#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What is the best form of government?
Most people as of today herald the United States Democratic-Capitalism Government to be the best form of government as of today. Are there better forms of government out there? Can their be improvements to the above stated system to make it better? What Improvements? What radical new types of government can be Proposed? What else is there?
| Add New Argument |
|
2
points
By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification. Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails. This argument is supposed to be positive and constructive. As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please. Side: None Least Worst
1
point
By saying Capitalism, I meant the economic-political tie that exists, like a government that is democratic, but uses Sharing of wealth, like Communism. Just a clarification. There is a tie between capitalism and democracy, but the term is mixed economy when describing private and government control because even China has private variables in its economy despite being described as communist. In order to be a capitalist or socialist economy, it must be 100% either way economically; otherwise, it is mixed economy. The same goes for political, republic or monarchy. Then, republic breaks down into democracy or dictatorship and so forth. Stating that there is no best form of government and only the least worse one is just having a negative attitude, Prayerfails. Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth. As for constitutional Democracy, its primary down fall is what? Identify and warrant, please. Even though Constitutional Democracies protect individual rights, the primary downfall of all forms of government even Constitutional Democracy is the insatiable desire for government growth either more control politically or economically, and the case for America is more government control over the economy, and history shows it. The government owes 40% of the economy. Side: None Least Worst
I disagree with your statement on the insatiable want to grow the government, by the government. Has every government in American history acted this way? No, Jefferson shrank the size of the government significantly, Hoover did, Coolidge did and I believe one of the post-civil war presidents did as well. Some even left them the same size by the time they left the office. Whats to say that next United States president after Obama wont shrink the size of government significantly, even destroy specific taxes, sign in free energy and destroy Public Healthcare? Any of that could happen, right? More or less. Regardless, Saying that government by nature of its establishment hungers for growth of itself is misguided at best. It depends entirely on the institution, its leader and how good he is at selling an idea. "Well, that is your opinion, and it is not a negative attitude, it is simply the truth." Do not confuse a sense of realism with pessimism. Side: Brotherhood
Even though Constitutional Democracies protect individual rights, the primary downfall of all forms of government even Constitutional Democracy is the insatiable desire for government growth either more control politically or economically, and the case for America is more government control over the economy, and history shows it. The government owes 40% of the economy. It's interesting that you don't mention how a small elite group of capitalists in America own over 40% of private wealth, too. Side: Brotherhood
1
point
It's interesting that you don't mention how a small elite group of capitalists in America own over 40% of private wealth, too. Well, we know you prefer government control of the economy, the question is how much? Then, I would presume, you prefer government control of politics as well, same question begs, how much? Seriously, if you are going to respond in such feeble matter, why bother? What would be the need? This is about government. The richer these small elite group of capitalists become, the better off America is because they are creating wealth, America is benefiting from it. I don't see how the richer the Cuba or China government becomes the getter off even the poorest of poor are, no, they are all still poor even with an benevolent government, but what I do see is that when Zuckerberg or Gates become richer, I see society benefiting because Gates brought an easily navigational interface to computers while Zuckerberg brought easy connection to old friends. I am grateful for Gates and Zuckerberg because they bring greatness to man, which inspires me and millions of others to pursue something regardless of what it is. Side: None Least Worst
Well, we know you prefer government control of the economy, the question is how much? Then, I would presume, you prefer government control of politics as well, same question begs, how much? Enough. Seriously, if you are going to respond in such feeble matter, why bother? I thought it was sufficient. If you are going to make business into god and government into the devil, it helps to show that both are devils, but necessary ones. What would be the need? This is about government. A small group of wealth-hoarding people effectively creates a type of governance, even if not officially. The richer these small elite group of capitalists become, the better off America is because they are creating wealth, America is benefiting from it. Wealth is never created. It is also never destroyed. Wealth is a closed system and there is conservation. In the last thirty years the wealthiest 1% went from owning around 35% of private wealth, to owning around 42%. The high-middle class stayed fairly stagnant. The working class which occupies 80% of the population went from owning around 20% of the private wealth to owning less than 15%. In other words, in a period of thirty years, after Reagan's deregulation, the rich became more wealthy by taking a portion of the livelihoods of the poor. Not coincidentally it has been reported that people here are working harder and making less money, and it's no surprise that people are widely in debt. In other words, you're grossly mistaken and are fighting against your own interests by acting as a cheerleader for the wealthy (unless of course you're in the upper middle class). Also, to put this into relativistic context, 80% owning about 15% of private wealth and 1% owning 40% means that 1% of the population averaged out owns over two-hundred times the personal private wealth of (again on average) 80% of the rest of society. This is up from it being less than a factor of one-hundred fifty over thirty years ago. You should feel very ashamed for defending this. People are working double and triple jobs just to make ends meet and you're encouraging gluttony on behalf of 1% of society. I don't see how the richer the Cuba or China government becomes the getter off even the poorest of poor are, no, they are all still poor even with an benevolent government, but what I do see is that when Zuckerberg or Gates become richer, This is not a capitalism versus communism debate. but what I do see is that when Zuckerberg or Gates become richer, I see society benefiting because Gates brought an easily navigational interface to computers while Zuckerberg brought easy connection to old friends. I am grateful for Gates and Zuckerberg because they bring greatness to man, which inspires me and millions of others to pursue something regardless of what it is. How can they aspire when they are losing their houses due to the trading of debt by the wealthy creates a housing bubble? How can they aspire when they are working three jobs? You really have no clue how bad it's become for the working class. So Gates and Zuckerberg made technological innovations? That's good but it doesn't justify the huge gap between the wealthy and the poor. Do you realise that merely cutting the top 1%'s private wealth in half would greatly increase the financial stability of our entire nation's working class? Maybe you think cynically that the poor need a carrot dangled in front of them their entire lives. Side: None Least Worst
1
point
Enough. So, then I presume it is over 50% because you want to take from the rich and give to the poor. Wealth is never created. It is also never destroyed. Wrong. If wealth is never created, how is America the wealthiest nation and Congo the poorest nation? In order for this to happen, wealth must be created. In the last thirty years the wealthiest 1% went from owning around 35% of private wealth, to owning around 42%. The high-middle class stayed fairly stagnant. The working class which occupies 80% of the population went from owning around 20% of the private wealth to owning less than 15%. In other words, in a period of thirty years, after Reagan's deregulation, the rich became more wealthy by taking a portion of the livelihoods of the poor. Not coincidentally it has been reported that people here are working harder and making less money, and it's no surprise that people are widely in debt. The wealth disparity is not because of fiscal policy or deregulation, it is the inflationary monetary policies of the Federal Reserve through the last 30 years. You should be thanking Reagan's deregulation of the airlines so that everyone can fly instead of just the wealthy. Not coincidentally it has been reported that people here are working harder and making less money, and it's no surprise that people are widely in debt. Correct, because of monetary inflationary policy where money and credit is expanding faster than wages, this is called inflation, and when this is done over a period of 30 years, there is big disparity between wealth because working class and middle class work on fixed income while upper middle class and upper class work for salary or shared profits. In other words, you're grossly mistaken and are fighting against your own interests by acting as a cheerleader for the wealthy (unless of course you're in the upper middle class). You are cheerleading against the wrong people, start yelling at the Federal Reserve. END THE FED. Also, to put this into relativistic context, 80% owning about 15% of private wealth and 1% owning 40% means that 1% of the population averaged out owns over two-hundred times the personal private wealth of (again on average) 80% of the rest of society. This is up from it being less than a factor of one-hundred fifty over thirty years ago. Yaw, Blah, Blah, You must have this saved somewhere just so when you need it, you don't have to retype it every time. How can they aspire when they are losing their houses due to the trading of debt by the wealthy creates a housing bubble? The housing bubble was created by the federal government under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 coupled with numerous laws through the 90's. DiLorenzo Do you realise that merely cutting the top 1%'s private wealth in half would greatly increase the financial stability of our entire nation's working class?. That is a huge exaggeration and socialism...Redistribution of Wealth? How you want this done? Government Force. I know how much you like force. Maybe you think cynically that the poor need a carrot dangled in front of them their entire lives. No, what we need is to give them opportunities, not handouts for dependency. You want dependency for the poor, so you can feel bad for them and treat them like pets because their handouts can be manipulated to your beckon call and control them because if there are adult-children, then you will treat them like that. And the government is already doing that. What America needs is CAPITALISM, not CRONY CAPITALISM or CORPORATISM. Capitalism is a system where anyone can enter a business such as interior designing, florist, plumbing or electrician without the permission of government pushed by special interest groups. Interior designers in Washington D.C. pushed for a law that would require that all new designers get a license without current ones needing any, so it would limit their competition and those who are trying to become something but rejected by the special interests and implemented by government. Side: None Least Worst
So, then I presume it is over 50% because you want to take from the rich and give to the poor. You say that as if the wealthy cannot afford to be generous, and as though it is a bad thing to share prosperity. Wrong. If wealth is never created, how is America the wealthiest nation and Congo the poorest nation? In order for this to happen, wealth must be created. How is it? Simple. Wealth traded hands. America acquires wealth from developing nations, and dispenses it to its citizens. We live wastefully and gluttonously, while people in Congo only eat every other day. What else would you expect from an economic system which treats resources in a way consistent with biological evolution? Capitalism is about hording, because you cannot create something from nothing (wealth from thin air) without causing inflation. The wealth disparity is not because of fiscal policy or deregulation, it is the inflationary monetary policies of the Federal Reserve through the last 30 years. Deregulation encouraged the trading of debt. This is a widely understood fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Correct, because of monetary inflationary policy where money and credit is expanding faster than wages, this is called inflation, and when this is done over a period of 30 years, there is big disparity between wealth because working class and middle class work on fixed income while upper middle class and upper class work for salary or shared profits. The statistics I was looking at represented wealth as a fraction of 100%, so inflation wouldn't matter to the numbers. You are cheerleading against the wrong people, start yelling at the Federal Reserve. END THE FED. The Federal Reserve is what makes our roulette-wheel economy somewhat stable. Before it existed depressions were commonplace. The housing bubble was created by the federal government under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 coupled with numerous laws through the 90's. DiLorenzo Did you never hear of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Yours is only a small piece of the puzzle. That is a huge exaggeration and socialism...Redistribution of Wealth? How you want this done? Government Force. I know how much you like force. If the top 1% owned a mere 20% of the private wealth instead of 42%, and the working class took this 22% for itself, the average American family would own about 250% of their present private wealth (on average). This is how much that top 1% is screwing everybody over. Imagine if all these families didn't have to work double jobs, if the kids could all go to college and university. If they could all afford good health insurance as opposed to cheap plans which they never use because the premiums would skyrocket and they can't afford the percentage not covered anyway. If they could afford new cars instead of used ones. But no, in the world we live in, people like yourself want that 22% of wealth in the hands of a minority for no other reason than the principle of ownership. No ethics or morality affects your thinking, just dedication to the belief that a person has the right to hoard possessions at the expense of everybody else. Forget building a smarter, healthier, more productive society. IT'S YOUR MONEY! Reforming the system is socialism and we can't have progressive ideology in this country, no siree! No, what we need is to give them opportunities, not handouts for dependency. You want dependency for the poor, so you can feel bad for them and treat them like pets because their handouts can be manipulated to your beckon call and control them because if there are adult-children, then you will treat them like that. And the government is already doing that. Excuses to justify greed. What America needs is CAPITALISM, not CRONY CAPITALISM or CORPORATISM. Capitalism by itself becomes cronyism and corporatism. Capitalism is a system where anyone can enter a business such as interior designing, florist, plumbing or electrician without the permission of government pushed by special interest groups. Interior designers in Washington D.C. pushed for a law that would require that all new designers get a license without current ones needing any, so it would limit their competition and those who are trying to become something but rejected by the special interests and implemented by government. Exactly. This is what capitalism produces: it is a system which undermines itself by giving incentive to cheat. Side: None Least Worst
