managalar

I agree that it is not perfect. But how could it be 'perfect'? We do our damnedest to listen to anyone who feels things are un-fair, private citizens can bankrupt giant corporations, and a lot of people feel too much attention is given to minorities. Our country is wealthy and powerful, we can afford to hear the complaints of minorities because we have the money to buy a higher degree of protection. I dislike how money can buy a lobby voice, which doesn�t necessarily lobby for the promotion of human life, but rather profits for a few. A good example is copyrights/patents, who�s original intent was to protect the individual creator�s efforts, which have been extended beyond human lifetimes so they can continue to be a source of corporate income. These kinds of things create a drag on cultural and technological growth, because they could benefit everyone if they are passed into the public domain sooner rather than later. The total effect of giving up your intellectual rights sooner, is that you also get access to everyone else�s intellectual property, and I think it would be far more profitable for everyone, but short term, short sighted greed of a few ruins it for everyone, for generations.

Anyway, as for what was said�I�m not forcing my will on anyone, I�m agreeing to give up so of my rights for everyone�s well being. As for those who don�t want to give up some of their rights, it�s a shame, but its too bad for them. I have a Libertarian friend who says that�s the �social contract� but it�s bullshit because she doesn�t ever get a chance to not sign it. I agreed that �contract� was a metaphor, and not a real contract. It may have been more contract-like when our ancestors had options (like other places to go), but we have our ancestors to thank for our lack of choices. They made the decisions, collectively, to fill every place on Earth with as many people would fit. So, really, our ancestors set in motion a system that cannot be reversed without lots of people dieing, so we have the option of taking what they�ve given, and acting within the bounds they set for us, or if Libertarians have their way, drastically changing our world so, as I imagine, it will end up looking something like Corporate Feudalism.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

August Spies

Thomas Ash:
You missed my point. I was merely saying it is not HIM enforcing his will on the minority, it is theoretically the majority that is enforcing THEIR will on the minority.

managalar

I do discuss it favorably, because while private organizations are likely trying to make a profit, our government it trying to advertise the benefits of giving it�s citizens so many luxuries and so much freedom. I think the soviets made a pretty good showing considering how much more natural resources, captured technology, and captured scientists we had after WW2.

I didn�t say putting the flag on the moon was frivolous, and I don�t think it is a clever argument to put words in my mouth (no offense taken though). I said it advertised to the world our governing system, where the people have a lot of power, freedom, and luxuries. It further drove technological development in several ways. 1) It directly funded technological advancements, which went to improving the quality of life of everyone on earth. 2) It jumpstarted a multi-billion dollar satellite launching industry, which in turn advanced communication infrastructure, weather forecasting, and many other purposes that improve human life, and bring billions of dollars into our economy every year from global corporations 3) It inspired students to work hard in scientific and aeronautical fields 4) It helped generate a �brain-drain�, our society sent people to the moon, and all you had to do was have the money to go to our schools�billions of dollars come into our country every year from foreign students.
We didn�t know anything about the moon, we didn�t know if it had valuable resources that we could tap, we didn�t know the geology, the origin, and our leaders decided it would be a good idea to check it out. The moon does have a lot of helium-3, one of the most common isotopes in the universe, but kind of rare/expensive on earth, which may be needed in mass for future fusion power stations. We didn�t immediately need the helium-3, but we did gain satellite launching capabilities sooner. See article on helium-3 http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...um3_000630.htm

If our nuclear engineers were about 100x times faster at developing power production technology, the moon landings would have struck a �gold mine�. Our time might not have been so smoggy. But we didn�t know what was there, and now we do. If you didn�t guess, I think fusion research is another thing the government should throw loads of money at. I wrote a letter to Bush proposing he launch a �man-on-the-moon� type effort to build fusion reactors, arguing the long-term environmental benefits and reduced dependence on oil (2 things I think he is flat out opposed to). Yes, colleges all over the world are researching it, and so is Russia and China, and the EU, and Japan, and the DOE, but there isn�t any apparent immediate need, but private industry isn�t being subcontracted using tons of public money like it should be, oh well.

So, For the reasons listed, I think many of the luxuries we have all benefited from would have not happened so soon or so quickly without public effort to push it forward. I further think we should have advanced more, with great national projects every 10 to 15 years, like the space station � but with more public money behind it.

The Pizza Hut logo exploratory study was for shining the logo on the moon, covering the whole moon. It would have funneled nearly a billion dollars into the tech industries, and stood for good pizza. The point I was trying to bring up was that the private sector wasted billions of dollars every year in advertising. You didn�t have this kind of waste in Cuba or China. There is however a rather lame benefit from the advertising, it some-how drives people to work harder than inducing in them a nationalistic zeal to work hard to pay for your socialist benefit package. I call this a lame benefit because I hate poorly focused advertising, I think it wastes most people�s time. I�d rather live in a completely socialist country, and give up almost all of my �freedoms� just to be spared from excruciating adnauseum (Daily Show term). I don�t know if I�d go that far, but I wish companies showed a little more tact, my inbox is full, my mail box is full, my phone rings in the middle of the day because people want my money (if they only knew how completely and thoroughly I�ve already spent it), and I think this would get worse in a Libertarian Lassie-Faire type society. My freedom is degraded by other�s freedom to advertise to me�everything in life has trade offs.

It�s not just �my� moon landing. I understand your point, but I think people should pay for our societies benefits (if they are able). It is my opinion that you would not have the option to buy the mp3 player without the public money of previous generations driving the initial technology development.


An elective tax would be a complete failure, given the option for more money, regardless of how much money people make, they would opt for more money. If you expected me to trust all government services and projects to public generosity, I would doubt you understood other people.
The things you see as more beneficial, I see as less beneficial. I think we are too good at keeping people alive, and too good at ballooning our population with environment exhausting agricultural techniques. Less than 1/1000 babies are lost, average age keeps getting higher, 10% of all the humans who have lived for the last 8000ish years are alive right now! This view will likely change as I get older (I�m 21), and as I near my grandfather�s heart attack age, I�ll be like, �hurry up on those pig grown hearts cause I feel a tingle in my fingers�. Hehe. Point is, we are not dieing off, so we can afford to reach into other areas besides life preservation its self, which would subsequently enhance the quality of that life we are preserving.
UM? Compared to 220 million people, that�s a pathetic sum of money�if they decided to split it up, they�d each get a check for 1 cent, that would be pathetic. I put my pennies in the trash can, its not worth my time to count them out.

My question was, who protects human rights? Would you expect me to trust human rights protection to be left up to morally conscious consumer dollars? No way!

You took me out of context a bit. I said you can also judge the success of a society in terms of luxuries, and luxury distribution, and health, and general quality of life, but I specifically said the amount of luxuries was a lesser measure of success. I guess we differ here, while I consider luxuries as very important, its not as important as scientific works, which end up helping everyone, even those who don�t realize it. You, I guess, consider the luxuries you have right now as the measure of success, and you propose how you could have more luxuries like the ones you have right now, by not paying taxes, which I think is short sighted and self indulging.
Ok, my options, I was talking about governing system. You would not have any say in how corporate monopoly research budgets are spent (similar to a socialist government monopoly), you have a tiny voice in our system. I proposed that a tiny voice was better than complete control-because non of us are qualified for complete control, and that its better than no-voice. In a space exploration project supported by the private sector, say you�re a direct investor, you are still going to have a tiny vice in how your money is spent, you�ll just have personally hand picked where your money goes, and you�ll have to hand pick everything you need to spend your money on, which would be a waste of your unqualified time. As for your �OBVIOUSLY-preferrable� option, billions and billions have been paid back into the economy, quality of life is better, benefiting everyone, I think its fair that everyone had to pay for it.

quote: managalar (yeah, I�m re-quoting myself, cause I think it is a damn good point)
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.

A Libertarian world would be a disgustingly materialistic (not that some degree of materialism is �bad� but there can be too much) and uncompassionate place, the weak would be crushed under greed�s heel, the rich would dance on the backs of the bruised, and you�d either drink Pepsi in Pepsi City, or defect into the neighboring province of Microsoft, where you�d probably not have a choice about what browser you�d use. Do you think the markets would be �fair� without the government oversight? We would definitely be LESS FREE if we didn�t pay taxes!

