And that, my liberal friend, is exactly why private individuals should solve problems and not the government.
^Government reflects the policy views of private individuals and therefore is a legitimate party to any problem even going by your worldview.
So if over 50% of people decide that slavery should be legal, you accept that based on the policy reflecting the popular view? Under that statist mindset the government can do no wrong, it’s merely just representing the popular view.
^That’s not what I said. I don’t think you have the horsepower to discuss this issue. And while we’re at it, slavery was ended by government diktat, not the free market deciding that slavery was wrong.
There’s no way you can actually believe this. At most, government reflects the views of the majority. What about the 49% that didn’t want a certain policy? Screw them, right?
But, I could lay down a good arguement that the government doesn’t even come close to reflecting the views of the majority either. However, since (I thought) this was common knowledge, I won’t waste my time.
Sidebar: Palantir, what’s up with you? It’s like that movie where Brad Pitt ages backwards. You seem to get more ignorant the more you post.
And I can never understand why people have such faith in the government.
If I have to choose which one to place faith in, I choose the invisible hand.
edit - Sweep beat me to it. Darn.
Unfortunately, this crazy shit won’t, and hasn’t stayed at the state level. If that were the case, the republic would have a chance. Fifty choices far better than one choice. How does anyone argue with that unless they have dreams of domination? Let the drum beat begin. It’s not going to be pretty.
318.9 million choices are far better than 50 choices. #freedom
/\ Not disagreeing, but the constitution did a lot to limit federal powers. States have a little more standing by design.
the thing i like the most about libertarians is that they actively support the loss of freedom. where do you think the U.S. would stand in the world today if it weren’t for a publically organized military over the past 100 years and today? do you think you really would have been able to assemble an unpaid militia that was sizable enough to fight in most of the wars of the 20th century. how about today? would you be okay with no enlisted men while china has over 1 million?
the government steps in when the private sector won’t or can’t. government should assemble and maintain a military. government should guide health policy. government should make sure people don’t starve to death. all government policy is derived from these three “government shoulds”.
you are allowed to be mad about how inefficient the government practices are, but you can’t be mad about the government’s mandate which is to protect their citizens from foreign and domestic enemies, including themselves. the economic system we have creates negative externalities. both the private and public sector are partly responsible for these externalities but only the public sector can take on negative NPV projects. the system is an enemy of the lower class and undereductated. the system is an enemy of a woman’s biology. steps should be taken to equalize the field.
Libertarians debate the roll of the military all the time. That’s a tough one to get around. The rest of your “shoulds” are wrong. The government does not need to guide healthcare, and it should let people starve (I could probably word that to sound more sympathetic, but I’m not). Those two issues are things private citizens/companies/charities can take care of.
To dive into the roll of the military though, Libertarians believe in a strong military. We’re just - for the most part - isolationists. We don’t want to police the world. Just stay home and make sure no one bothers us. Another good Libertarian debate came after 9/11. Even after that, many Libertarians didn’t want to go to war.
And you are why America came to be. Unfortunately, we are drifting into your arms. The feds should take care of national defense and regulate interstate commerce. We are stronger if that is the case. The rest was left to the states. This is the point most foreigners don’t understand. Most of these debates should not be happening at the federal level. Even if I want socialized medicine, and regulated wages, it should be the states that take care of it. Romney was not a hypocrite. He understood the constitution. The founders understood that if you force too many rules on all the people, the union would be in jeopardy. The governors should be kept as close to the people as possible. We were meant to have choices. At least fifty in present times. Keep your idea of how the system should operate on your side of the border. Thanks. Maybe it’s a mental disorder or a belief that your idea of what is right should be imposed on everyone. What country do you think the rest of the world should emulate?
I’m fairly confident that during the 20th century, if we didn’t get involved in those wars, we’d be just fine. Furthermore, if we had 0 enlisted while China had millions, I’d be fine with that as well. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ignorant to some of the benefits government has provided, but at what cost. Society today, in my view, could do without a government much more easily than in the past due to the vast number of services available throughout the world (even though my moral argument against government still stands). It’s a shame we’re heading in the opposite direction.
Agreed w/ STL, healthcare is not a “right”. If you say it is, you’re essentially claiming that you have more of the right to a doctor’s labor than that doctor. Also, throughout history, medical care has always been available in some form even for the poor. Charitable giving increases with both wealth and reduced government intervention.
Liechtenstein. Mauritius. Petoria.
So if the working mom or dad gets these handouts, what does the stay-at-home parent get, the retired parent, the student parent, the unemployed parent, the welfare parent or the non-parent. Taxes should be proportional and benefits should be blind and absolute, except in cases of disability. Always amazes me how undeveloped intellectually most social program proposals are. Brings me back to the mental disorder explanation.
it’s funny that you guys would even consider the U.S. a society based on your worldview. society values life and deters death. if everyone living in a society values life, which they do because they’re living, society should support life. like someone said, government should advocate for the collective will, especially where the individual will is failing. also, the fact that people, particularly libertarians, see charity and the government as different being is bonkers. you’re born into this society and thus must support its objectives. you can be pro-death all you want but that will not deter the collective will. also, the fact that you think you earn money and have a right to your money is bonkers. you only earn money within a system that can take the money back whenever it wants. your salary is charity, unless you’re in the 0.0000001%, at which point you are the donor.
botoom line. you don’t own the land, the government does. as much as you want to think private rights matter most, it is the collective that will take it away if you don’t play ball. that is why the government should always push the mandate of the majority because the majority will get what they want at the end of the day anyway. there’s your invisible hand.
so long as we share a single asset, the collective mindset will reign. sorry to break it to you but the U.S. will be like Europe today in 50 years. when all of the jobless or oil-working conservatives in the mid-west and south of this generation die-off, the coasts will vote for collectivism.
EDIT: nobody wants to seem like a dick for saying he’s okay with the homeless guy dying because you’re too stingy to be taxed an extra $0.01 to feed him.
How old are you MLA? You think our homeless would die of starvation without federal government intervention? You must be a troll or just really ignorant when it comes to the American people. I’m thinking troll. Fair enough. I bit, but I’m done.
that was a side point. i see you didn’t attempt to explain how your individualistic mentality is compatible with a collectivist society. how old are you?
I am motivated by my own needs. To satisfy my needs, I need profit. To make the most profit, and therefore satisy my many needs, I need to provide value to someone. This mutually beneficial arrangement is called a trade. Many trades make up a market. Me, adding value to many people, is satisfying the collective desires of others. And look! We didn’t even need the state to tell us how!
And I also note that you have never (to my recollection) attempted to refute my assertion that mandatory benefits for maternity leave will increase unemployment, decrease business activity, or both. You merely talked about your feelings, or “societal benefits” or “it takes a village” or some crap like that.
Edit - and for the record, I’m 36.