What if you could create a paradigm shift in the people so that they feel as though the government works for them without engaging in socialism? How about a government that does exactly that and doesnt stray because its people know the history and WILL engage their government to make sure they do not take control? What about a constitutional guarantee of smaller, efficient government? Its all about the theory. Just because it doesnt exist now does not mean it cant exist. Why so negative? Side: nonexistent
1
point
A government that sticks true to its Bill of Rights and ONLY edits the Constitution for adding MORE liberties and protection from the government would be the best form of government. What about slavery? Because under your premise the thirteenth amendment restricts ones liberty to own slaves. Side: nonexistent
Considering that slaves are human beings, they would be protected vs. the owners being protected. Individual liberties is the most important. Now, if you believe that blacks aren't human, you can argue from that. otherwise, private property doesn't work if the property is human. Side: nonexistent
Considering that slaves are human beings, they would be protected vs. the owners being protected. Right. So the question is, whose interests are more important? Also, if slavery is abolished, does that not preclude a freed slave's right to own people? Individual liberties is the most important. Now, if you believe that blacks aren't human, you can argue from that. otherwise, private property doesn't work if the property is human. You just highlighted the fundamental disagreement between libertarians and liberals, because one treats questions related to this one as if (metaphorically) people can be property. The other does not. Side: nonexistent
No. Libertarians do not believe that people can be property. The very first feat for Libertarians is the freedom of all individuals. Lack of support for minimum wage, support for sweatshops and child labour is more or less treating people like property rather than creatures with feeling. Side: nonexistent
The only possible connection you have a point on is child labor. But this just goes to the right of parenting. Parents have the right to parent their children to how they see fit. In the Libertarian world, it's reasonable to see that children MUST be protected from hostile parents. But at the same time, if a child at around 13 is to help out his dad on the weekends in a family business, the government should NOT have the power to restrict this. As for minimum wage and sweatshops, it's reasonable to protect employees from harsh treatment, but it's unreasonable to expect a business to cater to their employees. You seem to have very little understanding of the Libertarian Party. You constantly claim that they support slavery, even though I and others have pointed out to you, clearly, that that is the exact opposite belief. If you wish to be taken seriously, you're going to have to listen. Side: nonexistent
The only possible connection you have a point on is child labor. But this just goes to the right of parenting. Parents have the right to parent their children to how they see fit. How is it that you can have more empathy for a child than an adult? I'm talking about laws and behaviours which degrade people, treat them as a commodity. How is it not treating a person like property to expect them to dedicate most of their day in your cramped facilities, paying them next to nothing so that they are forced to work long hours, with high turnover? In the Libertarian world, it's reasonable to see that children MUST be protected from hostile parents. But at the same time, if a child at around 13 is to help out his dad on the weekends in a family business, the government should NOT have the power to restrict this. Child labour is working an underaged person in a factory, or on a farm. You try to dress it up, but you seem obvious to the fact that where it is legal, it isn't about fathers giving their sons part time jobs. It's about elementary-school aged children working full-time jobs sewing together your clothes. As for minimum wage and sweatshops, it's reasonable to protect employees from harsh treatment, but it's unreasonable to expect a business to cater to their employees. Which basically means that minimum wage requires mandate and that sweatshops need to be abolished. Otherwise employers will pay their workers little for work in crowded factories. You seem to have very little understanding of the Libertarian Party. You constantly claim that they support slavery, even though I and others have pointed out to you, clearly, that that is the exact opposite belief. If you wish to be taken seriously, you're going to have to listen. I take Libertarian ideals principles to their logical ends. If Libertarians are for complete deregulation of prostitution, and child labour, then they support child prostitutes. If Libertarians do not support censorship of any kind, then they support child pornography. If Libertarians uphold consensual contracts beyond the principles of morality and fairness, then they support child sex industries (Because what else is it when an adult conscripts a child to perform sex on video? A contract) and they support indentured servitude (which is a friendly term for slavery as a means for a person to pay off debt). These are the logical ends of Libertarian principles, but few Libertarians are willing to address these facts in a meaningful way. If you rely on the good nature of people to not abuse their freedom, then you have a society that is going to encounter these extremes all the time, especially in our modern culture of excess. Libertarians never seem to consider what will happen when their principles enter the worst case scenario (A factory owner who only cares about profit, will he make his machinery safe? No, too expensive. Will he provide medical coverage, paid vacation, fair salaries, etc? No. Lord help those who out of conditions of poverty are forced to waste their lives there). You need people like myself to do this for you, because unfortunately Libertarians have a large political influence, and unless you are forced to think about where your principles go wrong, it will likely be that one day you are forced to witness firsthand how your values have contributed to the fall of society. Side: nonexistent
You'd think after being told countless times that you'd get it by now... holy shit. Anyway, property is not people. In order for people to be property, they'd have to be forced against their will to work for a person. People in factories CHOOSE to work for that employer. Harsh conditions should be rectified, but expecting businesses to become charities is retarded. If someone doesn't like the conditions of their job and have better qualifications, they can quit and find another job. It's not the role of the government to make sure that everyone has found their dream-job. Child Labor would indicate labor by a child... it's in the name. this DOES include a 13 year old working for his dad on the weekend. In current labor laws, this is illegal because asswipes who hate the free market SO MUCH believe in zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is one of the the worse things to happen to liberty. It's reasonable to say that children shouldn't be put into shoe factories (at least, here in America). But it's unreasonable to say that this automatically eliminates all aspects of child labor. Reasonable regulation is not a bad thing. The problem stems from the fact that government NEVER thinks about the laws they are putting in. They make them so concrete and broad that practically anything can be illegal (a 10 year old in Florida is facing 2-3 years in juvi for vandalism). Your analogies are shitty as shit. Censorship would be the hiding away of any kind of information from the American public. I don't believe that child porn should be eliminated, if you want to find some way to attack the poor freedom loving libertarians (and, I'm not even a Libertarian). But the actual making of child porn is the actual crime and is not protected by free speech. You are just frustrated with Libertarians loving liberty so much that any sense of limits you would want to impose on the people (instead of government) will be challenged by them. Constitutionalists (that's my belief system) and Libertarians are just reasonable. "Are people being infringed on? No? Than leave them the fuck alone". Ass wipe regulators want to take away drugs, censor our entertainment, and apply decency standards (open gays, gay marriage, swingers, etc.) The uprising Liberty movement is response to years of government just slowing taking away more and more civil rights. Idiots can't seem to grasp that (right and left) and instead make up shit like "they want kids to be prostitutes and believe in slavery". It's sad that that's how moronic the arguments have resulted. It really just makes us feel like the only rational thinking people left... does no one not want freedom anymore? Side: nonexistent
I'm a bit tired, so forgive any mistakes in grammar. Anyway, property is not people. In order for people to be property, they'd have to be forced against their will to work for a person. Libertarianism is not against force. It is against unreasonable force, and it qualifies unreasonable in a way so that contracts do not count as it, and neither do unfair dependencies. People in factories CHOOSE to work for that employer. In the same way that a thief CHOOSES to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family. In other words, they are compelled to work there by their situation, the lack of options. However libertarianism does not define this as force, convenient to the ideology. Harsh conditions should be rectified, but expecting businesses to become charities is retarded. If someone doesn't like the conditions of their job and have better qualifications, they can quit and find another job. It's not the role of the government to make sure that everyone has found their dream-job. This type of callous attitude is what supports worker exploitation across the world, and supports great divides between the rich and the working class. Child Labor would indicate labor by a child... it's in the name. this DOES include a 13 year old working for his dad on the weekend. This is the minority situation. Because Libertarianism is black and white, all or nothing, it means that you will see a few teenagers working for their parents but also a whole lot of children being put up as workers in labor-intense and repetitive trades. In current labor laws, this is illegal because asswipes who hate the free market SO MUCH believe in zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is one of the the worse things to happen to liberty. I think that giving children the time to go to school, become literate and educated, and not riddled with diseases like flexible bones, coal-lung in addition to maimings is worth a few disgruntled capitalists. It's reasonable to say that children shouldn't be put into shoe factories (at least, here in America). But it's unreasonable to say that this automatically eliminates all aspects of child labor. You have yet to give us a critical reason why we must put all children at risk of becoming trade workers, just to allow a few teenagers to work with dad. What's so important about working when you're thirteen? Wait three years and get a permit. Reasonable regulation is not a bad thing. The problem stems from the fact that government NEVER thinks about the laws they are putting in. They make them so concrete and broad that practically anything can be illegal (a 10 year old in Florida is facing 2-3 years in juvi for vandalism). That's how law works. It is up to the discretion of ordinary people. I however think it is a fair compromise compared to a hundred-fifty years ago, when kids were being maimed left and right, and pollution was in our rivers, etc. Regulations have given us a very stable, clean society for all the flaws. Your analogies are shitty as shit. Censorship would be the hiding away of any kind of information from the American public. I don't believe that child porn should be eliminated, if you want to find some way to attack the poor freedom loving libertarians (and, I'm not even a Libertarian). They are