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Gurdur

[oops, I hit the edit button instead of the reply button. Gurdur - my sincere apologies ]

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

99Percent

I am clearly in no authority to dictate answers to you. In your case, you will have to discover these answers yourself.

August Spies

Translation: I can not explain the positions I have been delcaring as absolute truth, so I will dodge the issue yet again.

99Percent

As promised my belated responses to thefugitivesaint and theyeti.

thefugitivesaint: Yes, that is the current norm for how a state operates, but that does not mean its right. Society seems to dictate, through a majority, what is "good" overriding many times individual rights, mostly property rights. But that is a fallacy because what is "good" can only be perceived by the individual. A subjectivist should have no problem understanding that concept.
Individual rights properly defined should not be able to be abused. This is where you develop reason to find out what these rights are. OTOH societal "rights" will always be at the expense of individuals or groups of individuals composing such a society as a whole. The individual/society opposite is very dichotomous. Agreed. But the importance of the society and what is good for society must always come from the individual point of view, because its the individual who will in the end make the evaluating of what is good and bad to himself. I could also argue that the health of a society depends on the health and happiness of the individuals that compose it. Of course socialists would like to lump individuals into a uniform society so its health can be more easily be determined, but that is again a fallacy, because what is good or bad depends on the individual only. Fidel Castro seems to be able to determine what is good or bad for millions of cuban who wish to not think about it. But that is simply wrong. Agreed too. That is because the U.S. constitution for example is not perfect or has been helplessly mangled and amended. The voting process seems so detached and complicated not to mention very burdenson because of excessive politicizing. Coups are another matter entirely. The military in these cases is obviously not sworn to respect the constitution but to follow the generals that are power hungry. These cases are obviously not simple and an evolution to constitutionality is difficult, but it must be achieved, somehow. In the case of the U.S. its a matter of reducing statism. which can be done gradually because the fundamentals, ie, a military that is sworn to protect the constitution, is in place.

theyeti General, the army and the police never make their own money to dispose off. They must be paid by the wealth producing citizens, because by the very nature of their jobs, they don't produce anything. They marely protect life and property or take production by force. In a strictly libertarian society, the police, army and generals only do the former, never the latter and that is why wealth would grow, because the individuals or groups of individuals would feel free and safe, the two main requirements for creating wealth. Agreed, and that is why I support a very minimal flat rate of taxation. At the most 1% regardless of economic levels. This, as I already said, would pay for the basic courts and military that will oversee the operation of private security companies and police. The wealthy of course would have to pay more because they have more property to protect, but that is their own business. [quote]99, the Constitution is meaningless unless it's enforced. It does not have some sort of magical quality that compels everyone to follow it, regardless of their own self-interests. The reason why it works is because the voters, who have the real power in a democracy, are in charge of determining their own enforcers.[/quote>I disagree. The constitution is a basic document of which everyone must abide to, its the basic underlying foundation of the whole country. There are something that the voters simply cannot decide to do, no matter how much majority they manage to obtain, because its dictated in the constitution, supposedly. Again you are missing the crucial difference of what an army can do: It can take by force the resources required to run or it can be sustained by the citizens who produce the necessary resources to support a military. In a constitutionalistic society the military is forced to become the servant, not the master of its citizens. This also happened for a while in Rome too, until of course the military got hopelessly corrupted. The citizens of rome refused to keep on paying and subsidizing this overgrown military apparatus and the Roman empire collapsed. The government which has the power to control the military should always be our servant, not the father or the master, or else society crumbles. [quote]What I'm trying to impress here is the fact that privitization of the police and military is a BAD thing. If private companies wish to hire their own "police", then that's fine, but they should not be given the power of arrest that state police agencies have. And it's important not only that the state police agencies stop abuse from private agencies, but that they also protect the public as well,[/quote> The police and military can be bad, but it still nevertheless necessary. Its a necessary evil unfortunately, because human nature is not always good. We all have a violent nature that must be kept on check. Private or not private it must always be kept on check and what better way than to have a document such as the constitution that clearly delineates what a government can or cannot do. Like any other opportunity which can be undertaken by anybody, rich or poor. 1% is alot of taxes already. For example in the U.S. it would amount to 100 billion dollars (1% of 10 trillion). You can pay a lot of military, police, courts and jails with that kind of money. And remember the wealthy would be in a position to optionally have to pay for their own security and protection of property. And of course I believe that without the current levels of taxation (25% approximately) a lot more wealth would be produced, maybe even twice as much, which would amount to 20 trillion dollars or 200 billion for governmental services. I agree entirely and I am sure most of my fellow libertarians agree too. We must return to minimalist government not because of its "goodness" to society but on principles (of which are ultimately derived by objective morality) of individual freedom and responsibility. Its up to all the voters and citizens to develop these principles on their own. Going over this again anyway because I think its important. The military besides being sworn into protecting the constitution realizes that its being subsisted by the very wealth that they are protecting. Its the document itself that protects us, not the government. This document is the architect of the whole separtation of powers thingie. Its has worked well so far, but unfortunately it has some loopholes of which politicians have been using for several generations now that allow the government to grow and grow and grow. We must stop this soon, or else U.S. society is going to collapse with disastrous consequences (see the Roman Empire and the dark ages that followed). This is merely a prediction, not that I really care what will happened outside of my life time. What I really care is how my liberty is being trampled upon all the time (excessive taxation that supports stupid politicians for example, or that I can't smoke pot in my house if I choose to). I agree that the people should have the power to control government power because power is what government is all about. Government holds a monopoly on power. Its the ultimate authority in everything. Then there is economy, the producing aspect of a society. Government should have no say on the economy of a society, because an economy is the opposite of power. Self interest is what generates wealth and should not be controlled in any way whatsover. It is called capitalism. You are in contradiction here. There is a clear difference between economic power and political power. Economic power is the ability to make your own choices that will make you happy. Political power is using force or threat of force to control other peoples choices. Again you are confusing economic power with political power. Each one has its uses, and the voters should only control political power, not the economic power. Economic power must be obtained through work or the good will of others only, not by force, or by using political power or else the powers become intermingled and perverted. I suggest you explore and see how it affects your political philosophy the dichotomy that I have presented here: the difference between economic power and political power.

August Spies

99percent:

Gurdur, myself and others asking you to defend your position of "objective morality" are not asking you for the answers to lifes questions. We are not appealing to your authority.

We are simply asking you to explain your position. This is not an obscure position either. It is the argument you pull out of the air EVERY time we have this debate. You pretend it settles the issue, but you don't even explain what it means.

99 I know you are more honest than this. I know you don't believe asking you to defend your stance is unreasonable. Humor us less enlightened folk.

theyeti

Okay, I'll try to make this short:

Yes, but this ignores the central issue of whose paying them. The loyalty of the police or military will reside with whomever holds the purse strings; if it's the state, then they're loyal to the state. If it's Bill Gates, then they're loyal to Bill Gates. The important part is that we can only protect Democracy if the power of the enforcement agencies are in the hands of the people as a whole, and not just a handful of wealthy individuals. I think you agree with me on this, which is why I don't think it's worth belaboring the issue.

Okay, I realize that we can disagree with how much is enough. I don't think that 1%, even being 100 billion dollars, would be enough. But I also think it's legitimate and a good idea for the government to do other things.

The reason why libertarians often tends towards anarcho-captitalism is because they see it as a violation of their rights for the government to enact taxes and perform certain functions. This usually starts out with welfare or other common government functions, but when you start to argue that the government should have no right to perform these duties, there's no reason why it should have a "right" to perform any other duty. Thus, the slippery slope towards anarchy. Once you agree that the government can do some of these things, there is no longer some sort of an absolute barrier that the government can't cross, and it becomes a matter of pragmatism rather than strict ideology. As long as you concede that the government can force you to pay taxes for the police and military, I am no longer convinced by an "in principle" argument that it can't force you to pay taxes for other reasons. You may think it's a bad idea, but it's no different in principle than taxing you for a function that you agree is legitimate.

I see no reason why private security companies should take over any duties of the police, except simple deterance. I would not entrust them with the ability to arrest or enforce the law, because they were not created by and are not controled by any law making body. It's also a bad idea for practical reasons to have opposing camps of armed hooligans in charge of public security, so I don't see how this would make the job of the state-run police any easier. Best to let private companies hire security guards who do not have any special priviledges under the law, and then let the real police enforce the law. Like we do now.

No, the voters can change the Constitution at any time if there is a large enough supramajority. It would make little sense to me to follow a Constitution that did not allow for change under certain circumstances. If we did have such a case -- for example if we could never allow women or minorities the right to vote -- we would be justified in revolting and demanding a new Constitution. As it is, the Constitution has survived because it can change to reflect changing people, though fortunately it's not easy to change it.

I really don't understand where this Constitution-worship comes from. I think the Constitution is great and all, but ultimately it means no more than we say it means. As I see it, the ultimate arbiter of law is physical force. People choose to invest the ulitmate physical force in a government which is elected by the voters, because the alternative is to let whichever individual can wield the most force be the law giver. (These are called dictatorships or monarchies.) The Constitution is merely a guideline for how this people-elected government is supposed to work. It can be changed at any time if the voters no longer like it, or if an outside force is strong enough to override the US government. It could also be changed if a force from within the US were able to overcome the government, which is why we shouldn't let individuals gain too much power.

This has nothing to do with my argument that it's who pays the military that's important. I'm assuming that soldiers will always follow their leaders; it's who the leaders are that matters.

Um, I'm not sure what you're refering to. The "citizens" never paid for Roman armies as far as I know. They may have in the early days, but since every male citizen had to serve in the army back then, it's kind of the same thing. After awhile, when Rome had already been very sucessful militarily, armies were raised by generals and these went of on missions of conquest in the name of Rome. The army was paid by their general with the spoils of their conquests, and hence their loyalty resided with their general, and not with Rome. One particularly good general (and brave individualist) by the name of Julius decided that he would march his army into Rome despite the protests of the Senate (those horrible statists), and his army did what he asked because they were loyal to him and not to the Senate. So Julius crossed the Rubicon and civil war ensued, which Julius won, making him the first de facto Emperor. (And as everyone knows, his nephew Augustus became the first real Emperor after winning the civil war that erupted upon Julius' death.) The Emperors were autocratic, and ruled however they pleased, with an iron fist and with however many rules they thought necessary. The empire flourished for many centuries before "collapse", despite the fact that the "government" was quite large and powerful.

In fact, one could say that the government was never really involved at all, because the Emperor could just be considered a private citizen with his own police and military force. He just happened to be a private citizen who owned all of the property in the empire, so anyone staying on his land had to do what he said, including paying rent (aka taxes). The people were not more free than they were when the evil Statist Republic was in charge, but at least they knew who was running things. This is what I see as the main fault of libertarianism writ large: there is nothing stopping a private citizen like Julius Ceasar from taking over the normal functions of the existing state if he has enough power to do so, and when he takes this power for himself, there is no reason to expect him to be as fair and equitable as a state elected by the majority of the people would be.

The government is always an extension of the will of private citizens; it's just a matter of which private citizens it represents. In a democracy, it represents all of the citizens that have the right to vote. In an empire, it represents just one person.

I agree with the first part, but again, the Constitution means nothing if there is no one enforcing it. It's just another kind of law. The law didn't stop Ceasar, and numerous Constitutions around the globe have been extinguished by ambitious generals like him. So since the ones doing the enforcing do matter, it matters greatly whether the police and military are public or private.

Well, you might "believe" it, and it seems that most libertarians do, but there is no evidence that this would be the case. Taxation has little if any correlation to economic growth, and pretentions otherwise by supply-siders have only resulted in a massive public debt. This is largely a separate issue, but it is true that libertarians deflect a lot of criticism by claiming that we will suddenly be several times richer by eliminating taxation and regulation, so therefore private donations will be able to overcome missing government aid to the poor and such. It's a pipe-dream. There's no reason to think that the economy will improve that much at all, and there is in fact reason to think that it will become less efficient with missing govenrment infrastructure and the duplication of services required by privatizing everything. For example, everyone owning their own police force.

