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 ...
LOL - I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I disqualify myself as an expert on any one thing. These days, I'm mostly shooting for "Rennaissance Man" as much as anything else. ;)
My handle, which I have been wearing on this and other boards for many years now, is not reflective of any particular expertise in the insurance industry, so much as an appreciation of the irony behind taking the name of an anonymous, faceless, yet giant and indispensible, corporation, that most people don't even know exists. It amuses me to post anonymously and facelessly with some other anonymous and faceless entity's name.
My knowledge of things Joycean is not entirely my own doing, either. One of my high school English teachers was one of those extreme rarities in the public schools - a bona fide expert in the subject he taught. As the author of several scholarly works on Joyce, it was inevitable that those of us in Dr. Bidwell's 11'th grade English class were going to hear a lot about James Joyce ;)
What is lost is that republics change as the world changes. I for my own opion believe our government should promote freedom and our way of life. If our republic deciedes that if a people is subugated to an ill government then its is our right to help. If our government is not strong enough then the other power will win. Since I think we are the most powerfull we should try and make other peoples in this world have the same benifit as us. If this is economical or rights we have an obligation. Colonization is not a bad thing. The rights of individuals should be paramount. Therefore give them a chance to make change as they see fit.
Not one which springs from the grassroots up. Libertarianism is top down. a posteriori vrs a priori. Empirical vrs metaphysical. The essence of conservativism is freedom. That is not a prescription but a means, a format in which to "muddle through", to figure out by emperical feedback what to do next (all while knowing that there is no perfection possible). Libertarianism on the other hand is gnostic utopianism--it dicates courses of action despite what reality suggests one should do.
The hallmark of gnosticism is the refusal to compromise. The "party of principle" prides itself on not compromising. So did the Puritans, German fascists and Soviet communists. They all have the final answers. To compromise, for them, is to sin, to go against revealed truth.
Not only do I not support subsidizing illegals, I believe they should be rounded up and thrown out.
Regards
J.R.
Regards
J.R.
If the market doesn't supply it and there is a demand for it the market will soon provide it. Which goods and services would you like the market to provide you that gubment provides at present?
I think the lack of understanding is exhibited on your part.
I don't quite understand your comment but I think you are trying to say I lack understanding.
Let me expand. A society cannot exist without individuals evne though individuals can exist without society. Gubment and society (by the liberal/religious definition) need individuals in order to survive. And individuals need freedom in order to survive (or at least better produce under these conditions which society needs as well). Therefore societies need to protect individual freedom to survive. A person controlled and directed for the bennifit of society will act as a robot (all except the very braiwashed). He will have no incentive to innovate adapt or produce because "he" will not bennifit from these actions.
In any system of entities --- from particles of matter, to goods-producing companies, to animals and human human being --- the whole is bigger than the sum of the constituents. The difference between the two is what is call synergy.
In application to society, it means that there are actions and interests of the community that are not represented by the individuals themselves, taken one a time.
It is the synergy that is missing in yours and most libertarian arguments.
This "synergy" (to use your term) is a natural occurance and effect of economic law and only works if voluntary. If working together benifits all concerned your synergey is in full swing. If working together benifits the elite but not the worker your synergy rapidly fails. In order for us to be a "community" the community must bennifit all involved. If the commuinity distributes bennifits to the unproductive, the un-willing, and the unlawfull your synergy fails again. That is the Libertarian philosophy as I understand it.
Libertarians are not anti-community, just anti-community control. Libertarians believe that the community should be a purely bennificial and voluntary "contract".
EBUCK
The point that I was trying to get across is that your "community" and the Libertarian "community" are entirely different animals.
The LibTar comm./society is a voluntary contract entered into for mutual bennifit. Our current community/society is a coercive enslavement by the powers that be.
There is room in Libertarian Philosophy for gubment, although in a very limited form. LibTars beleive in courts (dispute resolution), armys (for defense) and gubment (protection of individual rights).
EBUCK
I feel for you: you are already among the few who take individualism seriously, and then you are "flamed" by the extremists who perport to have the same ideals --- for not being as extremist as they are, not for the philosophical underpinning of your position.
I personally feel that the country would benefit greatly from celebrating more the individualism that you describe. Names are not important for me; the movement in that direction is. If it were to occur within the Rupublican party --- fine with me. But the movement away from "the collective" and "group" thinking would be very beneficial.
It is a shame indeed that the extremists have hijacked the name for your position. This appears a common phenomenon: those who call themselves liberals have almost nothing to do with liberalism: they are leftists, who have appropriatesd the term for themselves, since "Left" and "Communisms" no longer sound right to most Americans.
Thanks for your nice reply. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute much to the thread any furhter. Do you mind if in the future, when I have questions regarding libertarian views, I would ask you? I actually do not know that much about it, and find very few people who can talk about that (well, some try but it often feels as if they read one book in their lives and are driven by anger and opposition).
I very much enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you.
Makes me want to drop everything and seek to be accepted into that high school...
As I said earlier, this is a common misunderstanding, as may be learned from most economics texts. So-called public goods cannot be providd by the market. I gave a brief explanation and examples in the previous posts.
TQ: In any system of entities --- from particles of matter, to goods-producing companies, to animals and human being --- the whole is bigger than the sum of the constituents. The difference between the two is what is call synergy.
In application to society, it means that there are actions and interests of the community that are not represented by the individuals themselves, taken one a time.
It is the synergy that is missing in yours and most libertarian arguments.
EBUCK: This "synergy" (to use your term) is a natural occurance and effect of economic law and only works if voluntary.
This cannot be an argument against what I said: I have mentioned that this is a universal phenomenon, present in particles of matter, for which the issue of free will does not arise.
that the community should be a purely bennificial and voluntary "contract". There is nothing voluntary about the existence of the community: if you pollute air, this affects me. Such things in economics are called negative externalities.
Look, I appreciate your detailed reply. Let me just say this: whatever positions I see advanced by most libertarians are stated in a way that contradicts basic economics. When I try to point that gently, I am usually referred to… web sites.
I would like to see the libertarian position stated with the benefit of what we know about society, not on the basis of some high-school "consumer economics" course.
I am still waiting for that to happen.
Ad hominem attack or not, this simple comment here, sums up what I had in mind. Thanks for the pithy remark. You did good.
Truth is, while many American's, including the vast majority of conservatives and republicans, remain very concerned, over the direction the US has taken since the 1930`s and even more so since the 1960`s, it's obvious, not everyone chooses to overreact in the manner you have. You and other libertarians have chosen to express your disgust for the American people and for our politics, through intense emotional rantings. What some would call, paranoia. You know, as in the fear of persecutory action being taken by civil authority, against your person. You've even taken that to another level and have accused me of being evil, immoral, unspiritual and unpatriotic. Frankly, you don't know me that well. In fact, you don't know me at all. But I know your type.
My my, you do have some deep rooted problems. Let me tell you, these personal problems you have expressed publically, are not going to be solved on FreeRepublic. They especially won't be solved, through a continued barrage of personal insults, based on ad hominem rhetoric. I call attention to your original post at #84, in which you took it upon yourself, to blow out of proportion, one small paragraph I wrote. You went off on a tantrum and carried forth with this emotional rage, onto your post at #324. WOW! Talk about irrational behavior!
In addition, your numerous references, to the religious shortcomings of others, indicate a strong intolerance for the religious beliefs of others. Some people use religion as a way of reaching God and bonding with like minded worshippers, in the same faith. However, you use religion like a crutch, to bang over the heads of those who disagree with your personal interpretation of life on Earth. The idea that one version of divine intervention, may be different then another, doesn't seem to play a role in your thinking. The idea that you can label people as unbelievers and throw around personal rhetoric as gospel, is just more of the same, intolerence on your part. Many people believe their personal relationship with "God", is no one elses business. That happens to be my belief too, but I don't question the faith of others, in order to make me feel superior, as you have done. So if you find it necessary to quote Biblical occurances, may be you should remember, your faith may not be, the faith of others. Stop being such an intolerent and sancitomious hypocrite. I don't believe God appreciates you representing his holiness and divinity, in such a callous and self-righteous fashion.
These ideas you preach, that half of the people in America are caught up in the madness of communism; that we're all going to be dragged away, kicking and screaming, to a re-education camp; that all the children will be taken from the parents, because their personal morality isn't in concert with the community; that American's will be imprisoned for their religious beliefs; that people will be jailed for expressing free speech, these are scare tactics, often used by the leftwing in America, over the last fifity years. They've been used to freighten American's and make them fearful of what the future holds. This is a form of political terrorism and sadly, is in keeping with the the outrageous, ridiculous and dangerous tactics of libertarians. This irrational and reactionary behavior you have exhibited, has absolutely nothing in common with the wisdom and the practical nature of the Founding Fathers.
Now let's see if you can start to behave yourself and have respect for your fellow FReepers. Let's see if you can engage in civil political discourse, without attacking anyone, for having the cojones to disagree with you.
To: dcwusmc
Don't worry about it. Take another drag and things will be ok.
305 posted on 5/2/02 10:08 PM Pacific by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Allegedly you were in the service. I have my doubts as to your claims, but that's OK. IF you served, you should recall something known as "FIGHTING WORDS." Fighting words were things so provocative as to evoke a JUSTIFIABLE response to them. Well, Donnie, what you uttered were FIGHTING WORDS, within the meaning of the UCMJ and my (private) response was to invite you to run your mouth that way IN MY PHYSICAL PRESENCE and see if you liked the response you got to them. However, since you like the publicity, you are a chickensh!t statist who thinks he has some sort of "right" to push HIS "moral code" down somebody else's throat and when questioned about it calls the questioner a doper. Never gets around to answering the question raised, just demonizes the questioner. Donnie, the challenge stands... say that to my face and see what happens, old sod...
--- { Larry says, as he 'reveals truth' in his uncompromising dictatorial fashion.} --
Larry, you lie so much to yourself, about your own motives, that you can't see the hypocritical humor above. - Sad.
Oh, but you are trying to change the subject. Go back to your original post (#13) that started this exchange and show where you mentioned avoiding "crashing into the WTC" as justification. You focused entirely upon armed passengers preventing the hijacking not preventing the crash. And, even then you focused upon armed passengers confronting hijackers armed only with boxcutters. Hardley a likely situation.
"However, I also stated "Even if pilots [alone] were armed, it would still have been preferable, but that too was banned."
Not once in post #13 did you mention arming pilots, only arming passengers. That's changing the subject.
"Citizenship tests, for one. Presentation of CCWs to the security guards, for another."
Fascinating. You're defending libertarianism while simultaneously denying the rights you extoll to a class of individuals? Doesn't this seem strange to you?
"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."
The burden of proof rests upon you. You must prove the benefits of allowing every passenger on every airplane to be armed outweighs the benefits of only allowing armed sky marshalls and pilots, personnel specifically trained to deal with this problem.
"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."
RBKA, like all rights is limited. Surely, you see that analogy you attempt to make is flawed. The Million Moms want to ban all firearms.
"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."
On a theoretical basis, I don't really have a problem with this solution. Just as I don't have a problem with smoke free airlines or flights and smoking airlines or flights. There are significant problems with this idea though. One wonders where "Liberty" airlines will get insurance for example. Then there are the difficulties in connecting to other airlines. What terminal shall they use? Lot's of problems.
For one, there are private firefighting agencies, private security and detective agencies, and private armies. To the extent they are permitted by law, and sometimes when they aren't, the market provides each of these. But let's look at a particular example, that of the police. Though some rich people hire bodyguards, it is certainly true that some funtions that the police perform, like process service and execution of warrants, are a government-granted and government-enforced monolpoly. Hence, the fact that ABC Policing Services, Inc., does not do these things is not a failure of the market, rather, it demonstrates yet again that the market is not even permitted to enter into some realms.
Individuals fight terrorists just like governments do, except that in the case of 9-11 the facts indicate the superiority of citizens. No, it does not.
My example was of the four hijacked planes, private citizens stopped the only one to miss its target
It was not the private citizens who went to Afghanistan, and they could not; rather, it was the U.S. army, which the markets cannot provide. A government is needed for that.
First, these events didn't happen on Sept. 11 and therefore aren't covered by the article (or, the article doesn't mean Sept. 11 literally). Second, the fact that private citizens are prohibited from acquiring tools of military force does not prove that markets can't provide an army, but rather that the government prohibits it. Mercenaries certainly exist, and would be more common if there weren't such a roadblock to them in this country.
[Screening passengers]Here you confuse the failure of the specific means with the very availability of the function. Perhaps, next time you will not shoot from the hip.
The author stated that "only the government ... could be depended on ... to screen passengers at airports." This screening happened, and failed to avert the hijackings. The facts cut against the author's point.
You are the one shooting from the hip.
The whole premise of the article to which I was replying was that Sept. 11 caused the fall of Libertarianism. I didn't have to mention crashing into the WTC - it was and is implied by the date Sept. 11.
Not once in post #13 did you mention arming pilots, only arming passengers. That's changing the subject.
The reference about arming pilots was to post #206. Regardless of where the point was made, the fact is that the government disarmed the pilots, which may very well have contributed to the success of the terrorist attacks.
"Citizenship tests, for one. Presentation of CCWs to the security guards, for another." Fascinating. You're defending libertarianism while simultaneously denying the rights you extoll to a class of individuals? Doesn't this seem strange to you?
There exist steps on the way to a fully Libertarian society. CCW permits and rights recognized for citizens but not aliens, are examples. So too are vouchers, on the way to banishiment of government schools. By your comment, you are now attacking me for supggesting a partially-Libertarian solution instead of acknowledging that I have answered your question as posed.
The burden of proof rests upon you. You must prove the benefits of allowing every passenger on every airplane to be armed outweighs the benefits of only allowing armed sky marshalls and pilots, personnel specifically trained to deal with this problem.
No, the burden of proof rests on you: You are the one who advocates the revocation of rights to an entire class of people, much like banning the vote to blacks, or banning the printing of newspapers to Jews. RKBA is a fundamental right, just like voting or free speech.
RBKA, like all rights is limited. Surely, you see that analogy you attempt to make is flawed. The Million Moms want to ban all firearms.
You are reading something into what they say, and arguing that, as opposed to arguing what I said, which is quite parallel to what you said. My argument still stands.
There are significant problems with this idea though. One wonders where "Liberty" airlines will get insurance for example.
If the insurance is required by the government, then the problem rests, again, with government. If people choose to fly it because they would rather be free than insured, then let the market allow it to be so.
Then there are the difficulties in connecting to other airlines. What terminal shall they use? Lot's of problems.
Again, more problems with government, not with freedom. How do armed people travel to Massachussetts, for example? Guns have to be registered, AFAIK by presentation in person to a MA LEO. But you can't get to an office with a gun for registration (especially not on an airplane), without being in possession of an unregistered gun, and with transporting an unregistered gun. The obvious solution in this case is to totally, permanently, boycott MA. Returning to the question of Liberty Airlines, the question is quite similar: government airports and GunFree government-regulated airlines prohibit guns, just like MA sanctions handguns. Given the choice, some may choose to again boycott the government-regulated options. Let the market decide - if only the government could tolerate the possibility.
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.