not analogies. They are applications of Libertarian principle to real-world problems. It's not an attack upon "poor, freedom-loving libertarians" but facile-minded people who only think in black and white terms. But the actual making of child porn is the actual crime and is not protected by free speech. Under Libertarian principle, as long as the production of that porn was consensual, no crime was committed. Even if a child isn't capable of resisting authority, Libertarian thinking is black and white. You are just frustrated with Libertarians loving liberty so much that any sense of limits you would want to impose on the people (instead of government) will be challenged by them. If I'm frustrated by anything, it is facile thinking. I also find it disturbing that a large segment of the working class population is being guided by an ideology that is clearly against their interests. Constitutionalists (that's my belief system) and Libertarians are just reasonable. No they aren't. The belief system doesn't work, it has nothing but stark principles which create a callous society. "Are people being infringed on? No? Than leave them the fuck alone". You have to define the verb "infringed" and include what counts as infringement. Without doing so, it is a meaningless statement because it is too broad, and thus useless. Ass wipe regulators want to take away drugs, censor our entertainment, and apply decency standards (open gays, gay marriage, swingers, etc.) All three of these are not simple issues. The uprising Liberty movement is response to years of government just slowing taking away more and more civil rights. Actually not. It is an AstroTurf movement headed by rich people who want policies which are conducive towards their own business. They distribute the ideology to working class people under the guise of liberty, and it sells because people are stupid and will buy into anything with "liberty" branded onto it without bothering to ask "What kind of liberty, and for whom?" If they bothered to ask, they might figure out that Libertarianism is about Business Liberty, Business Interests being what decides civil liberty. If it was a legitimate movement, it wouldn't be so inflexible, dogmatic, and irrational. Idiots can't seem to grasp that (right and left) and instead make up shit like "they want kids to be prostitutes and believe in slavery". These two concepts follow from Libertarian Ideology of consensual private contracts, and child labour and legal prostitution. Indentured servitude is for all intents and purposes slavery, but it is a private contract designed to pay off debt. This fits with Libertarian ideals. Welcome to "Liberty." Freedom to wear shackles. It really just makes us feel like the only rational thinking people left... The big mistake that you make is in thinking "This is so absurd, therefore it cannot be true." Instead you should try researching the ideology you defend, especially archives and founder writings. The modern libertarian party has craftfully edited their website to make these facts harder to discern, when it used to be upfront about them. does no one not want freedom anymore? What kind of freedom? There is very little pure freedom. Almost all freedom upsets interests. Freedom of speech upsets government and religious interests. Freedom to have a roof over your head guaranteed upsets wealthy interests. Freedom to organise into unions upsets business interests. Freedom to protest upsets business, state, and religious interests. Do you understand how meaningless what you said was? There is no "freedom" in a political discussion unless you define it. Side: nonexistent
Over and over again... and you still make up what Libertarians believe. In fact, you're comparing them to Anarchists... if they were Anarchists, they would call themselves Anarchists. As well, if they believed in child prostitution, they'd say they were (instead of saying the opposite, as we've all said countless times... you just don't understand that that's NOT what Libertarians believe.). In fact, find me a modern Libertarian who says that they believe in child prostitution. that may be a bad example, just because 1 person doesn't define a group... but I don't even think there is a member of the Libertarian party who supports Prostitution. Your bullshit is like saying "Democrats support a woman's right to choose; so they support a woman choosing to give her fetus up for rapists to just rape all the time". Now, no Democrat believes this, but by your logic, all of them do. More examples: Conservatives, in believing the country's traditional values, all support prostitution since prostitution was once a major part of our culture. The Green Party, in believing that the environment must be protected from humans, support the elimination of all motor vehicles and the genocide of all humanity. That is the sure way to protect the environment from humans. PETA, in supporting animal rights, believe that animals should be allowed to vote and they also support inter-species marriage. Now, it's retarded to believe this since key members of all these groups do not support what I posted... but according to their beliefs, that's what they all believe. Same with Libertarians. Since they are against censorship, believe in parenting rights over government regulation (to a reasonable extent, because Libertarians believe that children should be protected since they are not ready to face the world), and believe in prostitution, that means they support parents making their children become prostitutes. Sure, there's no evidence to suggest that this is what Libertarians believe, but put enough spin into it and you come out with this crap. And really, that's all it comes down to. and anyway: Indentured servitude is NOT slavery... it's an effective way to pay off debts. Hell, if I were in harsh debt I'd gladly work for free for a couple of weeks or even months to pay it off.... but it doesn't mean I HAVE to (unless it was part of my contract with the debt people from the beginning, to which then I would read it carefully to see the EXACT terms of the indentured servitude). As well, some restaurants require that if you can't pay for the food, you will work a couple of hours to pay it off. That is indentured servitude (and not even the most legal thing... patrons just prefer working for free instead of having legal issues). Side: nonexistent
Over and over again... and you still make up what Libertarians believe. In fact, you're comparing them to Anarchists... if they were Anarchists, they would call themselves Anarchists. Libertarianism is divided into the anarchist and minarchist school of thought. Didn't you know that? As well, if they believed in child prostitution, they'd say they were (instead of saying the opposite, as we've all said countless times... you just don't understand that that's NOT what Libertarians believe.). Political groups are not in the habit of listing all their positions or those positions which derive from their principles, which would undermine credibility. In fact, find me a modern Libertarian who says that they believe in child prostitution. that may be a bad example, just because 1 person doesn't define a group... but I don't even think there is a member of the Libertarian party who supports Prostitution. I don't have to. It follows from the ideology. It's like if you couldn't believe that the first amendment creates a wall of separation between church and state. It's enough to read that government may not endorse or prohibit an established religion, which implies separation of church and state. Likewise, Libertarians oppose the criminalisation of prostitution, and they oppose the criminalisation of child labour. Therefore their ideology supports child prostitution because it is a job in the sex trade. It's simple logic. Your bullshit is like saying "Democrats support a woman's right to choose; so they support a woman choosing to give her fetus up for rapists to just rape all the time". Now, no Democrat believes this, but by your logic, all of them do. Democrats do not support necrophilia or rape. Conservatives, in believing the country's traditional values, all support prostitution since prostitution was once a major part of our culture. "Traditional Values" refers to post World War 2 American culture. In other words, the values of the 1940s and 1950s. Prostitution wasn't generally approved of then. The Green Party, in believing that the environment must be protected from humans, support the elimination of all motor vehicles and the genocide of all humanity. That is the sure way to protect the environment from humans. No. None of these are implied by the four pillars of the green movement. However, the principle of environmental wisdom would imply the development of efficient transportation technology which is inspired by biological research. PETA, in supporting animal rights, believe that animals should be allowed to vote and they also support inter-species marriage. A logical extension of PETA's philosophy is that animals may not live in Zoos, be owned as pets, and this includes insects. Now, it's retarded to believe this since key members of all these groups do not support what I posted... but according to their beliefs, that's what they all believe. Same with Libertarians. Libertarians support voluntary contracts above social values of morality (which allows for underage children to be exploited), they support prostitution, and child labor. All three of these allow for the exploitation of children for sex and pornography. It is implied. What should concern you is the dogmatic notion of libertarianism, particularly its defense of principle over reason and morality. In other words, a libertarian supports sweatshops not because he feels that it will lead to a moral society with how the workers are treated, but instead he supports them out of the principle that business must never be regulated. Libertarians are largely unmoved by moral arguments, and this is a big reason why my concerns are valid. Without modern public scrutiny and criticism, libertarianism would degenerate into a barbaric society that treats children as property. Since they are against censorship, believe in parenting rights over government regulation (to a reasonable extent, because Libertarians believe that children should be protected since they are not ready to face the world) Libertarians do not support state interference in private affairs under any circumstances except murder, theft, and breach of contract. and believe in prostitution, that means they support parents making their children become prostitutes. Sure, there's no evidence to suggest that this is what Libertarians believe, but put enough spin into it and you come out with this crap. I state this because it is one of the few things that everyone (even libertarians) can agree upon as immoral. What happens is that non-libertarians become disgusted with the logical implications, while libertarians engage in damage control without owning up to their ideological problems. If I try to make an argument that libertarianism leads to worker accidents and poverty, it will fall on deaf ears because libertarians are callous towards the poor. They believe that the poor are this way due to laziness or intrinsic lack of worth. Children are the only way to reach them. Indentured servitude is NOT slavery... it's an effective way to pay off debts. Case in point. I can explain how bad indentured servitude is, and how it logically flows from libertarian dogma, but the libertarian is deaf to it. He only sees the worker as a commodity. But children on the hand reached you. Hell, if I were in harsh debt I'd gladly work for free for a couple of weeks or even months to pay it off.... but it doesn't mean I HAVE to (unless it was part of my contract with the debt people from the beginning, to which then I would read it carefully to see the EXACT terms of the indentured servitude). Indentured Servitude means that you are mandated work without pay for your manager for periods of years at a time. The manager would typically provide necessities, and you are subject to physical punishments while in their custody. You cannot marry without permission and your contract may be sold by your manager. It is essentially slavery with the guarantee of eventual release. Side: nonexistent
Child prostitution would be the forcing of an individual. And, child prostitution would be the technical rape of a child. Two things that Libertarians are obviously against. That's like saying that Libertarians support murder for profit. Your description of indentured servitude is not what Libertarians would accept. Indentured servitude, in an acceptable form, would consist of two consenting parties. The servant would have to agree to the terms. Side: nonexistent
Child prostitution would be the forcing of an individual. No it wouldn't. If prostitution for adults is not force, then neither is it for children. If you try to argue that children cannot resist the authority or wishes of their parents to enter the trade, then I can just say that children cannot resist parental authority and wishes when employed as workers. Therefore child labour would be force. And, child prostitution would be the technical rape of a child. No it wouldn't. The child consents to perform sexual services in exchange for money. If a child can consent to sell his or her time to a company for money, then he or she can consent to have sex for money. It works both ways. Two things that Libertarians are obviously against. That's like saying that Libertarians support murder for profit. They do, technically. In that they (the anarchist branch) support private military and police forces, which means that a for-profit company would be killing people as part of turning profit. Your description of indentured servitude is not what Libertarians would accept. It follows from the amoral defense of consensual contract which is one of the pillars of libertarian thought. In other words, libertarians do not care about harm befalling people. They care about principle, and one of those principles is that two consenting people should be free to make a contract enforced by the state. Regardless of moral consequences. I am positive that if we had this conversation 150 years ago, you would find it absurd that the state wants to abolish the traditional property right of owning people. Indentured servitude, in an acceptable form, would consist of two consenting parties. The servant would have to agree to the terms. Indentured servitude was always consensual, in the sense that you have a debt and it's your decision to either become a person's livestock, or spend time in jail. You're not saying anything new. Side: nonexistent
