managalar

Again your positions are clearly stated, Kip, I am however steadfast in my stance, and I�ll eleborate.
I�ll start first with where we agree, that military spending is excessive. We both vote against increasing military spending when we have a chance. This stance comes from the notion that no foreseeable threat justifies 300 billion a year (i.e. we could likely win any future war with a fraction of that cost). Your position is that I should say, �I don�t think its justified, so we shouldn�t do it.� However, the main concept behind our system is that no one person has to understand the needs for all expenditure, or rather, they agree to get some of what they want by sharing the load of things they don�t want.
Your criticism, they are spending money for a �gee wiz� factor does not sufficiently cover the full range of benefits from massive expenditure. A better example of a �gee wiz� expenditure would be Pizza Hut�s consideration to build a giant cluster of Lasers so they could shine their logo on the Moon. I consider most advertising to be of only �gee wiz� effect. Yes there was a �gee wiz� component of the Moon landings, our government was trying to sell Democracy and semi-Free-Market economics to the rest of the world, and like any other from of advertising we all had to pay for it. But we got more than recognition, we invested in technology that succeeded and failed. The technology that succeeded put the US into a position of world leader in commercial satellite launches (not to mention derivative technology from medicine to computers, and a global brain drain into the US�where the highly educated could get jobs in the tech sectors). Some technology was developed which has yet to serve a purpose, like the nuclear rockets in project Minerva. At some point in the future we may send a nuclear ramjet into the Jovian atmosphere, where it could fly for years, but from our perspective/time, the money seems basically wasted. Anyway, I�m saying that the private sector will and does waste money for the �gee wiz� factor, check out the Las Vegas strip.

�But that is an illusion not unlike the Gambler's Fallacy. One penny a day from the American public for a year is absolutely gigantic sum��
No it�s not, its only about 830 million dollars. I am for taking care of the poor, and our government does a fair job of it, but I promise the private sector would be much less compassionate. Consider multinationals who�s paramilitary �police� their global assets, and you understand compassion thru subcontracted deniability. One of the companies I work for has high standards for its employees, in terms of pay, bonuses, and benefits, subsequently they were able to find a security company which would sub-contract security guards for cheap. The sub-contracted security guards are cheaper because they get paid slightly more than minimum wage, and they don�t get benefits. Where is corporate compassion when it comes to answering to shareholders who want profits? Some say the image factor makes up for balancing the need for profits, but it can be bought, advertise in every media outlet�and threaten to pull adds, you cant say it doesn�t happen. You say money for NASA could go to take care of the poor, sure it could, so what? It also could also be spent on education, more military, or subsidized commercial advertising or food production, but that is irrelevant. I�m torn, I understand the need for public money to go into housing and food stamps, but how nice should the welfare life be? I think it should be nice enough that you are not necessarily driven to crime to survive or pay for medical treatment, but at the same time, not so nice you don�t ever want to get a job.

�which do not seem to be much more than the "gee wiz" factor. The "gee wiz" factor says "
Statements like these make it pretty clear that you don�t recognize the full implications of what you are referring to. But that�s ok, you don�t have to understand it, and you don�t have much of a choice in the matter.

In response to 2, I agree that NASA does much important research. This is a question of degree and not kind. How much research is enough? Wouldn't a free market better identify the demands for technologies and produce more efficient and elegant solutions than the government?
No. Free markets are efficient at making profit. Groups, both governments and corporations have many things in common, notably, they are all made up of people. Organizations of people cannot be too different because of that common denominator. By this I mean that your implications that governments are somehow inherently less efficient and elegant is a matter of opinion. The main difference between private enterprise and government, is that governments can do things that are not necessarily monetarily profitable, like space telescopes, and take equal risks that corporations could not (Hubble might have been unfixable).
�The conclusion does not follow, however, that we should therefore tax people to produce the Hubble telescope.�
No. The conclusion does follow if your moral system gages the success of the human race in terms of scientific achievements. Everyone, even people get little more than, �gee wiz, that�s neat� from the achievements, has to contribute.
�What you do not seem to remember is that there are economic consequences for Hubble. Those photographs cost people money.�
They do cost money, and I�m glad that ignorant and selfish people who don�t care about science have to pay for it anyway.
�but you are willing to trust government spending to a majority vote. �
I don�t have much choice about it, and neither does anyone else. The options are as follows. 1) I have no voice in any of it, Dictatorship-Communism ect. 2)I have a tiny voice in it. 3) I am the Dictator, and I have complete control. 4) There are no group efforts (Governments are not any different from the Mega Corporations of tomorrow)
I agree it�s a lame set of options, but I would be little more than a clever chimp without the multi-generational group effort that went into shaping my neural pathways.

"Do you not agree that the market would be a more efficient means of identifying demands and producing products?"
In terms of giving average people what they want and need�yes the market is a good medium for that. But, Human civilization isn�t so simple. You tell me to consider not building Hubble, because there might be more urgent needs, like getting a new Mp3 player or whatever. But I�ve said it earlier, that I think the success of a society can be judged in its scientific achievements. The success can also be judged in terms of luxuries for the average citizen, but I think that is a lesser measurement of success. I think individual luxuries are necessary and important, but I also think those types of things should go without saying. Having music and other entertainment is about as important as having food. The point is, peoples needs are being met, we don�t have starving masses (in our country anyway), entertainment needs are filled every way we can think of, and its great�but if we didn�t invest in the future, or didn�t value understanding, and instead only optimized luxuries, it would be a gluttonous waste of human ingenuity.

RED DAVE

I didn't expect, when I initiated this thread, that there would be so many responses. What I did expect, though, was the content: broad, historically dubious statements by Libertarians, followed by hyper-rational arguements to prove their theses, followed by attempts to refute same.

As a Marxist, I believe that the true meaning of a belief system lies, among other places, in its social consequences. And it's precisely here that Libertarians fall down in their arguments and their opponents fail to get at them.

The fact is that the Communist version of Marxism turned out to be a justification for the exploitation and crimes of the ruling class of the Soviet Union.

LIbertarianism is an abstract justification for the rule of the American ruling class. Despite its so-called radicalism and aggressive demeanor, when any social ill of capitalism is presented, Libertarianism cannot find a cause that does not undermine their fundamental thesis: the universal goodness of the market. Likewise, they cannot come up with any solutions to such problems as pollution and racism.

Any pro-capitalism Liberal can do better than that, let alone an out and out socialist like myself.

So, I challenge you Libertarians to stop screeching about Jefferson, Adam Smith or whatever, and stop talking about the abstract rights of property and knock it off about your theories of the primacy of the individual and get down to cases. Not that these discussions aren't interesting, but there's too much hot air.

And please, no utopian thinking. If you want to talk about privatizing the police (Can I buy stock in the cops?) or nonexistent courts that somehow, without police power (Maybe they can buy some!) will mediate all social disputes, you are blowing hot air. They don't exist. If that's your whole program, say so.

So, what do you propose, now, for the elimination of pollution and racism? How do you distinguish yourself from that mentally challenged corporate front man in the White House and other Republicans, Conservatives, right wingers, etc.?

Any comments on the upcoming atrocities in Iraq and how to stop them (unless you like them) would also be welcome.

Your for the Revolution

RED DAVE

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: RED DAVE ]</p>

John Hancock

I've resisted as long possible. How do I explain this to you. Paid for how ever they were children
All you care about is the market and well if that's what you know ok.

Ronin

Well ~ I like books and fully support liberarianism.

thefugitivesaint

Red Dave:
Fact is this statement is dead wrong. "Marxism" was an invention of Engels and of the most prominent intellectual "heirs" (if the word can apply) of Marx himself: Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (i do not have time to list everyone else who was crucial in the formation of "Marxism" as an ideology following the years after Marx's death but i digress).

Marx was not a marxist.

Marx did not tolerate converting his multi-dimensional social theory into an ossified "ism" during his lifetime, preferring to emphasize its flexible character and evolving nature. It was Engels who, after Marx's death, converted Marx's lively thought into a political doctrine called Marxism, at the same time stressing that Marxism was a science. These interpretations of Marx's ideas tended to reduce their dynamic complexity to simplistic formulas that made vulgarization virtually inevitable.

Marx himself considered none of it carved in stone and his existing work held many ambiguities
that would eventually produce different versions of Marxism.

I'll get back to the rest of the post on my next break.
-theSaint

RED DAVE

To thefugitivesaint:

This thread is about Libertarianism, not Marxism. I threw in that paragraph in an attempt to be even-handed, not to invite a series of half-truths about Marxism.

If you want to debate Marx, Marxism, etc., I'll be glad to do it. Start a new thread.

RED DAVE

Gurdur

Yes ! We have a winner for this thread !
_________________________

Silly lad. You haven't been here long, have you ?

"historically ignorant", "hyper-pseudo-rational" and "successful refutations, unheeded as ever" are needed to correct your paragraph above.

You don't need to be a Marxist to have that viewpoint. Tsk.

Not here, mate; they get slamdunked on everything from theory to logic to history to ethics to actual consqeuences.

Wrong

Libertarianism is simply the outgrowth of certain traits in American culture, exaggerated and taken to a simplistic sloganeering level, and given a certain amount of specious attractiveness by its pretensions to an absolutist, easy-to-understand framework.

The American "ruling class" - which is an incorrectly simplistic analysis of your own - don't need or use Libertarianism, though it may still come to that soon.

So tell us something new.
Indeed, though you tend to get side-tracked to your own impediment.
Bit hopeful, aren't you ?

Try the Iraqi threads. Allow me to give you some advice; if you get side-tracked like this all the time, you won't accomplish anything.

Which one ?

Why are some Americans so romantic in their thinking ????

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

RED DAVE

To Gurdur:

Dude, what is your point?

RED DAVE

Gurdur

Dude,
What is your question ?

thefugitivesaint

"Half-truths about Marxism?"

Please, spare me.

And, i do believe my previous additions to this thread addressed the topic under discussion. You do read what other people post right?

-theSaint