Why I'm Not 100% Libertarian Anymore

[turbo6bar]

I think snowman is alluding to personal responsibility being overridden. Should personal freedoms be dispelled in society's best interests?

We should constantly evalute "the line."

[stevepaa]

No, I think snowman will truly crawl from his wrecked car, call his doctor, arrange for an appointment next week, and then stagger home to die.

Yessiree, a truly independent self reliant person like that don't need no societal help any time at all.

[snowman]

If I were to become the "slave" of the person or group that "saved" me, yes I would reject that "help" , no matter the consequences. Just because I help someone in need does not give me any right to expect anything in return. I help others because I want to, nothing is expected in return, thats the american way. If you were an american you would understand. If you are a socialist you just want to get a hook in someone to control them.

[stevepaa]

Huh?
And how does that jibe with your need for societal help that you do use?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
No, I think snowman will truly crawl from his wrecked car, call his doctor, arrange for an appointment next week, and then stagger home to die.

Yessiree, a truly independent self reliant person like that don't need no societal help any time at all.

Aaren't you just a bit confused?

You're juxtaposing government in place with the citizenry of society. There's no rejection of human interaction or cooperation implied by ridding ourselves of all or most of government. In fact, just the opposite. It means we've devised methods of cooperating voluntarily and rejected coercion as a method.

[snowman]

One of the few times I agree with Pat.

[stevepaa]

No, I am not confused. I understand what you want. Sort of a communal heaven on earth. I think I read a farm book on that concept.

My point is that if you don't want what government/society provides by means of taxes (your implied coercion), then who provides emergency services. So, you go volunteer police, fire, ambulance.

No thank you.

Mosy of us understand that the way we have decided to act together to fulfill the needs of others is by taxes.

[snowman]

Taxes are fine with me, its just I do not owe you or anyone else ANYTHING in return for your largess.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
No, I am not confused. I understand what you want. Sort of a communal heaven on earth. I think I read a farm book on that concept.

Progressive Farmer?

My point is that if you don't want what government/society provides by means of taxes (your implied coercion), then who provides emergency services. So, you go volunteer police, fire, ambulance.

Private police, a service that must respond to the individuals that pay for it, unlike government police; is one of the fastest growing businesses in America. There is no reason that fire protection could not function precisely in the same manner.

I have private garbage collection. If I don't like their service, I have two others from which to choose.

It's not my fault that you can't imagine obtaining things you want without coercion.

No thank you.

Well, you see, eventually I will win; so get used to it.

Mosy of us understand that the way we have decided to act together to fulfill the needs of others is by taxes.

Taxes are theft, plain and simple. You want things, and have gathered together with enough others that want free or low (to them) cost things and have authorized men with guns to take property from those that have it and buy the things you don't want to pay for.

You're a thief.

[ChrisBennet]

Perhaps one of you could offer an example of where this sort of purely Libertarian arrangement has been successful.
How did it say keep mercury and pesticides out of the drinking water?
How did it handle/finance things like prisons and sewage systems?
-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
Perhaps one of you could offer an example of where this sort of purely Libertarian arrangement has been successful.

I just did, above.

How did it say keep mercury and pesticides out of the drinking water?

The same way it's kept out now, lawsuit for damages. You don't really thing government does that job, do you? Government is one of trhe worst polluters in America.

How did it handle/finance things like prisons and sewage systems?
-Chris

So, because I insist on you paying your way, I'm required to furnish you with methods that don't rely on theft too? You're not supplying me with methods to fund my own needs and desires, so, no, that's not the way it works. You must figure this out for yourself.

No thievery.

[ChrisBennet]

Pat,
I was thinking of an example of an example larger Libertarian arrangement than the one you have with your trash collection agency i.e. the sort of arrangement you'd like.

You know, something like a town that didn't depend on "thievery" for it's operation.

BTW, did you ever consider that the reason that you have more than one garbage collection agency to choose from might be because big bad government had jailed the gangsters that would have made it a monopoly?

Replying that "Just because you can't imaging a perpetual motion machine, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. You'll have to figure it out on your own." isn't a very convincing argument for p.m. - or pure Libertarianism.

-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
Pat,
I was thinking of an example of an example larger Libertarian arrangement than the one you have with your trash collection agency i.e. the sort of arrangement you'd like.

You know, something like a town that didn't depend on "thievery" for it's operation.

There were a number of towns like that you wish to know about during the western settlement of the US. It's unfortunate that when the safety level of those towns became well known, they were much safer than the cities in the east, easterners moved west and moved their political baggage with them and eliminated most of the old cooperative arrangements in favor of what they had left and what most have today; dangerous armed governments based on graft and thievery.

BTW, did you ever consider that the reason that you have more than one garbage collection agency to choose from might be because big bad government had jailed the gangsters that would have made it a monopoly?

Not only did I not consider that, the precise opposite is true. Most local governments eliminate competition and establish monopolies for such services. Where did you learn such nonsense?

Replying that "Just because you can't imaging a perpetual motion machine, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. You'll have to figure it out on your own." isn't a very convincing argument for p.m. - or pure Libertarianism.

-Chris

What you, and others before you, want is for me to hand you a master plan and some method of setting it in motion, so that you can visit and verify it functions to your personal satisfaction. That's not going to happen. You, and others, also demand that it function perfectly, free from the slightest defect; before you'll agree to abandon your band of government thieves. That's not going to happen either.

You already accept a federal government that functions no better than the worst charities, consuming approximately 80% of taxes taken in before providing the slightest good or service; why should I respect your demand for me to show you a perfect system that functions by cooperative arrangement?

I'm not offering utopia; I'm offering you freedom of choice without violence being initiated to get what you want.

It's up to you to choose to be ethical and moral.

[ChrisBennet]

There were a number of towns like that you wish to know about during the western settlement of the US. It's unfortunate that when the safety level of those towns became well known, they were much safer than the cities in the east, easterners moved west and moved their political baggage with them and eliminated most of the old cooperative arrangements in favor of what they had left and what most have today; dangerous armed governments based on graft and thievery.

Some of my own state's (NH) low crime rate could be attributed to gun ownership but realistically, I think population density has a much bigger effect on crime rates.

Lots of forms of self governance will "work" when another larger external government insulates them from the greater reality. The Quakers have their world within a world for example.

Not only did I not consider that, the precise opposite is true. Most local governments eliminate competition and establish monopolies for such services. Where did you learn such nonsense?

I thought it was public knowledge. Google "trash organized crime"
How To Run the Mob Out of Gotham in the Winter 2001 City Journal describes the problems of mob controlled garbage collection business and what was done to break their control. Granted, they were pretty slow getting around to it.

As long as asking for even a flawed example of your utopian form of government is too much to ask, people like myself are going to reject replacing our current seriously flawed but still best in the world form government.

-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
Some of my own state's (NH) low crime rate could be attributed to gun ownership but realistically, I think population density has a much bigger effect on crime rates.

Culture is the biggest factor influencing crime rates.

Lots of forms of self governance will "work" when another larger external government insulates them from the greater reality. The Quakers have their world within a world for example.

You know this, how, exactly?

I thought it was public knowledge. Google "trash organized crime"
How To Run the Mob Out of Gotham in the Winter 2001 City Journal describes the problems of mob controlled garbage collection business and what was done to break their control. Granted, they were pretty slow getting around to it.

Again, culture is the biggest factor affecting crime. If you have a culture in which crime is tolerated, then you get the above. This is a truth anywhere on earth.

As long as asking for even a flawed example of your utopian form of government is too much to ask, people like myself are going to reject replacing our current seriously flawed but still best in the world form government.

-Chris

Again, you've asked for something to be spoon fed to you. That's not going to happen; from me, or nearly any other practicing libertarian.

[snowman]

Pat,
Your ideas are just plain nuts.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by snowman
Pat,
Your ideas are just plain nuts.

Translation: Snowman doesn't understand the ideas, therefore must disparage the unknown.

Ignorance can be cured, will you seek the cure?

[ChrisBennet]

Pat,
I'm going to have to agree with Snowman on this one. You seem very intelligent (in a Ted Kazinski sort of way) but the way you present Libertarianism makes Libertarians sound like crackpots. I'm not saying Libertarians are, just that you make them seem that way to me.

-Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
Pat,
I'm going to have to agree with Snowman on this one. You seem very intelligent (in a Ted Kazinski sort of way)

Out of my Non initiation of force against another human you got the notion that I might blow people up. Who did you say is the crack pot here?

but the way you present Libertarianism makes Libertarians sound like crackpots. I'm not saying Libertarians are, just that you make them seem that way to me.

-Chris

Again. I've presented some libertarian ideas, by no means all of them, and you've taken that to mean I'm crazy.

There are places full of people that act a bit like you; all of them point at everyone outside and call them crazy.

The truly interesting thing here is; libertarianism has been around a long time, has a rich body of information about the philosophy, has a very rich and robust group of people that adhere to it; and you haven't bothered, apparently, to discover any of it for yourself. Or to verify if I represent it, or am representing something else.

In fact, you don't even know if a single other person espouses the set of ideas I've presented here, or not.

In short, your statement here is utterly without merit or meaning.

[stevepaa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fastpat

There is no reason that fire protection could not function precisely in the same manner.
[QUOTE]

Sure there is. Suppose none of my my neighbors in the Oakland hills can afford fire protection, except me. So the fire protection services would only try to protect my house?
So as the firestorm begins, they cannot get to my house because of the danger. My house burns to the ground also. So, does the fire protection agency then have to rebuild my house?