So now you claim that Libertarians NOT ONLY believes that children should be prostitutes, but that they are for murder-for-profit companies. Now, private paramilitaries aren't murder for profit (unless you believe that soldiers are murderers). I'm referring to private companies that offer hitmen for anyone to hire. A company like this is illegal NOT because of market regulation, but because the very act of murder is illegal. You don't need market regulation to prevent murder or child rape. You're confusing economics with politics. This is why Libertarians don't believe in child prostitution or murder for profit. It's because, despite how the market is regulated, it is illegal for individuals to do this. Deregulating the market is basically saying that workers of the market are ALL individuals and should abide by individual rules (such as anti-murder and anti-child-rape). As for indentured servitude; do you believe that people should never have to somehow pay off their debts? Side: nonexistent
So now you claim that Libertarians NOT ONLY believes that children should be prostitutes, but that they are for murder-for-profit companies. I never said should. I said could. Libertarianism allows for both of these things, and makes no moral objections against them which are consistent with their ideology. For example, on libertarian FAQ says that what goes on behind closed doors in the bedroom of consenting adults is their business. Why only adults? Where does this distinction come from in the axiom of force? In the belief in maximum personal liberty? In the defense of personal contracts? Why are adults made an exception when children exist in the society and are freely permitted to work in farms and factories? Now, private paramilitaries aren't murder for profit (unless you believe that soldiers are murderers). In the anarchist libertarian sect there are only private militaries and police. This means that the common definition of what constitutes murder (illegal or unauthorised killing) is meaningless because in this society there would be competing courts, police, miltaries, and therefore laws on what constitute "legal" or "authorised" murder. Large, rival businesses may enforce different laws on murder and therefore you have the business equivalent of gangs because under one jurisdiction you are acting legally (like a freedom fighter) while in another you are acting illicitly (like a terrorist). If you try to say that there won't be inconsistent laws, then I ask how is this possible? In the anarchist libertarian sect there is no central authority giving consensus on law, which must mean that they reflect the local prejudices and culture of a nation of smaller populations in cities. Again, this causes discrepancy on who is a murderer and who is a killer. I'm referring to private companies that offer hitmen for anyone to hire. Snipers would be your equivalent in the private military, and it is not unreasonable to think that hitmen would form contracts as a business in a libertarian minarchy or anarchy. Remember that libertarianism doesn't have a moral code or prohibitions, only ethics dealing with individual rights and property transactions, which means that a pure libertarian society would leave issues like murder up to the jurisdictions of private police and courts. Which really means that whatever is profitable (like a business in performing hits, you know how competitive our society is) could find legitimacy in the eyes of those courts and police (much as organised crime now achieves a level of legitimacy in the eyes of those who live in it). A company like this is illegal NOT because of market regulation, but because the very act of murder is illegal. Why? Why is murder illegal? If you're dealing with a society under one ideology, you have to ask if this ideology will find murder illegal, and how it will enforce it. You don't need market regulation to prevent murder or child rape. You're confusing economics with politics. I'm just describing the libertarian point of view taken to its ends, if it sounds like I'm confusing economics with politics, that's because libertarianism does this. The anarchist libertarian school of thought is that the market must solve problems like murder, rape, etc. by producing private courts, jails, police, etc. Market pressure motivates these companies to prosecute rape, murder, etc. which means that without a market to back the moral consensus of the local population, the enforced laws will not be to their liking (if they are enforced at all). In other words, zones of lawlessness in sparse populations, and zones of alien morality. There would also be zones where hitmen are legitimate businessmen because they have enough market force to influence police and courts. This is why Libertarians don't believe in child prostitution or murder for profit. You're confusing libertarians with their ideology. Libertarianism supports hitmen, child prostitution, etc. as an extension of its philosophy. Libertarians tend not to because they are (presently) culturally influenced against these ideas. In a libertarian society you will see an eventual plunge into child prostitution (because demand is surprisingly high) and hitmen (same reason). OR you will see a society that becomes sick of itself and eventually evolves out of libertarianism, which is (kind of) what happened in the United States after the industrial revolution and great depression. Deregulating the market is basically saying that workers of the market are ALL individuals and should abide by individual rules (such as anti-murder and anti-child-rape). Laws against child prostitution and trafficking are the same as those against child labour: they are regulations on societal behaviour. As for indentured servitude; do you believe that people should never have to somehow pay off their debts? People are presently allowed to pay off their debts without becoming someone else's personal property. If you believe that slavery should be a means to pay off debt, then you do not belong in civil society. Side: nonexistent
Interestingly, you say Libertarians and then say Anarchist Libertarians. What you describe is Anarchy. Libertarians, as pointed out over 9000 times, is not Anarchy. They believe in reasonable law (such as anti-murder and anti-rape). Now, I can tell you what Libertarians believe in, but this doesn't seem to deter you from telling me what they believe in (which 99% of them don't, because they're not Anarchists). Simply put, you've failed to make a good point at all. Merely saying "the ideology COULD lead to this" doesn't help when it's obvious that Libertarians do not endorse the shit you've pointed out. Until we can have a reasonable discussion where you're willing to talk about beliefs that REAL Libertarians have (as oppose to the fake ones who support murder and child rape) it's a waste of time telling you what Libertarians believe in. Side: nonexistent
Interestingly, you say Libertarians and then say Anarchist Libertarians. Because there is a divide. Anarchist libertarians and minarchist libertarians. Minarchist libertarians are basically like their anarchist counterparts but want government to provide an army, maybe courts and basic law. In other words a skeleton government. What you describe is Anarchy. Libertarians, as pointed out over 9000 times, is not Anarchy. They believe in reasonable law (such as anti-murder and anti-rape). You might want to take that up with actual libertarians, because there are anarchist libertarians in addition to minarchists. Now, I can tell you what Libertarians believe in, but this doesn't seem to deter you from telling me what they believe in (which 99% of them don't, because they're not Anarchists). I have debated with libertarians many times. I am aware of what they believe in. Did you not understand my English? I said that my discussion revolves around the logical outcome of their premises. Whatever a libertarian claims to support, may be in violation of his premise. Simply put, you've failed to make a good point at all. Merely saying "the ideology COULD lead to this" doesn't help when it's obvious that Libertarians do not endorse the shit you've pointed out. It's important to talk about because those behaviours are something we do not want in our society, and yet libertarians have a huge influence on the Republican party, meaning that far from being a fringe element of nutjobs they could stand to change our society into something which is even more unfair to people and even more exploitative towards the weak and vulnerable. I keep bringing this up because as far as I can tell, mentioning the grievous assault on worker liberty that occurs in a free market has no effect on libertarians or their sympathisers. The same is the case with consumer safety. Both parties see the exploited as somehow deserving it for being unproductive or careless. If I mention children, suddenly you care, at least a little. You and others should care about the workers and consumers, about the lives being ruined because of political naivety and simplistic ideology. Until we can have a reasonable discussion where you're willing to talk about beliefs that REAL Libertarians have (as oppose to the fake ones who support murder and child rape) it's a waste of time telling you what Libertarians believe in. I explained the logic to you. I explained my justifications. If you wish to deny the outcome, go ahead and endorse callous behaviour. Side: nonexistent
What your argument has proven to be, this whole time, is an informal fallacy So no... not logic. Side: nonexistent
What your argument has proven to be, this whole time, is an informal fallacy So no... not logic. I suggest you read your own definition. My argument does not meet that criteria. My argument is actually a Reductio ad absurdum, or threatens to be so. The problem is that libertarians are actually just goofy enough to make it a description of fact (they already support child labor, sweatshops, and decriminalisation of child pornography). Side: nonexistent
Well, I support decriminalization of child pornography. I don't even think Libertarians believe in that. I base it on logic, not ideology. As for your form of argument, that only works for phrases. Sort of like fighting a paradox. Used to attack real life beliefs, however, is a logical fallacy. Side: nonexistent
Well, I support decriminalization of child pornography. So you want child pornography to become legal to produce? I don't even think Libertarians believe in that. I base it on logic, not ideology. They tend to be against censorship in any form, and criminalisation of pornography in any form. As for your form of argument, that only works for phrases. Sort of like fighting a paradox. It is a general form of argumentation designed to reveal flaws in a premise or reasoning. Used to attack real life beliefs, however, is a logical fallacy. Because... beliefs are not based on reasoning or premises? Side: nonexistent
never said legal to produce. Production involves the rape of a child, which should be illegal. But people who view it, as opposed to making it, should not be sent off to prison. It's bad enough that we don't make any effort to help pedophiles with mental illness; it's worse when, by resorting to a method that doesn't physically hurt a child, we end up arresting them. We should be glad that they're watching porn instead of raping children. And yes, Libertarians, for the most part, are against child pornography in all ways. They do not want it to be legalized. Your attack on Libertarian beliefs is merely a slippery slope argument. That somehow child prostitution would become legalized if Libertarian were able to effectively eliminate laws against prostitution. the rape of a child would still be illegal, so it wouldn't mater how much you hate Libertarian belief, it still wouldn't become illegal. And that's what it comes down to. No matter how much YOU hate Libertarian belief, they will never be for child prostitution. Side: nonexistent
Your attack on Libertarian beliefs is merely a slippery slope argument. I already addressed this. It is a reduction to absurdity. That somehow child prostitution would become legalized if Libertarian were able to effectively eliminate laws against prostitution. the rape of a child would still be illegal, so it wouldn't mater how much you hate Libertarian belief, it still wouldn't become illegal. I said that child prostitution would be legal in a libertarian society because they wish to bring back child labour and legalise prostitution. The natural consequence is that in such a society child prostitution becomes a widespread business. This is, in fact, why businessmen travel to India, Thailand, Mexico, etc. In these counties there are either no laws against it, or the laws are hardly enforced, and so these men use brothels to have sex with children. http://www.sexwork.com/Thailand/ Try reading this. It's illuminating because it explains that in the rural Thai culture, prostitution of adolescents is seen as a way to pay off family debt. And that's what it comes down to. No matter how much YOU hate Libertarian belief, they will never be for child prostitution. What it comes down to is that you are an American who has NO concept of the practices and sentiments of other cultures. You find it so morally abhorrent that children could be prostituted freely, that you dismiss the possibility that it could ever happen here, that everyone would agree with you and never put their children to work in the sex trade. Well, you're wrong. Side: nonexistent
Thailand is not a Libertarian culture. Under Libertarian belief, child prostitution would be CONSIDERED child rape. You can still legalize prostitution and reasonable aspects of child labor without having to legalize child rape. It doesn't matter how hard you try to pin point it, Libertarians do not support child prostitution because under a Libertarian government, child rape would still be considered illegal. Side: nonexistent
Thailand is not a Libertarian culture. That would be along the lines of a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Thailand is a culture which is apparently lenient towards the notion of child sex workers. If their state became a libertarian one tomorrow, child sex work would continue unabated. You see, the only thing prohibiting American libertarians from endorsing child sex workers is American culture. Culture can change. A couple centuries ago arranged marriages were common in America, and so was slavery. There is no reason to think that a completely free society like the one endorsed by libertarians couldn't degenerate into one which approves of child prostitution. Under Libertarian belief, child prostitution would be CONSIDERED child rape. No it wouldn't. A child selling his or her body for money isn't an initiation of force, it is a consensual contract. Indeed, how could you prohibit children from earning an honest salary to pay off their parents' debts? It's the exact same situation as a 13-year-old working on the farm or in shop as per your examples. The child is merely earning a living using his or her assets. If child prostitution is wrong in libertarian philosophy, then child labour must be as well. Also, where do the exceptions to liberty end? If a child cannot have full liberty over his or her body, then it's just a few steps away from regulating adults, and businesses. These are the libertarian arguments against regulating (limiting) freedom. It doesn't matter how hard you try to pin point it, Libertarians do not support child prostitution because under a Libertarian government, child rape would still be considered illegal. It's not rape under libertarian axiom and dogma. Try again. Side: nonexistent
You see, the only thing prohibiting American libertarians from endorsing child sex workers is American culture. Culture can change. A couple centuries ago arranged marriages were common in America, and so was slavery. There is no reason to think that a completely free society like the one endorsed by libertarians couldn't degenerate into one which approves of child prostitution. How would a non-libertarian society prevent child prostitution from becoming legal, if public sentiment and culture came to embrace it? Side: nonexistent
How would a non-libertarian society prevent child prostitution from becoming legal, if public sentiment and culture came to embrace it? I thought about this, actually, while forming the thesis of my argument. The conclusion I reached was that both types of societies are capable of changing into one which either seeks or is callous towards child prostitution. However I also thought that in both kinds of societies, the libertarian one is more likely to be inflexible towards change, due to the highly axiomatic and principled thinking of libertarians. Therefore if both societies allowed child prostitution, the libertarian one would see it similarly to the Thai, an attempt to impose morality and regulations upon a child's duty to provide for the family. A non-libertarian society tends to be more reactionary and flexible, so it might be persuaded to change if you made emotional appeals using the plight of child sex workers. By the way, it was sharp of you to notice this flaw and ask about it. Side: nonexistent
Interesting how you speak for Libertarians when you are much further from it than I am. Anyway, under any kind of government child prostitution can be legal depending on the culture. In America, that would NOT be the case because it is common for people to see child prostitution as sexual exploitation of children, which is considered as bad as murder. Libertarians understand that children have certain abilities that should not be buried by political red-tape. Children can consent to helping their dad out at the store on weekend, but under most human eyes (including Libertarians), they can not consent to sex with an adult. If you're really trying to compare working with dad on the weekend with having sex with random people for money, there is no point in trying to discuss this with you. The argument would just turn into if child prostitution is on the same scale as working with dad. Libertarians think there's a difference, but if you think they're the same thing then there's nothing I can do to continue this argument. Side: nonexistent
Interesting how you speak for Libertarians when you are much further from it than I am. I am nothing if not observant. Anyway, under any kind of government child prostitution can be legal depending on the culture. In America, that would NOT be the case because it is common for people to see child prostitution as sexual exploitation of children, which is considered as bad as murder. Correct. Putting culture aside, what do we find about the ideologies? Libertarians understand that children have certain abilities that should not be buried by political red-tape. Like weaving fabric? Stitching garments for people in other countries? Children are VERY easy to exploit, they are weak, dependent, and impressionable to authority. Why would anyone want to allow a child to be used when they could be educated and enjoying their childhood? Children can consent to helping their dad out at the store on weekend, but under most human eyes (including Libertarians), they can not consent to sex with an adult. Because...? Both are submission to an authority. If a child can agree to work, free of his will, then logically he must be able to agree to have sex, free of his will. They fall under the same umbrella of accepting work for payment. Are you telling me now that children must be coerced by the state to not make decisions which would be in their financial interests? Since when did government know what's best for anybody, let alone an independent child? (The above is alike libertarian thought) If you're really trying to compare working with dad on the weekend with having sex with random people for money, there is no point in trying to discuss this with you. I'm trying to help you see the logical ends of the libertarian reasoning. If it's not comfortable for you, why are you having this debate? The argument would just turn into if child prostitution is on the same scale as working with dad. Libertarians resort to this kind of hyperbole all the time, for example: - Minimum wage laws, and healthcare is the same as communism. - Taxing the rich to fund public services like roads and schools is a welfare state. - Tax is theft. (Yes, really) - The government is the same as the mafia. I actually find it sort of fun to turn the argument back upon them. Libertarians think there's a difference, Why? How in libertarian axiomatic thinking can there be a difference? In regular thinking there is one, but libertarianism is black and white, inflexible. By the way, don't take this debate personally. You're actually the only libertarian on here I respect, that's why I am treating your objections and concerns seriously. I believe that you deserve honest, sincere replies. Side: nonexistent
Libertarians are part of a party. The Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is against child prostitution. If you are referring to Social Libertarians, than the extreme form is mere Anarchy. Your entire argument has just been a description of Anarchists as opposed to any key members of the Libertarian Party. As for Libertarian arguments, I'm not here to defend shit that Tea Party members or other common folk have said. Saying "there have been times when Libertarians claimed that healthcare is Communist; this means that Libertarians support child prostitution" is a logical fallacy. It's stupid when people claim that Social Democrats are Communists and it's stupid when people claim that Libertarians are Anarchists. I'm not going to join you in arguing against straw-men. Side: nonexistent
Libertarians are part of a party. The Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is against child prostitution. I don't care about the libertarian party. I care about libertarians. If you are referring to Social Libertarians, than the extreme form is mere Anarchy. Your entire argument has just been a description of Anarchists as opposed to any key members of the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism IS anarchy and minarchy. Try doing more research, because you seem oblivious to the basic fact that libertarians are divided by this basic issue. As for Libertarian arguments, I'm not here to defend shit that Tea Party members or other common folk have said. Saying "there have been times when Libertarians claimed that healthcare is Communist; this means that Libertarians support child prostitution" is a logical fallacy. That was not my argument. My position was always that child prostitution is a logical consequence of the policies which libertarians support. It's stupid when people claim that Social Democrats are Communists and it's stupid when people claim that Libertarians are Anarchists. Side: nonexistent
Anarchy versions of ideology exist everywhere Libertarian Anarchy is pretty much just Anarcho-Capitalism. The anarchic opposite of Anarcho-Socialism. There is also anarcho-democracy I'm just so glad that you actually attempted to use that argument. Side: nonexistent
Anarchy versions of ideology exist everywhere It's not merely about anarchic versions of ideology existing everywhere. I realise this, and if that were my argument then I wouldn't even mention libertarianism but anarcho-capitalism. My argument is that libertarianism was influenced by anarchist (and "minarchist") thinkers. It isn't merely an ideology with degrees of lawlessness but was influenced strongly on the concept of lack of government (See Ayn Rand). Libertarian Anarchy is pretty much just Anarcho-Capitalism. The anarchic opposite of Anarcho-Socialism. There is also anarcho-democracy You can see the anarchy in libertarianism by its almost dogmatic fixation on free market economics. Some libertarian pundits refuse to give government any kind of credit for its function, even rational, reasonable ones, because they undermine the notion of free market. They we see the non coercion axiom used to justify the idea that taxes are theft, or the government is a mafia. These are all notions born of anarchy. I'm just so glad that you actually attempted to use that argument. So have you finally accepted what I was arguing about in the last rebuttal? Side: nonexistent
No, to your last question. Libertarians not giving government credit is why they're Anarchists? Why give a broken system credit? It's good to be cynical because that keeps us from just being okay with a broken system. They were against the bail-outs because it was support of Corporatism, which is a corrupt system. They're against most laws and methods of enforcing those laws because it supports Fascism, a tyrannical system. And they're against welfare and political correctness because it supports Neo-Liberalism, a naive and broken system. The only reason why members of the Libertarian Party could be considered Anarchists is because those who aren't Libertarians view this love for lack of government as JUST Anarchy. There's a fine line between the two. Sure, the Philosophy of Libertarianism has come from PHILOSOPHICAL Anarchists, but that does not make the POLITICS of Libertarianism (in general) the same as the politics of Anarchy. Side: nonexistent
Libertarians not giving government credit is why they're Anarchists? No. I said that libertarian advocacy and fixation on free market economics is anarchist, with the distinction that libertarianism is divided into minarchists and anarchists. In other words, the philosophy is divided into pure anarchy (market-based governance) and minarchy (government ONLY provides protection against "aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud"). As a general rule libertarians are against everything else. This is why I consider libertarianism a hair's breadth away from proper anarchy. It is anarchist in all but name. Why give a broken system credit? Because it's better than the broken systems of the past (absolute monarchy, despotism, fascism, totalitarianism, communism, monarchism, theocracy, etc.). Because it's better than anything the libertarian party proposes (if you want to imagine life as it would be in a libertarian society, try looking at the United States during the industrial revolution, Britain during the same era, modern Somalia, and Gaelic Ireland; these are not perfect examples but are pretty close to what we would expect to happen when everyone is left to regulate themselves). It's good to be cynical because that keeps us from just being okay with a broken system. There's such a thing as not seeing the forest for the trees, and in the case of politics it means that you wind up being taken advantage of by powerful men and women who use your dissatisfaction towards the system for their political advantage. Like the TEA Party. They were against the bail-outs because it was support of Corporatism, which is a corrupt system. They are simple thinkers who will sacrifice the lives of millions of people out of petty principle. Their ideology is one which requires that people die, suffer, and make mistakes in order for the market to correct itself. It's callous, and disrespectful of humanity, especially the weak. They're against most laws and methods of enforcing those laws because it supports Fascism, a tyrannical system. They just support business-backed fascism (or what else do you think was the motivation in being against minimum wage, government safety laws, unions, food and drug safety, environmental protection, and being in favour of sweatshops, child labour, etc.?). Libertarianism is the admitted defense of self-interest, selfishness. No good can come from a society which holds this as its ultimate ideal, even if it is the way that businesses tend to function. For the same reason that our morality and culture strives to work beyond individual genetic selfishness and the need to consume all resources to propagate ourselves, we do not encourage this thinking even if it is based on truth because we can do better than it. And they're against welfare and political correctness because it supports Neo-Liberalism, a naive and broken system. Don't throw stones when your house is made of glass. Libertarianism is the apex of naive, because it has a facile understanding of human nature and sociology. The only reason why members of the Libertarian Party could be considered Anarchists is because those who aren't Libertarians view this love for lack of government as JUST Anarchy. No. Lack of government is by definition anarchist. Just as lack of theism is atheist. That libertarians want virtually no government means that they are extremely anarchistic. There's a fine line between the two. Sure, the Philosophy of Libertarianism has come from PHILOSOPHICAL Anarchists, but that does not make the POLITICS of Libertarianism (in general) the same as the politics of Anarchy. I did not say that libertarianism was anarchism. I said that it was a hair's breadth from anarchism. Side: nonexistent
Free market economics is anarchist. Just how mixed economies are Fascist... right? oh wait... economics is not the same as politics. lulz. yes, Anarchy would include a Free market (tell that to those anacho-Communists), but Anarchy would not include a government (which Libertarians of the Libertarian Party support). As usual, you are merely trying to point out that if Libertarians took power (such as Ron Paul or Bob Barr) we would be under ONLY the extremist form of government. Ron Paul believes in State Rights over Federal Power... interestingly, States are not Anarchy. I do not agree with the Libertarian Party on the big picture scale, and this is why I find it annoying that you can ONLY attack the extremist views of made-up Libertarians as opposed to attacking the mainstream views of Libertarian Party members. It's like having an argument against Democracy by pointing out the political works of the Greeks as opposed to pointing out the political works of MODERN MAINSTREAM Democracies. Or attacking American Conservatism by using Cuban Conservatism as an example. It's all straw-man arguments. so now that we got that settled: Never accept a government for being broken. The American government is currently broken. I am a cynic because I don't like it when a broken system continues to make decisions based on that broken system. I may not completely agree with Libertarians on their big picture view points, but at the same time, they're pissed off with how corrupt and large government has gotten over the past decades. As for an example of Libertarian societies, I think you meant to say the United States before the Industrial Revolution. With the very large expansion business, government was very quick to start its regulation and oversight. Employee's rights came later (and I agree with some, just not the broadness of the laws that were written). It's understandable to believe in some regulation. I believe in a small amount, but under the current system, it's way beyond anything acceptable for a society that's supposed to be based on "Life, LIBERTY, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As for being against bail-outs, it's kind of funny how 1. You believe that corporations are using Libertarians to gain power 2. You believe that Libertarians are irresponsible for not supporting Bail-outs Corporations do not, in any way, favor a Libertarian system. Libertarians are against: Subsidies Bail-outs Progressive Taxing (I support progressive taxing, but it's a system that's easily manipulated to help the largest corporations in the end) Tariffs (another thing I support, but to a much smaller scale than what it is now, which was actually created mainly for assisting Corporations) Under a Libertarian system, business in general would benefit, but large Corporations would not. In some ways I like this, in other ways I don't. I'm not trying to get into that, though, but it's just a way of showing you how the wealthy 1% do NOT want a Libertarian system. And it's true that the extreme form of Libertarians (usually Social Libertarians who are Philosophical Anarchists) are against a gross amount of government programs that were put in place to protect us, but that is a debate within the actual Party. A free-market system is economics, while the political system is a separate issue. For example: Environment and and Food and Drug safety can be argued as political motivations to try and protect citizens from unwanted harm (like murder, theft, etc.) Some Libertarians (who are mainly Constitutionalists like myself and not Philosophical Anarchists like PrayerFails) support appropriate government regulation because they see it as another form of police protection of citizens from other citizens (because we view the market as controlled by individuals as opposed to a separate entity). To the Constitutionalists, a man can not put toxins into the drinking water of other men because that would cause harm (just like assault and battery). As well, a man can not give toxic food to another man because that can be murder. The market is still free, but in the political spectrum, people can still NOT murder or hurt others. Food/Drug safety and Environmental protection are methods of protecting the citizens. Same would be with child labor laws (not the broad bullshit we have now, though). But even so, Philosophical Anarchists do not support child prostitution, either. No member of the Libertarian Party would be for that. Now, it's understandable that you don't agree with most Libertarian Principles, and as stated, I'm not going to try and defend actual Libertarian beliefs. But at the same time, I want you to at least understand what Libertarians are ACTUALLY for so that you can attack them for that. If not... all you're gonna have is someone like me just calling you out as opposed to a real Libertarian arguing with you about key points (as opposed to made up points). Side: nonexistent
Free market economics is anarchist. Just how mixed economies are Fascist... right? Free Market economics is lawless, without state intervention. This is anarchist. If you cannot accept this simple fact of categories, then I have to wonder what your underlying motivations are. Fascism is dedication to the state. It is strictly authoritarian with no individualism. Mixed economics being ambiguously defined either falls within that category or does not. It depends on how much government intervention exists, how powerful corporations are allowed to become, and how authoritarian and nationalistic the state is. oh wait... economics is not the same as politics. lulz. yes, Anarchy would include a Free market (tell that to those anacho-Communists), but Anarchy would not include a government (which Libertarians of the Libertarian Party support). Your rebuttal fails because you mixed up the adjective and noun. I called free market anarchistic. I did not call it an anarchy. I do not agree with the Libertarian Party on the big picture scale, and this is why I find it annoying that you can ONLY attack the extremist views of made-up Libertarians as opposed to attacking the mainstream views of Libertarian Party members. First off, they are not extremists. They are strict adherents to their own logical axioms. Anything more than this is a mixed ideology. For example, you are not a pure libertarian, but retain ideas from other ideologies. Do not confuse your mixture of libertarian views with proper libertarianism. It is as confusing an independent with a republican, or democrat. As usual, you are merely trying to point out that if Libertarians took power (such as Ron Paul or Bob Barr) we would be under ONLY the extremist form of government. Ron Paul believes in State Rights over Federal Power... interestingly, States are not Anarchy. No. I am pointing out that if the libertarian dream were realised, what I predict would follow from it. It does not matter to me how this dream is realised. Revolution, coup d'etat, democratic majority power over decades. The logical end of libertarian ideology leads to the horrible circumstances which I described. It's like having an argument against Democracy by pointing out the political works of the Greeks as opposed to pointing out the political works of MODERN MAINSTREAM Democracies. Correct, however I never framed this discussion over what mixed libertarians think. Never accept a government for being broken. The American government is currently broken. I am a cynic because I don't like it when a broken system continues to make decisions based on that broken system. This would be a valid argument if government were capable of being unbroken. However, all government models break when maintained by humans. Whether this is because of the variation amongst individuals in populations, or because it is our nature to exploit and break a system for personal gain, is all a mater of academic debate. Put another way, for every brilliant philanthropist who seeks to create a perfect utopia, there are hundreds of brilliant, selfish people who make it their raison d'etre to undermine that utopia. This is, incidentally, one of the reasons why a perfect copy protection can never work. I may not completely agree with Libertarians on their big picture view points, but at the same time, they're pissed off with how corrupt and large government has gotten over the past decades. To be fed up with the system being broken, and then proposing an ideal solution which historically never works, is a sign of desperation being taken advantage of by leaders in that ideology. Free market economics is a fringe idea in the eyes of most economists, historians, and the educated. I'll put it another way: if the average libertarian is fed up with corrupt government, then he should realise that a large part of finding solutions is to look at human nature, and being prepared to compromise. Dedication to axioms and models which have never been fully realised in societies is less than helpful. As for an example of Libertarian societies, I think you meant to say the United States before the Industrial Revolution. With the very large expansion business, government was very quick to start its regulation and oversight. Employee's rights came later (and I agree with some, just not the broadness of the laws that were written). The United States before the industrial revolution wouldn't be a good example because this was before factories and mass production. Before such advances the imperfections of the system were less clear. Once it was possible to organise labour into large factories, plantations, etc. it became clear that without regulation or intervention the callousness of business would remain unchecked. It's understandable to believe in some regulation. I believe in a small amount, but under the current system, it's way beyond anything acceptable for a society that's supposed to be based on "Life, LIBERTY, and the Pursuit of Happiness". I'm surprised you didn't emphasise "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" which is severely handicapped in an unregulated or minimally regulated society (who can be happy when they must work 12-hour or 16-hour days just to make their lives work, and who can be happy when they are being poisoned by radium, mercury and lead?). As for being against bail-outs, it's kind of funny how 1. You believe that corporations are using Libertarians to gain power 2. You believe that Libertarians are irresponsible for not supporting Bail-outs I believe that wealthy businessmen and the upper one percent use libertarianism and related pro-capitalist rhetoric to perpetuate the needless vast divide between themselves and you. You'll note that libertarians did not propose dedicating a special unemployment fund to the workers in those corporations which were going bankrupt. They just said, effectively, "Screw them all! Bad businesses fail." Corporations do not, in any way, favor a Libertarian system. Libertarians are against: Subsidies Bail-outs For corporations, supporting the libertarian ideology is a no-lose bet. If the libertarians get their way, businesses lose all regulation and so the corporate sector can return to cut-throat, unethical ways to monopolise America. Big money to be made there. At the same time, if libertarians cancel bailouts and subsidies, it will put the current monopolies' business rivals in danger of ruin. If the libertarians do not get their way, the businesses still retain their subsidies and bailouts, but have the advantage of a block of the public sowing dissent from policies in the public interest (environmental regulation, minimum wage, healthcare, etc.). Libertarianism is GREAT for big business. Just ask the ghost of Rockefeller how wonderful free market capitalism is for business. Tariffs (another thing I support, but to a much smaller scale than what it is now, which was actually created mainly for assisting Corporations) Tariffs fundamentally keep our businesses from moving all our jobs overseas. However, it requires stringent enforcement and intelligent policy. We have comparatively excellent minimum wage here but it leads to unemployment when our businesses can just move to India and only pay their employees a dollar or so a day. Under a Libertarian system, business in general would benefit, but large Corporations would not. In some ways I like this, in other ways I don't. I'm not trying to get into that, though, but it's just a way of showing you how the wealthy 1% do NOT want a Libertarian system. If everybody plays by the capitalist rules then libertarianism can at face value appear to be bad for corporations. But once you realise that businesses, especially corporations, earn their stay through abusing the rules and violating the system, then you see that regulations are really there to counteract the decades of abuse and faults in the free market. The market is still free, but in the political spectrum, people can still NOT murder or hurt others. Food/Drug safety and Environmental protection are methods of protecting the citizens. Same would be with child labor laws (not the broad bullshit we have now, though). But even so, Philosophical Anarchists do not support child prostitution, either. No member of the Libertarian Party would be for that. If the market is free, then that means you cannot regulate business behaviour in it, including food safety. When you do it becomes less than a free market. That is why I called yours a mixed ideology. You do not support the ideology with dedication to its axioms, but rather on a per case basis. As for the bit about prostitution, I'll explain with a diagram: http://img607.imageshack.us/i/ Because libertarianism is a strictly logical, internally consistent, axiomatic ideology it must follow that if libertarians support child labour and prostitution, child prostitution is implicitly supported (unless they choose to become inconsistent with their beliefs and logic). Now, it's understandable that you don't agree with most Libertarian Principles, and as stated, I'm not going to try and defend actual Libertarian beliefs. But at the same time, I want you to at least understand what Libertarians are ACTUALLY for so that you can attack them for that. If not... all you're gonna have is someone like me just calling you out as opposed to a real Libertarian arguing with you about key points (as opposed to made up points). If you want to debate real libertarian positions, that's fine too. Remember that this was about the logical implications of libertarianism, I never claimed that the libertarian party or average libertarians support this view. Side: nonexistent
I never claimed that the libertarian party or average libertarians support this view Then there is no need for argument. We both agree that Libertarians do not want child prostitution. That means, if Libertarians took power, they would not allow child prostitution. Glad it's over. Side: nonexistent
Then there is no need for argument. The whole argument was about what libertarianism supports both explicitly and implicitly. We both agree that Libertarians do not want child prostitution. That means, if Libertarians took power, they would not allow child prostitution. I said that average libertarians do not want it. In a society ruled by them, it would form naturally because of the policies that they create (child labour and prostitution). Did you not see my diagram? Side: nonexistent
Average Democrats are for strict gun control When the Democrats had full control, they did not increase gun control, despite how much they would like to. If Libertarians had full control, they would first have to accomplish all their goals before they could possibly do what you suggested... That's decades and possibly centuries in the making (given that Libertarians have untouched control for that long and become extremists... because they would have to eventually become extremists AND maintain power in order for them to possibly go down that road). diagram's cute, though. Side: nonexistent
Average Democrats are for strict gun control When the Democrats had full control, they did not increase gun control, despite how much they would like to. Not really a good example. Democrats are not bound by common axiomatic thinking. They could very well have a majority that does not want strict gun control, yet be self-consistent. Libertarianism is very dogmatic by contrast. If Libertarians had full control, they would first have to accomplish all their goals before they could possibly do what you suggested... If you mean abolishing government market restraints and enabling child labour, yes. That's decades and possibly centuries in the making (given that Libertarians have untouched control for that long and become extremists... because they would have to eventually become extremists AND maintain power in order for them to possibly go down that road). Not necessarily. Major change can happen in a matter of years given the right political climate and a bit of fortune. diagram's cute, though. It's an example of logic. Side: nonexistent
Your logic didn't include belief that children can't consent to sex... which is what most Libertarians believe. It's irrelevant because that belief changes depending upon cultural attitudes towards sex and a child's responsibility towards her family. You saw my link about young Thai children working the sex trade to pay off family debt. In America and Britain this was acceptable behaviour over a century ago too. There's no reason it cannot change. Your reasoning also backfires because if a libertarian believes that a child cannot consent to sex, then how could they believe that a child can consent to work a job? Both are exploitation of a minor. I mean, it really doesn't matter if they DID eliminate all market regulation... the belief that children can't consent to sex would be the same. Until it changes and is seen as a voluntary contract. Like with Indentured Servitude. Libertarianism is very socially irresponsible. Side: nonexistent
So it's gone from logical axioms to "they'll change their beliefs". Idk man, that sounds like a Spin Doctor's song to me. Which is why it's so funny. Watching you switch your arguments and all. Really... nothing to support your shit or anything. I wonder what's next :) Side: nonexistent
So it's gone from logical axioms to "they'll change their beliefs". Idk man, that sounds like a Spin Doctor's song to me. I guess I have to elaborate. I really thought it was obvious. Libertarianism deals with property rights and a redefinition of the use of force. It has no inherent positions on child rights. Therefore the axiomatic thinking is necessarily callous towards children (and many others too) because in its perspective voluntary contracts are what matter, irrespective of exploitative conditions (that's why in the libertarian philosophy it is not wrong to starve your employees with poor wages, they consent to work for you after all, and could just quit at any time if the wage is insufficient). In the libertarian definition it is force to require employers to pay employees livable wages, while it is not force to provide employees with exploitative conditions to the job. Likewise in libertarian axiomatic thinking, it is not forceful to pay a child for sex as long as he or she consents to it, but it is forceful if you make it illegal for children to sell their bodies because that is state intervention in personal matters. Why don't more libertarians feel this way? Simple. Present cultural attitudes make it more than taboo to suggest that children sell their bodies. Since culture can change, it's only a matter of time in a libertarian society that the taboo ends. Which is why it's so funny. Watching you switch your arguments and all. Really... nothing to support your shit or anything. The mistaken are often confident due to their ignorance. You should try better to conceal your bluffs. Side: nonexistent
Nope. As stated, the Libertarian Party believe that children can not consent to sex (especially with an adult). Really, if all you're going to do is say otherwise, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree. Instead, try spouting your propaganda to people who don't talk to Libertarians and have never met one. You're sounding like in 1984, where Capitalists were portrayed as men in suits and top hats with monocles, and all they wanted to do was exploit the poor and get drunk. Sure, your rhetoric would be so scary to people who have never researched the Libertarian Party, but to everyone else... it's laughable. It's almost like you're in High School (but I would never make the assumption; Internet and all). Side: nonexistent
As stated, the Libertarian Party believe that children can not consent to sex (especially with an adult). Really, if all you're going to do is say otherwise, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree. I believe I addressed this when I said: Why don't more libertarians feel this way? Simple. Present cultural attitudes make it more than taboo to suggest that children sell their bodies. Since culture can change, it's only a matter of time in a libertarian society that the taboo ends. Libertarianism has no backing for the defense of children, that comes from its internal logic. It is just assumed to be wrong, which is a cultural attitude. Instead, try spouting your propaganda to people who don't talk to Libertarians and have never met one. You're sounding like in 1984, where Capitalists were portrayed as men in suits and top hats with monocles, and all they wanted to do was exploit the poor and get drunk. It's not propaganda. It is a conclusion drawn from the axioms of the ideology. If you do not like it and passionately disagree with it, it won't do to dismiss it flippantly. You have to break down the logic and determine if it is in error. Sure, your rhetoric would be so scary to people who have never researched the Libertarian Party, but to everyone else... it's laughable. It's almost like you're in High School (but I would never make the assumption; Internet and all). Again, this isn't about your brand of libertarianism which may try to correct the social flaws in it. This is about standard libertarianism. I noticed you never addressed my question to you: if children can consent to work, then why can they not consent to have sex? The opposite as well is, if children cannot consent to sex, then how can they consent to work? Both are exploitative at that age, because adult authorities put the child into a condition where they must perform either activity to support them, despite the emotional consequences. Side: nonexistent
My personal belief is that children should not work for random companies. If a child is to work with his dad or mom on weekends, that is fine. But I am not a Libertarian. Libertarians of the Libertarian Party (once again, you refer to the social scale of Libertarian vs. Authoritarianism, which the most extreme form of Libertarianism is Anarchy) have many different beliefs in what constitutes appropriate child labor. Some feel that it is solely up to the parents, others feel that children are not ready to make that decision. As well, others believe that it is up to the States. But no matter what, no key member of the Libertarian Party believes that a 13 year old can consent to sex enough that they could become a prostitute at that age. But, it shouldn't become a legal matter if a 13 year old boy gives a 13 year old girl a product or some money if she touches his penis. Members of the Libertarian Party are not extremist Libertarians (who are just Anarchists). They have limits just like any other party. They just have less limits than any other party. Side: nonexistent
My personal belief is that children should not work for random companies. If a child is to work with his dad or mom on weekends, that is fine. But I am not a Libertarian. What you described already has has a basic de facto legality in many areas, particularly the country. Making an actual law supporting child labour however allows for people to do precisely what you are opposed to: hire their children out at manual labor jobs instead of going to school. But no matter what, no key member of the Libertarian Party believes that a 13 year old can consent to sex enough that they could become a prostitute at that age. Why? If some libertarians believe that a child can consent to work under certain circumstances, why doesn't this apply to sex? I can only see cultural reasons why not, because in our culture it is seen as exploitative. Members of the Libertarian Party are not extremist Libertarians (who are just Anarchists). They have limits just like any other party. They just have less limits than any other party. In my book, supporting a free market is quite extreme. To my knowledge all libertarians support free market almost as a pillar. Side: nonexistent
My God this will never end. I mean, no matter what, you will always believe that Libertarians will legalize child rape if put into office. Fine. I don't even care. It's obviously wrong, but we have gotten absolutely nowhere with this. and no. The Free Market is not extreme. Especially since the Father of Modern Economics (Adam Smith) supported a free market. It's only considered extreme now because Socialism has had such a larger influence on the West (more in Europe than America...). Side: nonexistent
My God this will never end. I mean, no matter what, you will always believe that Libertarians will legalize child rape if put into office. Fine. I don't even care. It's obviously wrong, but we have gotten absolutely nowhere with this. As you wish. and no. The Free Market is not extreme. Especially since the Father of Modern Economics (Adam Smith) supported a free market. That doesn't mean anything. Newton supported alchemy. That doesn't make it any less insane. Adam Smith came from an old era where the industrial revolution had barely started. He never saw the horrors of children being forced to work more than twelve hours a shift, getting maimed and killed in unsafe factories, because that's what was most efficient at turning a profit. He never had to live in 19th century London, where the river water was toxic to the poor, because of constant dumping of wastes, and where it was common practice to drink at taverns instead of using the water supply. He also didn't live to see the day in the United States where it was a common practice to sell grain alcohol as a cure for everything (ever heard of Patent Medicines? Snake Oil?) in addition to radioactive water. It's only considered extreme now because Socialism has had such a larger influence on the West (more in Europe than America...). It's considered extreme now because "let the buyer beware" is not longer what governs business-customer relations, poison sold as a food stuff or medicine carries stiff penalties, toxifying the waterways is wildly illegal, and unions and labour laws are in effect. In short, it's considered extreme now because we are live in better conditions, and are able to objectively look at free-market practices for what they are: the selfish and greedy exploiting the poor and weak. Side: nonexistent
As stated, you can have a free market and still make it so that individuals can't hurt others. It's called politics vs. economics. In the political world, exploiting a child is illegal. So in the economic world, it's still illegal. The market is unregulated, but if the government still makes laws, the people of the market must obey those laws. Side: nonexistent
As stated, you can have a free market and still make it so that individuals can't hurt others. No you can't. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Making it impossible or highly penalised for individuals to hurt or exploit others requires government intervention in the market (legitimising trade unions, providing minimum wage, imposing tariffs, forcing food and drug safety restraints, mandating a secure workplace, etc.). If you leave it as a free market then exploitation continues unabated and people are exploited and harmed. It's called politics vs. economics. In the political world, exploiting a child is illegal. Right. So in the economic world, it's still illegal. Correct. That's why it isn't a free market. The government is sticking its hands into matters of business by making possible economic activities illegal. The market is unregulated, but if the government still makes laws, the people of the market must obey those laws. If children cannot be exploited then the market is regulated, because believe it or not there is a high demand by the market to exploit children where these laws are not imposed. Side: nonexistent
