Libertarianism - yay or nay?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Libertarianism - yay or nay? |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:39
Profile
quote:Hurble? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:You obviously don't know anything about economics. I've said nothing about economic policy that you can't find in a simple Macroeconomics textbook under 'conservative fiscal policy.' Salmon: There are very few examples of regulated business to unregulated shifts in national economies. I gave you the only two that I could think of and told you how they support my view. Unless you can name a nation that went from regulated business to unregulated and suffered as a result, you haven't gotten us anywhere. ef: Corporations will pick up the slack in scientific research, the benefits of doing so would be too profitable to resist. Also, what do you mean by 'balance of values?' [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 19:04: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:01
Profile
quote:Burble!! Burble!!!! -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:Your condescending attitude does not advance your point very much. Poor does not mean weak. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:09
Profile
Homepage
quote:  -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:09
Profile
Hastily declaring Tully's arguments as not worthy or deserving of rational debate is unfair. As Alorael said, he has as much of a right to express his opinion as anyone else. We also have the right to ignore him and such, but in a topic about libertarianism, it is more than ironic to suppress him so quickly. In a related manner, we should also discuss the freedoms of speech and expression with respect to libertarianism. Think about Tully's argument and then consider whether you'd find it as irritating if it had been phrased in a totally docile and politically correct way. Should we judge him so harshly based on his delivery? By the way, my position on social aid programs is that while some of them are useful, some can be significantly downsized or completely removed. America did in fact survive before the New Deal. Medicaid is necessary for many who desperately need it the most, for instance. National medical insurance has not been, by any measure, a panacea either. EDIT: I can't figure out whether this topic would be good as a code of conduct adherent flame war, but I know I'd enjoy it. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 19:12: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:12
Profile
Homepage
Since we're now sort of back on topic: quote:I wasn't talking about this thread in particular, just in general, and I apologize for not making that clearer. You are entitled to your opinions and more than welcome to share a political opinion in a political thread. But your basic strong/weak theme comes up so often (and not always in political or similar threads) that it gets a little tiring at times. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ever since people started callingme ET, I have been waiting for someone to make this puerile observation. I admit, it took you longer than I thought it would. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 19:15: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:17
Profile
Homepage
My only regret is that I couldn't find a picture that looks more like it's giving you the finger. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:18
Profile
Homepage
But isn't ET supposed to represent me? Then wouldn't I be giving everyone else the finger? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:22
Profile
quote:  -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 19:56
Profile
Homepage
Regulated business != Communism. I don't think anyone here would argue that communism does anyone any good. TM might, but he's not here. —Alorael, who really wants to know Thuryl's view. After all, it's hard to demand a right to property when there's no justification for having a right to life in the first place. Postnatal abortion for all! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 20:07
Profile
Ok, salmon, that's enough. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is the sort of reply that is deemed unacceptable. If you take out this sentence, your post is okay, but attacking the person instead of the argument is against the standards of these boards. (Note that Thuryl referred to your arguments as "patent nonsense," not you — he's been around a long time and has gotten pretty good at this.) If you get the feeling that I'm doing due diligence by explaining the rules to you in exacting detail in order to make a more convincing argument in favor of banning later when you break them again, you're right. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:18
Profile
Homepage
Oh, so suddenly your a pillar of the CoC, are you? quote:Is that not a personal attack? Only I didn't go and whine about it when you said it to me. quote:Kelandon is a hypocrite! [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:32: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:48
Profile
Homepage
Meh, Libertarianism has its appeals to me, but it contains too many paranoid nutcases for me to really feel supportive. I like the idea of being fiscally conservative while socially liberal... but there's just some stuff I can't agree with. For instance, the libertarian group on my campus came to one of my classes last year, and they tried to advance an argument for the privatization of all education. Stuff like that... I just can't agree with it. Tax breaks won't solve everything, and the idea of cutting back on everything but the army sounds way too much like a feudal system... or the standard 'petty warlord' model. quote:I'm actually going to side with Alorael on this one. That alright with you, Lego? -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:I am a mod, although not of General, you doofus. Yes, I said it! And I'll said it again! Doofus! Doofus doofus doofus! :P Does anyone actually use the word "doofus" seriously? I certainly don't. I was kidding, in case you didn't get it. EDIT: By the way, personal attacks are against the CoC. Claiming that others have attacked you in the past doesn't serve as an excuse to attack others. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 22:01: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:59
Profile
quote:I counter with a claim that unicorns exist, but have only rarely been seen, and the witnesses are now dead. Prove to me that unicorns do not exist. I am under no duress to supply evidence that your position is faulty when you seem unable to provide evidence that backs up your theories. Either change your theory to match the historical evidence, or amend it to acknowledge the uncertainty in the future. k? Edit- Originally by Doofus!: quote:You're a doofus ! :rolleyes: [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 22:05: Message edited by: Spookee Salmon ] -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 21:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've actually put much thought into this myself, and I came to the following conclusion. Today, education in the United States is regulated by the states, which is probably the worst choice we could have made. I would much rather have it be regulated by the federal government, but then there's privatization. Think about it, if education were privatized, it would lead to competition, and wouldn't that lead to higher education overall? Consider how Universities work. quote:The fact that you guys thought of me enough to come up with a nickname does wonders for my ego! Edit: Salmon: I apologize for my wording, but the evidence stands. The economies of those nations has improved since their shift to capitalism. Kelandon: I guess you just forgot your usual smiley face when you made the comment I quoted, eh doofus? [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 22:04: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 22:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:I go to a university where tuition tops out at about $47,000 per academic year. [b]THAT[/b] is where competition gets you. Our school is obsessed with getting back into the top 10 colleges in the U.S., and it just means more tuition increases, more insane policies, more bloody-minded construction destroying our beautiful campus in the name of our 'academic future' (when the buildings in question won't be complete until we graduate). I don't want competition, I want education. Gah. I can't see privatization actually doing anything positive for education, unless you count further intellectual stratification of our country as a good thing. Personally, I don't. (For the record, the only reason that I can afford this university is because my dad works at the nearby hospital, and thus is technically on faculty for the med school. Free ride!) quote:*snicker* 'Leggo my Eggo... :D -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 22:30
Profile
Homepage
The main reason I don't really like privatizing education is because institutions, when left on their own, tend to develop their own agenda. I go to a Catholic University, and I can't tell you how much time I've wasted learning theology when I could have been learning something useful. (For the record, I can afford to go to the University because my dad worked his way out of a trailer-home to become the owner of twelve medical trade magazines. So it is possible to work your way up from poverty, I've seen it.) Obviously, tuition for grade school would be nowhere near as much as college. Companies have a habit of not charging people more than they can afford, as this tends to lose them money. Plus, people will have the money they didn't lose to school tax. In poorer areas the schools will be poorer, but this is how it is today, anyway. The only way those area will be saved is with communism. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Friday, October 27 2006 07:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:Wait... okay, you're not disagreeing anymore. And shouldn't competing institutions be allowed to develop their own agendas, in the spirit of furthering said competition? :P Now, for some rapid-fire quoting: quote:That's still not much of a comfort, honestly. quote:You see, this just leads to more loans... companies only refrain from charging people more than they can afford when they know there's no way they can get away with it. Loans are an established, heck, almost expected part of the college process at this point... ripe for exploitation by private institutions. quote:...which will be promptly spent on skyrocketing tuitions. I fail to see your point. quote:You just strangled your own argument to death... or was the communism comment sarcasm? Either that, or you're condemning poorer areas to inadequate education for eternity, pending the arrival of a magnanimous philanthropist. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, October 27 2006 08:22
Profile
Homepage
Education is phenominally expensive and heavily subsidized by governments and endowments. For the rich privatization wouldn't make much difference. Private schools are already expensive and wealth is good for affording things like this. For the middle class it would become more expensive, but not ruinously so. The poor are the ones who get screwed as usual. First, although schools in poor, urban areas tend to struggle, they do get money. They wouldn't have any such source of money in a private system, so they'd either get worse or collapse entirely. Nobody would want to start new schools because it's not a sound investment. Then, since you can't mandate paying for education, I think I significant percentage of the most disadvantaged would be cut out of education entirely. Parents wouldn't pay even if children wanted to go. You can counter by saying that it's okay to have large uneducated masses. I think most people here strongly disagree. Actually, I think most people in general strongly disagree. —Alorael, who doesn't believe in rags to riches, or at least rags to comfort, proven by anecdote. Yes, people do it. Their successes are inspirations. Most people don't do it, and their failures are warnings of problems that should be fixed. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 27 2006 09:01
Profile
An educated population is less inclined to resort to brute force when seeking goals. Over half my property tax goes to schools and I have no children. I would never dream of complaining about this. To reiterate, with public education we can mandate education, which ensmartens everyone and leads to fewer acts of violence. With privatized education we can not mandayte educashun, which leads to Vinnie over there breakin yor neekaps fer being of the disagreeabal sohrt. Capish? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, October 27 2006 09:04
Profile
While I've been at my public university, state funding has been cut dramaticallly and tuition has more than doubled. Yeah, private investment in research has gone up quite a bit, but it has not translated to lower tuition. For some reason, as my university privatizes more and more, things get more and more expensive. Having unyielding faith in the pure free market is little more than a type of religious fundamentalism. Of course competition and free business practices are effective, but not always so. Believing in them to work in all situations is to have naive and oversimplistic (or lower undergraduate levels in economics, if you will) views. They work in many cases, but not all. There is a concept called Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. To sum it up in simplistic terms, it implies that a free market will always result in a positive outcome for society whether intentional or not. Now, this may work in some cases, but one could find many counter examples throughout history where this is not the case. Take the late 19th century in the US, commonly called the Guilded age. On paper, the country was very prosperous. However, conditions were quite poor for the common man and woman living at the time. Around that time saw the rise of labor laws, union rights, and the tactics of Teddy Roosevelt which were quite non-free market. As such, conditions improved. One could even argue that today the US is on the verge of another guilded age. The economy looks great on paper, unemployment is down, but people are working more for less. Take it for what you will, the free market is not always a solution to everything. Back to education, ET admits himself that the Invisble Hand will not work in really poor areas. Why? Because business has no economic interest to build schools there. As such you have kids with no schooling which I don't see how one could argue as good. The whole competition in primary education is also a bit too simplistic. The argument would be, well, if there isn't a good school in our area we'll just move to another area with a better school. Not to want to lose "customers" the schools would improve. Unfortunately, primary schooling and colleges are entirely different. The customers for colleges are adults and mature enough to go half way across the country to another school. With primary and secondary schooling, this is not necessarily an option unless we want to radically alter our family structure. The reason being that parents with a stable (not necessarily good) jobs somewhere will be inclined to keep it. They could lose the job, move to an area of better schooling, and risk not finding another, or keep the one they have. So you can develop these inherent conflicts of interest so to speak with deleterious effects. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |