Posted on 05/01/2002 9:09:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Sept. 11 might have also brought down a political movement.
The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal. Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated. The truth of this idea was vindicated by the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism in 1989, as well as by the performance of the American and British economies in the 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You must clarify which public good you are speaking of before we can discuss them. Public goods are characterised by indivisible consumption: once produced, it is impossible to exclude someone from consuming them.
Examples include protection (army), clean air, lighting in the streets, etc.
Person acting in their self-interest will never agree to pay for a public good, so these goods cannot be supplied through markets. In one sense, the government is a company that the public hires to produce public goods. It differs from other companies in that it has coercive power.
We have compulsory schoo... We, as a society, decide what knowledge is necessary, and that is what we require....I don't see it as an issue of liberty, because we are discussing minors...
I agree: this is coersion but acceptable one precisely because we are dealing with minors. This is different from the military service, to which people go when they reach majority.
Jokes aside, you have my respect for serving our country and for your attitude towards our armed forces.
Yes that is a very good philosophy and one that the vast majority of Conservatives embrace as well. So, whose philosophy is it? Actually it is not a philosophy at all, it is a set of shared goals among many people. Libertarianism is not a political movement either. It is a debating society that sets the terms of debate into a context that, if it existed, would be ideal. However, that context does not exist and never has. I see so many calls to "logic" on the libertarian side yet they have no concept of what it is. Logic is not a linear thought process UNLESS the condition it is being applied to is under the complete control of those applying it. I don't care how appealing a certain political philosophy is, if it can't stand up to practical application then it cannot work. There is NO political model on this planet that can do that and survive. Communism fell because it could not overcome the inherent drive in Human Beings to feel they were actually better than their peers. The moment you have more than 2 people in one place then you have a society and the vote is going to be 2 to 1 every time.
God what a dipstick. The 14th Amendment was the single largest power grab by the Feds in our history. BTW I spent a couple of days cleaning my guns. Have you dug yours up lately?
Here's how it works:
In the 1950's health insurance cost a few bucks per month. Charity hospitals and charity house calls were more common than they are today.
From 1950-2000 the federal government inflated the money supply, increased the tax burden, regulated health care, regulated hospitals, regulated doctors, regulated insurance, kept medicines off the market, and kept certain drugs illegal.
In 2000 health care that cost a few bucks in 1950 now costs several hundred dollars making it unaffordable for many. The number of charity hospitals and charity house calls are minuscule. Using deductive reasoning one can conclude that government regulation directed at the health care industry contributed to the increase in the cost of health care as well as the decrease in the amount of charity service.
Or it could be that in 1950 kids were still dying of polio. It could be that in 1950 there were NO cat-scans to discover cancer in time to save your life. It could be that in 1950 there were NO tests that identified birth defects that are now treated in the womb. I remember in 1950, I had my appendix taken out. I was hospitalized for a week. Your “deductive” reasoning left out the advances made, the costs of research for that advancement and the costs incurred because those that would have died in 1950 of certain conditions people with the same conditions are now living but require expensive care to do so. It could be that in 1950 there were very few medical malpractice suits. LOGIC my friend does NOT lend itself to your deductive reasoning.
No, I asserted that shootouts would have been preferable to crashing into the WTC. You didn't mention armed pilots once in the post I replied to. You mentioned passengers twice and airline travelers once. Clearly, your point was that armed passengers would have prevented the hijackings.
True, and the shootout would have. However, I also stated "Even if pilots [alone] were armed, it would still have been preferable, but that too was banned."
Now, just how are you going to allowing the arming of the passengers without also allowing the arming of the terrorists?
Citizenship tests, for one. Presentation of CCWs to the security guards, for another.
You're also trying to change the subject from the planes landing safely to preventing the destruction of the WTC. Two different subjects. Granted, a "bloody shootout" might have prevented the later, but it is unlikely to enhance safe landings.
Now you are being disingenuous. Shootouts don't "enhance safe landings" as you state, but a plane riddled with bullet holes and with a few casualties aboard, but otherwise intact, making an emergency landing at an airport sure beats crashing into the PA farmland, and vastly beats crashing into the WTC killing thousands.
As I've made clear in other posts, I have real difficulties in arming passengers simply from a safety point. I've seen too many instances of improper and unsafe gun handling to be comfortable with large numbers of armed passengers. Armed pilots are a different matter.
Well then, to make you feel better I guess we should just revoke the RKBA altogether. After all, I'm sure the million mommies have seen too many instances of improper and unsafe gun handling to be comfortable with large numbers of armed citizens. Armed police officers are a different matter.
Right?
Returning to the subject of Libertarianism and air travel, the free market solution would be to have some airlines allow carry and others not. Say, GunFree Airways, and Liberty Airlines. Which of these two do you suppose the terrorists would decide to hijack? Of course this would never happen because there are too many people like you who would prohibit Liberty Airlines from ever coming into existence, let alone be allowed to use government ("municipal") airports like JFK, DIA, and LAX. So, I guess we will never know.
Hey, you declined that textbook recommendation I offered, but now you've gone and got all fancy talking on me anyway. You haven't been coming in here to sneak a peek at my bookshelves, have you? ;)
FWIW, I don't think you need it anyway ;)
In any case the constitution became a much more libertarian document with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. -- And, - as you note, many of the western states admitted in that era were also libertarian in spirit, & still are.
God what a dipstick.
God also knows what an ass you are, tex.
The 14th Amendment was the single largest power grab by the Feds in our history.
Nope, -- it was a necessary attempt to stop states from infringing upon individual rights, -- gun rights, for instance. That battle is still being fought in CA. -- And you support the state gun grabbers. Why?
BTW I spent a couple of days cleaning my guns. Have you dug yours up lately?
Never buried them. I intend to fight for my rights, not hide them. -- In fact, I recently bought some 'assault' rifles that I will not register, as a legal protest. I look foward to a day in court.
Now ya did it. Ashcroft has just sent the ATF to get you. Oh well, nice knowing you.
You are a 'fedophile' on states 'rights'. - Bizarro.
The last 6 years of my working life I was the "Total Quality Management" officer for the Engineering company I worked for. We were in constant competition for the Malcolm Baldrige TQM award even though every previous winner went bankrupt. The ONLY good thing that came from that was the Goldratt concepts of defining and implementing work process. I look back on that time both fondly and in horror. LOL
Well Tpaine you are a prime example of why Californians should never have access to guns or sharp objects. You might put an eye out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.