The point is that the authority of the founding fathers or the Constitution are not enough to support libertarianism. You have to provide good reasons. Objective morality isn't enough either. I disagree that there is such a thing (and by the very act of disagreeing I have demonstrated that there isn't such a thing). People will have differences of opinion, and we have a system of majority rule because it's the only way to make sure that the greatest number of people get their way. If the majority decide that it's in the best interests to remove the apparatus of government, then that's what we'll get. Generally speaking, the only people who benefit from that constitute a minority of elite interests who have the power to control these functions themselves. The people are not best served by rampant privatization, but that's another argument.

I'd say that's precisely what we've done. But libertarians don't like it for some reason.

Yes, I agree. The important thing is to make sure that it's the democratically elected government that's paying them and not private individuals. I think you agree with me, but you keep bringing up the Constitution as if that alone is enough to keep the military in check.

How on Earth do you rationalize that? Does this magic document have the power to stop bullets? Does it ward off evil-doers like garlic wards off vampires or something? Of course it's the government that protects us. Do you really think that if we dissolved the government completely that somehow we would not descend into anarchy just because the document was still around? That criminals would be detered by the Constitution (that they probably haven't read) even in the complete absence of the police?

Yes, separation of powers is how we keep any one individual (or close-knit group of individuals) from stealing the reigns of the state and defying the will of the majority. But that's a separate issue entirely from how many functions the state carries out. Again, if you can find any part of the Constitution (which was not ammended later) that limits the growth of government, then point it out. Then you would have a legal argument against government growth. It wouldn't mean that it was right. It would just mean that if we wanted things differently, we would have to ammend the Constituion to do so. Again, the will of the majority always triumphs in a democracy. You don't have to like it, but you do have to abide by it.

You must be thinking of a different Roman Empire than the one I'm thinking of. The government of the Empire was quite huge, and its growth was not what caused the "collapse" of the Empire. (It's actually somewhat of a misconception that it collapsed at all. It really just evolved, quite slowly, into something else.) This was due partly to corruption (which is the result of the form of government they had), to invading barbarians, to local rebellions, and to the inability of the state to protect trade routes. Mostly it was due to military loss at the hands of invading Germanic and Asiatic tribes.

The Dark Ages that followed were bad because there was anarchy and no government to keep the peace. The feudal system that followed is exactly what you'd expect from a purely libertarian society, where each person is his own lord or lady and lives in a walled compound cutting off the rest of the world. Except for the vast majority of people who can't build and defend their own compound, so they have to live on someone else's land. And since property rights were absolute, the lords and ladies treated their tenents like slaves. This is the promise of anarcho-captialism.

Huh? The economy is merely a means of creating power. Power is the ability to do things, and money is merely a symbol of that ability. In our society, there is a limit on the kind of power that can be created though economic sucess, such as the power to use force, but only because we've set up a system of government that says so. We've determined that only the will of the majority can do that. In a libertarian society, there would be no difference between economic and political power.

No, there is not a clear difference. There is only a difference within the current system of government that we've set up. In a different system of government, there would less difference or no difference. IMO, there isn't enough difference as it is, because money has too much control over both popular opinion and the political process.

Economic power is no less forceful than any other kind of power. It's always backed up by the power of the state. Money is worth goods and services because the government says so. People have to honor contracts because the government says so. People have to stay off the property you bought because the government says so. The only way to make other people recognize your economic power is through the force of government, or some other kind of force (which you would call political).

That is impossible. There can be no economic power without political power backing it up. Naturally, it's the political power that decides what can constitute economic power and what can't. There was a time when economic power included owning another human being and forcing him to do what you wanted. Then the political powers that were in place took away that economic power. There is only a deliniation because we've made one.

False dichotomy.

theyeti

[edited to fix bad formatting]

Thomas Ash

Well, I'm glad you agree that it's not perfect. Of course, a libertarian society would in practice be even less perfect, as the majority of people who didn't swim so well in a fish-eat-fish world would in practice have less freedom.
:boohoo:
But I do think the libertarians have a point in that the way in which decisions are forced on people in a democracy is still a shame, and it's important to try and give people as much freedom as possible without it resulting in overly bad consequences.