why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[WizardofOz]

BTW - can we take this to a new thread? OP is a nut.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do think it is wrong to compare what we are used to; as a given; and only critique what you or anyone for that matter consider to be anarchy in a serious manner. In other words, we need to discuss the merits of both systems. Basically start at a ground zero.

We in agreement thus far?

Not really. I know how our current system works, and how it doesn't too, so I'm not really interested in exploring or debating that. I'm interested in how this hypothetical libertarian system would work.

 

[Jose Fly]

The government. I can never argue in favor of actual anarchy because of hypotheticals like the ones you are presenting. There will always be a need for a neutral/objective arbitrator.

Ok.

Fines.Your tire burning and waste dumping would impede on the free use of the land owned by those around you. If it were shown that your use of your land was decreasing the value of your neighbors land, hurting their health, etc. the free market dictates that you make them whole. This would be enforced by fining you and those proceeds should go to land owners who's land value, health, well-being is being negatively affected by your actions.

I dispute that my activities are harming my neighbors. Who decides?

I would still have both, yes. Much of this could be self-sufficient or funded voluntarily by local residences and businesses.

Do people and businesses who don't fund this government get to enjoy its benefits? Can you envision how under that system, since I'm making loads of money with my tire burning and nuclear waste storage business, I can basically buy my own gov't and have it decide in my favor?

Even under our current system we see that the biggest contributors of money tend to get what they want. But under your voluntary system, that is likely to be even more so.

I think it could easily be proven that you actions are harmful to your neighbors.

I use my money to pay my own gov't "experts" who say there's no direct evidence that my actions are harming my neighbors. And I'm the richest guy in town who "voluntarily" pays the most to the gov't by far. So if they shut me down, it's very likely the gov't will be severely affected.

We know how people work, and we know how money influences gov'ts. IMO, the system you describe only worsens that effect and basically institutionalizes a gov't for the highest bidder.

 

[WizardofOz]

The government. I can never argue in favor of actual anarchy because of hypotheticals like the ones you are presenting. There will always be a need for a neutral/objective arbitrator.

Ok.

Fines.Your tire burning and waste dumping would impede on the free use of the land owned by those around you. If it were shown that your use of your land was decreasing the value of your neighbors land, hurting their health, etc. the free market dictates that you make them whole. This would be enforced by fining you and those proceeds should go to land owners who's land value, health, well-being is being negatively affected by your actions.

I dispute that my activities are harming my neighbors. Who decides?

:liberals:
The neutral arbitrator that I just alluded to ^

Do people and businesses who don't fund this government get to enjoy its benefits?

Yes, of course. A police force would be for the benefit of all and not just who can afford their services.

Can you envision how under that system, since I'm making loads of money with my tire burning and nuclear waste storage business, I can basically buy my own gov't and have it decide in my favor?

It wouldn't be any easier or more difficult to bribe lawmakers than it is now.

Even under our current system we see that the biggest contributors of money tend to get what they want. But under your voluntary system, that is likely to be even more so.

If local governments had the autonomy then it would be easier to replace corrupt officials. A vote would hold quite a bit more weight than voting for senators, etc that go to D.C. and stop listening to their constituents.

So, no; when combined with local autonomy, I think there would be less corruption and it would be easier to root out the corrupt if and when corruption happens.

If the neutral arbitrator isn't neutral then they shouldn't hold that position. This may actually be an example of where privatization would be better. If a arbitrator is in the business of being neutral and are then bribed no one would hire them. They would rely heavily on their reputation.

Also, it would make bribing more difficult as it may not be obvious who should be targeted with the bribe.

I use my money to pay my own gov't "experts" who say there's no direct evidence that my actions are harming my neighbors. And I'm the richest guy in town who "voluntarily" pays the most to the gov't by far. So if they shut me down, it's very likely the gov't will be severely affected.

If your neighbor can show evidence of detriment you're "experts" would be nullified or otherwise unnecessary.

This is one aspect that wouldn't change much at all from the current system. Civil suits would solve these problems just like they do now and the privileged would have just as much chance of bribery as they do now.

Human nature and all.

If you decide that the funding slows or stops then so do the services that you enjoy.

We know how people work, and we know how money influences gov'ts. IMO, the system you describe only worsens that effect and basically institutionalizes a gov't for the highest bidder.

"institutionalizes a gov't for the highest bidder"? You're only describing the status quo.

 

[drbrumley]

BTW - can we take this to a new thread? OP is a nut.

That's probably a good idea

 

[The Barbarian]

The only issue here is that historically, local governments have been much more corruptible and likely to oppress the weak.

This is why the norm is for local magnates to oppose central government, and for the peasants and small merchants to support it.

 

[WizardofOz]

The only issue here is that historically, local governments have been much more corruptible and likely to oppress the weak.

This is why the norm is for local magnates to oppose central government, and for the peasants and small merchants to support it.

I somewhat disagree only in that replacing a corrupt officials would be much easier a task at the local level.

Local government systems are often as corrupt and dangerous for the locals as the federal government is for us all; evil and corruption can exist on any scale. At least the local government of a small town back East is unlikely to harm me here on the other side of the continent, so the maxim that small government is preferable to large government makes sense. Thoreau was right, however, when he said (in Civil Disobedience) "that government is best which governs not at all." link

 

[WizardofOz]

BTW - can we take this to a new thread?

That's probably a good idea

New thread here

 

[Jose Fly]

The neutral arbitrator that I just alluded to

How neutral can he be if his job is completely dependent on voluntary contributions?

Yes, of course. A police force would be for the benefit of all and not just who can afford their services.

How then are freeloaders discouraged?

It wouldn't be any easier or more difficult to bribe lawmakers than it is now.

It would be immensely easier under your system. At least the current system is supposed to be objective, where everyone pays a certain percentage of their income towards the system no matter who they are.

But in your system, one person can fund the entire thing thereby making that system beholden to him. And since it's voluntary, the biggest contributors can always threaten to withhold their contributions if things don't go their way. And with absolutely no penalty for doing that, the gov't officials know very well that if they piss off the wrong people, they'll be out of a job.

If local governments had the autonomy then it would be easier to replace corrupt officials. A vote would hold quite a bit more weight than voting for senators, etc that go to D.C. and stop listening to their constituents.

But they don't have autonomy. They are entirely beholden to the largest contributors. They know if they piss them off, they'll withhold their contributions.

So, no; when combined with local autonomy, I think there would be less corruption and it would be easier to root out the corrupt if and when corruption happens.

I have no idea how you think that could be the case at all.

If the neutral arbitrator isn't neutral then they shouldn't hold that position. This may actually be an example of where privatization would be better. If a arbitrator is in the business of being neutral and are then bribed no one would hire them. They would rely heavily on their reputation.

So you would have a court system for hire? You don't see any problems with that?

Also, it would make bribing more difficult as it may not be obvious who should be targeted with the bribe.

?????????????? Under your system, there's no need for any sort of bribe. I'm the richest guy in town and I can just decide to withhold my contributions if things don't go my way. I mean, why would I pay for a gov't that rules against me? And there's absolutely no penalty for me doing that.

Your system basically takes the negative influence of money of our current system and makes it a central feature.

If your neighbor can show evidence of detriment you're "experts" would be nullified or otherwise unnecessary.

Nope. I say your experts are biased and are just doing what you've paid them to do.

This is one aspect that wouldn't change much at all from the current system. Civil suits would solve these problems just like they do now and the privileged would have just as much chance of bribery as they do now.

No, your system makes bribery unnecessary since it allows me to directly purchase the gov't I want, with no penalty for doing so. I'm actually quite incentivized to do that.

If you decide that the funding slows or stops then so do the services that you enjoy.

But I can just buy a new gov't.

"institutionalizes a gov't for the highest bidder"? You're only describing the status quo.

And your system turns that bug and makes it a central feature.

 

[resodko]

:doh:

there's always one guy who doesn't read the memo

 

[quip]

For the average working stiff - such as myself - how would my life improve (as compared to the current status quo) via full implementation of free-market policies?

Notice: I lean toward Jose's mode of skepticism.

 

[resodko]

to start with, you wouldn't have to worry as much about being kidnapped



:think:
except by real kidnappers, 'cause there'd be no police to stop them

 

[WizardofOz]

How neutral can he be if his job is completely dependent on voluntary contributions?

I didn't say completely dependent. The state can still secure public funds that would be utilized to pay for certain services.

If you were an arbitrator and your livelihood depending on being objective and unbiased, would you accept a bribe? :think:

I prefer a limited government of public servants over the current system that results in public overlords.

How then are freeloaders discouraged?

Plenty of people don't pay a dime in taxes and still utilize police services. No system of public law enforcement discourages "freeloaders".

It would be immensely easier under your system. At least the current system is supposed to be objective, where everyone pays a certain percentage of their income towards the system no matter who they are.

Not everyone pays a percentage of their income. :nono:

Not by a long shot. Freeloaders indeed. Do you think everyone should pay a certain percentage of their income towards the system?

But in your system, one person can fund the entire thing thereby making that system beholden to him.

Funding a public service doesn't grant control over that service.

And since it's voluntary, the biggest contributors can always threaten to withhold their contributions if things don't go their way. And with absolutely no penalty for doing that, the gov't officials know very well that if they piss off the wrong people, they'll be out of a job.

Votes would count more than the dollar and with local autonomy votes would actually count for something.

But they don't have autonomy.

Apart from larger governing bodies, they would.

They are entirely beholden to the largest contributors. They know if they piss them off, they'll withhold their contributions.

And that person will be voted out of their job if they are viewed as corrupt.

But again, you're only describing the system we have now.

I have no idea how you think that could be the case at all.

See above about votes and the power of the individual. Local government would have more autonomy and therefore the individual vote would have more influence over policy, which should be made at a local level.

So you would have a court system for hire? You don't see any problems with that?

I can see both sides of this debate. A private arbitrator would go out of business if they were corrupt.

Since I do support limited government, however, unbiased arbitration would still be one of their duties.

Just as it is now.

?????????????? Under your system, there's no need for any sort of bribe. I'm the richest guy in town and I can just decide to withhold my contributions if things don't go my way. I mean, why would I pay for a gov't that rules against me? And there's absolutely no penalty for me doing that.

Sure there is. You would lose the services that you would otherwise enjoy. And no, I don't buy that money would be more powerful than the vote. Once the corrupt official is voted out of office they lose anyway.

Again, would you accept the bribe?

Your system basically takes the negative influence of money of our current system and makes it a central feature.

It's a democratic system just as it is now.

Nope. I say your experts are biased and are just doing what you've paid them to do.

Hence the need for a neutral arbitrator.

Are you going to allow tire burning and nuclear waste dumping if you're an arbitrator?

No, your system makes bribery unnecessary since it allows me to directly purchase the gov't I want, with no penalty for doing so. I'm actually quite incentivized to do that.

Volunteering to fund =/= buying influence

At least no more than it is now.

But I can just buy a new gov't.

The voters decide who represents them.

I'm done with this thread. Let's take it here

 

[aikido7]

This is very strange to me, but then liberals are strange

They always take the side of the evil ones in any discussion

The conservatives take the side of the (true) victims, such as

911 victims. The liberals, on the other hand, say that we should "empathize with our enemies" the terrorists.

HUH? What? :dizzy::dizzy:

and of course, we shouldn't slam the poor dears against the wall or put them in coffins with bugs or waterboard them, even though no one has DIED from those "torture" methods. 911 victims actually died, but that doesn't seem to phaze these people (using the term loosely).

When an abortionist is shot, which unfortunately does not happen very often (OK, ok...), the liberals are just SOOO distraught over this poor man's death, and, as is the MO, totally forget about the babies he has been butchering on a daily basis.

Hey, it was mutilation and murder for a good cause (women like Jillian do not want to mess up their bodies by having... Yikes! Children). So, abortionists are heroes :dizzy:



++

Sorry to be so blunt. I see your premise here as immature and ignorant. To say that anyone does anything ALL THE TIME or ALWAYS can easily be refuted in a variety of one-sentence proofs.

republicanchick, if people used better communication skills, we would have a lot less grief to deal with!

 

[Ktoyou]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Then John Kenneth Galbraith is a weirdo and a :loser:

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Liberals side with the world rather then God, that's why they always seem to 'take the side of the vile'- that's exactly what liberalism stands for.

For liberal Christians even, liberal ideology trumps their Christianity-if made to choose between the two, they will go with liberalism. To avoid this, they simply try to make them synonymous to each other, which is ironically impossible to do and not hard to see but nonetheless gets by on public appeal.

 

[Town Heretic]

Liberals side with the world rather then God, that's why they always seem to 'take the side of the vile'- that's exactly what liberalism stands for.

For liberal Christians even, liberal ideology trumps their Christianity-if made to choose between the two, they will go with liberalism. To avoid this, they simply try to make them synonymous to each other.

Yes, yes, all conservatives are heartless hoarders and all liberals are godless ...it's a wonder there are any Christians at all.

Thank God for moderates then. lain:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, yes, all conservatives are heartless hoarders and all liberals are godless ...it's a wonder there are any Christians at all.

Thank God for moderates then. lain:

Moderates are spineless

 

[oatmeal]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/conservative.html#cPkJKGgm35dvWoQP.99

Conservatives, in general, are generous people. They give of themselves to benefit others, they do not wait for a government program to tax them, they give from the heart, because it is more blessed to give than to receive.

 

[alwight]

Conservatives, in general, are generous people. They give of themselves to benefit others, they do not wait for a government program to tax them, they give from the heart, because it is more blessed to give than to receive.

How dare liberals take away their opportunity to be more blessed? lain: