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]
I'm begining to suspect you of being one; for some reason your memory or your reading comprehension is quite poor. I said quite a few are. You do understand that isn't the same as saying that the libertarians on this thread are dopers don't you?
In any case, you challenged me to name one and I did by linking a post. (How odd you didn't acknowledge it.) So I stand by my observation; it's obvious that quite a few so-called Libertarian posters are just dopers ranting about freedom between bong hits.
I will not waste my time with a point by point response; you have done much of my work of making yourself look foolish for me. I will just hit a few highlights.
1. You should not use terms that you do not fully understand. Ad hominem, for example, does not mean what you seem to think it means. It is a propaganda technique whereby one attacks their opponant personally, and then argues that since his opponant is a dispicable person, of low morals, stupid, and a liar, nothing he says can be given any credence, no matter how rational the points might be. As an example of ad hominem, we can all look to your last post. Much of it, when boiled down, consists of the following argument: "You are a libertarian, and I know libertarians are evil, horrible people, so what you say cannot possibly have merit." Furthermore, you squeal like a schoolgirl when I rightfully note your evil. You claim I am making an ad hominem argument, when nothing could be further from the truth. I attacked your argument and your philosophy, and demonstrated with many examples and arguments why I condidered that philosophy to be evil. It is clearly logical to conslude that one who embraces an evil philosophy is either evil himself, or is a fool. Defend your philosophy, or cry and kick your feet like a child; it matters little to me, either way.
2. You claim to act from morality, but, interestingly enough, when questioned about the precise nature of that morality, you retreat into 'it's none of your business'. You have had no qualm about spouting your various morals to everyone before. Why, now, are you shy? (chuckle) We all know why, Cain. It's because you know that you're whipped in the religious argument, and you don't know enough about the Bible or the God you claim to serve to even hold your own against a Sunday School student.
3. You talk loudly about how you are worried about the wellfare of the country, yet, when questioned on what service you have offered other than your loud mouth and your willingness to be our master, you become suddenly very quiet. Why am I not surprised? I'll wager you have neither served in the military, nor served as a policeman, an EMT, the National Guard, or even a political office. What, exactly, have you actually done to live up to the claims you make other than to flap your gums or type furiously? What sacrifice have you made that anyone should take what you have to say as anything but the mumblings of a coward?
Ah, but you say, I am a citizen! I have every right you do, because it is the American way!
And I say, "Precisely." And there you dangle, hoist by your own petard.
You are opposed by a monstrous force for evil; fully half this nation is in the grip of Communist madness, and yet _still_ you will not see that _you_ have armed them. It was people like _you_, who conceded the liberty of man must give way to the good of the community, that inspired this Communist monstrousity that threatens to devour us all! Look to your history! What did Stahlin do to men like you? What did Hitler do? They both subscribed to the same sort of evil that you did, that the individual must perforce sumbit to the community. Do you _still_ not understand? Do you _still_ not see that while you lie whimpering on the ground, licking the boots of your Communist masters, you will be praying that men like me will stand between you and what you _know_ would be the result of their depredations? You will whine to yourself, "why does no one stand up for me? I do no one harm! How can this happen?"
When it comes, it will come because men like you, fools that they are, did not stand for right when they might have done so.
"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Sir Winston Churchill
When they drag you, kicking and screaming, to a re-education camp; when they pry your children from your arms because your personal morality no longer gibes with that of the community; when they ban your religion because it conflicts with the loyalties they want you to hold; when they imprison you for your loud mouth that is critical of their vision; then, you will understand just what a mistake you have made. Study your history: things change. Fifty years ago, men like you held sway. They took for themselves power beyond what was sensible; now the reigns have changed, and that power is in the hands of those who would destroy their way of life.
Thus the wisdom of the founding fathers is clear: do not empower a government beyond the barest of necessity. It is a sword you will weild for only a short while, one that will eventually turn upon you. It is not possible to do enough good to balance out a Hitler or Stahlin regime. And yet you work steadily, blindly toward just such a horror.
What will you sacrifice for you need to be 'right', for your evil desire to control others? WIll you sacrifice your children? Your nation? Your religion? When will you wake up?
Thraka
Yes, it would make him more informed, especially since his position is at odds with the sponsors of the forum you refer to. It could well be that he did not wish to claim a possible false authority, based on the fact that he had been developing an expertise on the subject. I take it that you have never had the occasion to consider this subject before, and so are relatively uninformed, that might certainly color your arguments, and certainly would help readers put your remarks into context.
Morality aside, we _are_ here to engage in debate. ;) No need to thank me.
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.
That's an excellant definition, save one point: you do not restrict 'public goods' to those without which a community cannot reasonably prosper. I think that is important. For example, lighting in the streets is not, in my estimation, a necessity, though it is useful, nor is it universally used. Let us restrict the discussion to things such as the army, clean air, etc. One can choose not to visit a particular street, and thus reasonably object to paying for lights there. Not so with a military, 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.
That difference is what merits our taking an extreme position in regard to the goods the government delivers. Realistically, then, it should be limited to things which truly cannot be reasonably provided by other means. Furthermore, I think it should be restricted to those things that create liberty. A military is an obvious necessity; without a military, liberty cannot be maintained. Clean air, IMO, is really best left to local governments; there is a tradeoff in productivity vs clean air, often, and some areas are more prone to difficiulty then others, so I believe it is a matter best left to, perhaps, states.
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. We already accept that there is, to a certain degree, a probationary period between childhood and adulthood; at 18, we hold people accountable for their crimes, allow them to vote, etc., but we do not permit them alcohol. It seems that our society, for better or worse, has in fact established an 'adult in training' stage of life.
Furthermore, if we accept that we can draft the populace in times of dire need, it follows that we can reasonably expect them to serve in the military for a brief period as a necessity of education. The simple truth is, our liberties are not free, and it becomes increasingly clear to me that a huge segment of our society is ignorant of what it takes to preserve their way of life. One needs only look toward Berkley to appreciate this.
Jokes aside, you have my respect for serving our country and for your attitude towards our armed forces.
I did nothing special; my service was in peacetime. It is often said that military service consists of six months of boredom and six minutes of stark, screaming terror. My service was during the period of boredom. But thank you for the sentiment.
Thraka
One can choose not to visit a particular street, and thus reasonably object to paying for lights there. No, one can choose to say that he would not visit that street. If he reneges on this promise, it is uninforceable.
Damn, Texas, how many guns do you have that it takes two days? I take care of mine in two _hours_!
Thraka
Well of course not. Heaven forbid.
A bunch but don't tell Tpaine, it gets him all jealous. LOL
Thank you, but I cannot take credit for it: this is a standard definition given in any economic text.
But you choose not to continue the discusion with the added restrictions I would impose? That's telling, Quark. Just to satisfy my curiousity, you're a stranger in a strange land here, so to speak, yes? ;)
One can choose not to visit a particular street, and thus reasonably object to paying for lights there.
No, one can choose to say that he would not visit that street. If he reneges on this promise, it is uninforceable.
Still, there are certainly cases where such a claim is most likely true. An honest priest is unlikely to visit the redlight district, for example, and it seems reasonable that we would expect those who run businesses in such a district to foot the bill.
Thraka
The advances we've made in optometry today might've seemed like science-fiction in 1950. How come glasses and contact lenses don't cost $10,000?
It's interesting that you mention your weeklong hostpital stay. In 1950 most middle-class families could afford to pay for such a stay out-of-pocket. Today such a stay could easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.
It could be that in 1950 there were very few medical malpractice suits.
Malpractice lawsuits do indeed contribute to the rise in medical costs. Some people are quick to sue because it's easy money. Liability lawsuits run up the cost of other things as well, not just health care. However, this does not justify government wealth redistribution programs for poor people.
In 1950, when you had your appendectomy were you required to fill out pages of "release of liability" forms?
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.
As I mentioned to another poster earlier today, the cost of research, development, and the risks associated with investment do not equate to rises in costs down the road. Eight years ago a 1GB hard drive cost $1000. Today an 80GB hard drive costs $100. Why doesn't an 80GB hard drive cost $10,000 today. As goods and services become more common and refined the costs decline.
That's telling, Quark. Just to satisfy my curiousity, you're a stranger in a strange land here, so to speak, yes? ;) This I understand even less.
Still, there are certainly cases where such a claim is most likely true. Contracts are not based on likelihood. This is in part because perceptions of likelihood of such events are subjective.
Leftists and libertarians would love to stretch the 14th Amendment even further.
- James Joyce, Finnegan's Wake
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.