's an unfortunate fact that many important things are competing for our resources. It's obvious to me that scientific research is important. But it's also obvious to me that food production, education, and housing are important. Consequently, what's NOT obvious is how much money should go to this important thing as opposed to that important thing. And it's not obvious at all that the government process we have today is the best way to allocate our resources.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Feather · 12-24-2002, 06:10 AM

Well it's even less obvious to me that the Libertarian version of the "free-market" will provide for any of those "important things" except for those who have the power (wealth). In fact, very few notable advances in science have come because of the efforts of the private sector.

The theory of mechanics that made the industrial revolution possible came from Newton and those that expounded and filled out his works (Lagrange, Hamilton). Newton was paid by the government of his day, mostly.

The theory of quantum mechanics that makes the transistor (and hence every bit of modern computer technology) possible was developed by men working in one way or another for the government.

Einstein had a great deal of leisure time working as a patent clerk (for the government).

So while government has been a proven friend to the sciences--which are undoubtedly responsible almost entirely for the comforts and relatively easy life we live today--there has yet to be a "Libertarian" contribution of similar note.

See, the evidence that "Libertarian is better" is missing. That's reason enough to distrust that it will, in fact, be better.

Gurdur · 12-24-2002, 06:47 AM

To 99percent:

How about answering the points here ?

You've had Kuu's point regarding the abuse directed at her;

you've had my point that:

objective = existing independently of perceptions/interpretation

subjective = based on individual perceptions/interpretation

intersubjective = based on social agreemnet as to perceptions/interpretation

Your Objectivism is nothing more than a subjective philosophy of a tiny minority, pretending to be an objective moral code, and dogmatically so, therefore an absolutist philosophy.

So when do we get real answers ? hmmmmmmm ?

99Percent · 12-24-2002, 11:25 AM

Ok, I seem to be the spokesman for libertarianism now

so I better start taking care of business.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kuu:
I dislike Libertarianism.

Mainly because libertarians of other boards have called me a thief because I have been on welfare. They reckon I have stolen taxpayers money. This is despite the fact that no Australian has ever criticised me for being on welfare as I was a deserted wife raising 3 children (two of whom are handicapped)

No, you are not a thief. This is the governments fault. Governments pretend that if there is no forced welfare then welfare would not exist which is blatantly false. In libertopia you would still receive welfare but through the charity of private organizations. BTW in which other boards did the libertarians acused you of being a thief?

Quote:

Libertarianism cannot see past their own beliefs.

That seems to be a generalization.

Quote:

Australians believe in a welfare system that looks after people in need though most of them complain about the abuse of the system.

Because what is in "need" is subjective. This is why a welfare system will never work, because "need" is subjective and nobody will be satisfied, no matter how much money is pumped into the system.

Quote:

If Australians are happy with the government looking after those in need why do these American Libertarianism complain so much about our system (and that of Canada, Sweden, the UK etc).

Government welfare also exists in the U.S. in fact I think it exists in almost any country with wealth. I think you again generalizing libertarianists. We are concerned with any system of government welfare because it creates barriers of entry and it politizes the world unnecesarily. For example illegal immigration from Mexicans is perceived as a big problem for the U.S. because people think these migrants just want to go to the US to abuse the welfare system so they block entry and erect borders. Just look what happened to the Afghans who were left to rot on a refugee ship because the Australian government was unable to let them inside Australia.

Quote:

On one board they continious post any article they can finding the smallest fault with the British, Canadian, Swedish system.

Quote:

We try to defend our ideology like any other ideologists.

Our system arent perfect but it is what the majority of the population want.

This is precisely what is wrong with democracy. The majority should have no rule over the minority. Its what libertarianism is all about!

I will get back to responses for thefugitivesaint and theyeti, later. I have been a bit busy lately, you know

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

August Spies · 12-24-2002, 11:28 AM

"In libertopia you would still receive welfare but the charity of private organizations."

is there any reason to believe this would be adequate? in the past it has always failed to provide enough for people, and this idea of chairty being the only means of "welfare" was tried many times in the past.

99Percent · 12-24-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies:
"In libertopia you would still receive welfare but the charity of private organizations."

is there any reason to believe this would be adequate? in the past it has always failed to provide enough for people, and this idea of chairty being the only means of "welfare" was tried many times in the past.

Countless successful private charities exist. If the levels of taxation weren't so daunt, there would be a much greater participation in charities by all.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

August Spies · 12-24-2002, 11:47 AM

perhaps you misunderstood. Back in america's past taxation was very low. Thephilosophy was that private charities would help the poor (as well as donated buildings like Carangie hall whose glamor would inspire the poor).

This did not work. Would lower the taxes jsut a bit more have magically made it work?

theyeti · 12-24-2002, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:

Countless successful private charities exist. If the levels of taxation weren't so daunt, there would be a much greater participation in charities by all.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case? (That's not a rhetorical question, I simply don't know.)

If memory serves, European countries with a higher tax burden also give more money to charity as a percentage of income (or as a percentage of GDP). And contrary to popular belief, the percentage of income given to charity does not increase with income level. This taken from here:

Code:

                     Percent of income 
Income level          given to charity
--------------------------------------

Under $10,000         2.7%
$10,000 - 19,999      2.3
$20,000 - 29,999      2.7
$30,000 - 39,999      2.0
$40,000 - 49,999      1.3
$50,000 - 59,999      1.1
$60,000 - 74,999      2.3
$75,000 - 99,999      2.0
Over $100,000           ?

Now I suppose one could argue that if taxes were lower, incomes would increase and so would charitable givings. But since only around 2% of income is donated to charity anyways, it wouldn't make that much difference. Nearly 100% of all money received from tax breaks would have to go to charitable giving (or other replacements of government spending cuts) in order to have the same amount going towards the public good.

The real problem as I see it is that in libertopia, competition becomes so extreme that there is a major disincentive to donating to charity. There is no social safety net, and all of the rewards acrue to those at the top. It's dog eat dog, and anyone who slows down long enough to help their needy neighbors is going to miss the boat. Looking at the chart above, it seems as if the stingyest people are from the upwardly-mobile middle class, who are presumably reluctant to part with their money lest they impede their chances of climbing the social ladder. In libertopia, you either climb the social ladder or you die.

Libertarianism aside, I think this also applies to the general state of the market. Too much competition has a negative impact on our culture, because it brings out the worst in human nature. (This can be readily seen in American culture IMO.) A well regulated market that allows enough competition to encourage efficiency, but does not allow so much that it turns people into vicious predators, is best IMHO.

theyeti

(P.S. looking forward to your response to our earlier discussion.

)

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Thomas Ash · 12-25-2002, 02:08 AM

August Spies:

Quote:

Enforcing your will upon a minority can be thrilling, I suppose, but nevertheless wrong.

well assuming we did have a democracy, and even considering our psuedo-republic, it is not him forcing his will on the minority. Stop pretending.

I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think you can dismiss the above point so blithely. You've just asserted that it's not true, but actually that's the very definition of a democracy/'pseudo-republic'; that the majority choose what the laws and taxes should be, and override the minority's opinion of what we should spend the public coffers on. I support this system, but that doesn't mean I can't see it's problems or that I pretend it's perfect.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

managalar · 12-25-2002, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard:
Using the phrase "left up to" presupposes that, under the current system, we have a great deal of control over how resources are allocated to these systems.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. Earlier in the post I had likened it to a division of labor, because there is too much to control, too much for one person to handle. There is no true Jack-of-all-trades because so many human roles require decades of education and real world experience to be come competent. Just asking people to vote for represenatives seems like too much to ask for half of them, mostly because they don't care. I know what the Coast Guard does, but I don't have any idea how many ships they need, or how many choppers...and I'm definitly glad I dont have to send a credit card number with my SOS...

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2002, 06:10 AM	#162
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Well it's even less obvious to me that the Libertarian version of the "free-market" will provide for any of those "important things" except for those who have the power (wealth). In fact, very few notable advances in science have come because of the efforts of the private sector. The theory of mechanics that made the industrial revolution possible came from Newton and those that expounded and filled out his works (Lagrange, Hamilton). Newton was paid by the government of his day, mostly. The theory of quantum mechanics that makes the transistor (and hence every bit of modern computer technology) possible was developed by men working in one way or another for the government. Einstein had a great deal of leisure time working as a patent clerk (for the government). So while government has been a proven friend to the sciences--which are undoubtedly responsible almost entirely for the comforts and relatively easy life we live today--there has yet to be a "Libertarian" contribution of similar note. See, the evidence that "Libertarian is better" is missing. That's reason enough to distrust that it will, in fact, be better.

12-24-2002, 06:47 AM	#163
Gurdur Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Buggered if I know Posts: 12,410	To 99percent: How about answering the points here ? You've had Kuu's point regarding the abuse directed at her; you've had my point that: objective = existing independently of perceptions/interpretation subjective = based on individual perceptions/interpretation intersubjective = based on social agreemnet as to perceptions/interpretation Your Objectivism is nothing more than a subjective philosophy of a tiny minority, pretending to be an objective moral code, and dogmatically so, therefore an absolutist philosophy. So when do we get real answers ? hmmmmmmm ?

12-24-2002, 11:28 AM	#165
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	"In libertopia you would still receive welfare but the charity of private organizations." is there any reason to believe this would be adequate? in the past it has always failed to provide enough for people, and this idea of chairty being the only means of "welfare" was tried many times in the past.

12-24-2002, 11:47 AM	#167
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	perhaps you misunderstood. Back in america's past taxation was very low. Thephilosophy was that private charities would help the poor (as well as donated buildings like Carangie hall whose glamor would inspire the poor). This did not work. Would lower the taxes jsut a bit more have magically made it work?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.