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head. They are exclusive concepts. The market deals with trade; politics deals with individuals. A free market means that trade will not be infringed on. What you are stating is that if there are laws, the market is regulated? C'mon; not according to my Economics professors of the past. Taking away someone's ability to hurt children or any other people isn't regulating the market. That's like saying, once again, that making murder illegal is regulating the market. That argument doesn't fly with people who know what they're talking about. Side: nonexistent
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head. They are exclusive concepts. The market deals with trade; politics deals with individuals. A free market means that trade will not be infringed on. So what is your argument then? What you are stating is that if there are laws, the market is regulated? If a law punishes a type of business activity then it is regulating the market. What isn't clear about this? Taking away someone's ability to hurt children or any other people isn't regulating the market. Of course it is, because these are marketable activities. The sex trade for example, and slavery. Then there's sweatshop labour and dumping chemicals into the drinking water supply. These all are part of the market, yet they are illegal as individuals are legally restrained from such activities. That's like saying, once again, that making murder illegal is regulating the market. It technically is, because some forms of killing are marketable, for example hits, private military and private security. If these are made illegal then you regulate the market on mercenary, assassin, and security activities. That argument doesn't fly with people who know what they're talking about. Sorry to break it to you, but life isn't as black and white as your economics professors taught you. Side: nonexistent
Okay, one last example to see how your view on this is: Symbolic speech, like burning a flag or hanging a fake person, are protected under free speech. HOWEVER!, killing a politician in protest to a government act is not protected as free speech. Even if the murderer used it as a freedom of expression, murder is still illegal. Are you suggesting that, with murder being illegal, free speech isn't actually free speech? Or maybe, the whole point of the term is to mean something better. As an American, you are guaranteed the freedom of speech just how you SHOULD BE guaranteed the freedom of trade and enterprise. But, as an American, you are barred from committing acts that infringe on other's inalienable rights, such as murder or molestation, even if you do it as a form of speech or a means of making money. so really, a Free Market would be just as a free as Free Speech. If you consider the ban on murder as a market regulation, than you would also consider it as a speech regulation. Side: nonexistent
Symbolic speech, like burning a flag or hanging a fake person, are protected under free speech. Correct. HOWEVER!, killing a politician in protest to a government act is not protected as free speech. Even if the murderer used it as a freedom of expression, murder is still illegal. That is because murder is not a matter of speech. If we accept your premise that freedom of expression is protected by freedom of speech, and that such an act could be called an expression, then you would still be countered by the fact that free speech is not so. We never had fully, unequivocally free speech. There have always been exceptions, like blasphemy, and releasing state secrets to enemy states. Are you suggesting that, with murder being illegal, free speech isn't actually free speech? I don't believe that killing counts as an act of speech, but even if I did I would argue that we do not have free speech in the literal, absolute sense. Or maybe, the whole point of the term is to mean something better. As an American, you are guaranteed the freedom of speech just how you SHOULD BE guaranteed the freedom of trade and enterprise. But, as an American, you are barred from committing acts that infringe on other's inalienable rights, such as murder or molestation, even if you do it as a form of speech or a means of making money. You're basically arguing that "free" should not be read literally in either case. so really, a Free Market would be just as a free as Free Speech. If you consider the ban on murder as a market regulation, than you would also consider it as a speech regulation. Following your reasoning, unions, minimum wage, the EPA, OSHA, carbon emission caps, the FDA, all exist as ways of preventing business from violating others' inalienable rights. One might even extend this to medicine, since businesses do not necessarily provide healthcare to their workers, even for intensive jobs, and insurance companies are supremely exploitative of consumers. Therefore socialised medicine or the present health care bill would be examples of business-restricting laws designed to discourage the infringement of our rights. Just as one if prohibited from sharing state secrets, how to build dangerous weapons like nuclear bombs and sarin gas, etc. in order to prevent our rights from being violated (namely rights of welfare). Side: nonexistent
Unions don't have to be government regulated. But anyway, some of those will be market regulation mainly because they don't prevent the employers from actually hurting people. Minimum wage and carbon emission caps are more about politics than they are about preventing physical harm. Preventing waste from going into a lake, however, is the obvious stopping of something that WILL cause massive harm to a lot of people without them even being able to do anything about it. We don't have free speech in the literal, absolute sense just how the market isn't free in the literal, absolute sense. Neither are we, ourselves, free in the literal, absolute sense. A free market in the eyes of people like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson is one in which those who own a business are treated as individuals as opposed to a separate entity. And, in a free market, the laws of the government would be very relaxed, allowing people to make decisions for themselves as opposed to moral or cultural codes (i.e. gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.) Side: nonexistent
Unions don't have to be government regulated. Principally any organisation of individuals needs regulation that prevents it from having too much power stemming from its inherited individual rights, however if unions are regulated then that means they have a handicap due to the loud voice of business in government. We don't have free speech in the literal, absolute sense just how the market isn't free in the literal, absolute sense. Neither are we, ourselves, free in the literal, absolute sense. Correct, so why would anyone argue for a free market in the absolute sense? A free market in the eyes of people like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson is one in which those who own a business are treated as individuals as opposed to a separate entity. And, in a free market, the laws of the government would be very relaxed, allowing people to make decisions for themselves as opposed to moral or cultural codes (i.e. gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.) I am aware of this distinction but like my previous statement, when organisations of individuals inherit those rights, they become notoriously abusive towards the individual because they are larger and louder. Side: nonexistent
How about a privatized Government? One that utilizes the competition mechanic to achieve efficiency and lower costs? Except, instead of competing over money, they are competing over the number of people that live in their country and the educational/worth density of those people? In other words, splitting a well-established country in two to achieve privatized government, one that legislates quite literally as the people see fit to get the most that they can out of them and their opponent. Now, the question here would be how do you prevent underhand tricks? you do so with a promotion of open-book government, a paradigm change to such and a paradigm switch to making everyone more politically active or at least more politically aware. This would result in a much lower and even destroyed underhand-dealing mechanic. As for war, these two separate governments are still part of the same country. In the end, these two governments act as one internationally. Kind of like two states instead of fifty in the US. They both have equal access to their respective north and south relative borders, i.e. both have equal access to Mexico and Canada in the case of the US. Finally, both would sign a document guaranteeing their mutual disclosure of information, resources and military power, Ultimately meaning that the two are still the same country with checks and balances to each other, but potentially significantly different laws apply to things inside each respective government's boundaries. War is prevented, the people get what they want, the economic experiment is engaged and no one gets hurt. It also forces to surface many issues that require answers. Thus, the ultimate serving of government is, well, served. Side: Brotherhood
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not always. Depends on the times. If we were to introduce this system to the public now, then it would likely devolve into barbarism. Any unrestrained social animal population always organises itself on a hierarchy of power. We see this in the lower animals like chickens, we see it in the primates too. It is something I have been trying to breed out of my animals for the last four years. Side: no government
1
point
"Any unrestrained social animal population always organises itself on a hierarchy of power. We see this in the lower animals like chickens, we see it in the primates too." So, do you think that humans will ever achieve a state of advancement in which we would overcome our primitive social nature? Side: no government
So, do you think that humans will ever achieve a state of advancement in which we would overcome our primitive social nature? No. We are complicated animals which need a hierarchy in order to keep our wants and needs in balance. It would not behoove us to remove this restraint. Side: no government
1
point
1
point
Not yet anyway. Never. The argument that improving technology will lead to the obsolescence of government is a fallacious one. The new technology will need specialists to improve, repair and operate it. This cannot be achieved without some form of education. Either the State provides universal education, or a guild system forms. The guilds would have coercive power over the uneducated population, such as results in the formation of a technocracy. That is a form of barbarism, with education constituting strength and thence power. Side: no government
Never. The argument that improving technology will lead to the obsolescence of government is a fallacious one. The new technology will need specialists to improve, repair and operate it. There are some exotic circumstances in which a technological society could manage itself without the need for specialists, but these are beyond the scope of practicality. Otherwise I agree with your statement. The guilds would have coercive power over the uneducated population, such as results in the formation of a technocracy. That is a form of barbarism, with education constituting strength and thence power. We have seen similar instances of this before too, the Industrial Revolution is an example. Although it is ancient by our perspective, the technologies of assembly-line, factory, steam and water-powered machines were major breakthroughs which resulted in an educated elite taking advantage of uneducated people. It forced them to work as laborers under intense, unsafe conditions. Side: no government
In theory I would support a meritocratically limited democracy in which only people with proven intellectual and reasoning capability can vote. I envision a sort of essay-based test that people have to sit in order to get a "licence" to vote, the questions being generic social issues (rather like the questions we see on CreateDebate! :P ). Examiners, blindly chosen from some educated group, grade the essays by the quality of their arguments, not by the perspectives expressed. I can also imagine it being a combination of representative and direct democracy - e.g. when bills goes through Parliament, people who have specialist knowledge in the areas that the bills touch on could influence their passage. But this is all a very vague idea in my head. And since this type of government has never existed in any state, it's very hard to tell if it will be sustainable, or will just devolve into authoritarianism and/or class stratification as all non-democratic political systems so far have. As my theoretical government stands, there is plenty of room for corruption - though I'm not writing it off just for that, as current governments have plenty of room for corruption and are still functioning. Side: Meritocracy
1
point
In theory I would support a meritocratically limited democracy in which only people with proven intellectual and reasoning capability can vote. So in other words, if you are unlucky enough to be born stupid, you can't be a citizen. Now that's a democratic principle... impose civil disability on the majority of the population. Side: Meritocracy
Yeah, if it were put into practice, it wouldn't be anything like what we consider to be a democracy today, and I think that's a good thing. I see it as highly detrimental that people whose political opinions amount to little more than what they read on campaign billboards actually have a say in how the country is run. Although I'm not convinced that large numbers of people are "born stupid". I'm sure there are some people born with mental disabilities, but I believe that to a large extent, stupidity or intelligence is a result of learning. I don't think the modern education system does very much to raise students' intellectual ability, such that only the students motivated enough to figure it out independently will actually learn how to think - hence we see in modern society a small number of people who can think and write critically, and large numbers who can't. Side: Meritocracy
1
point
I see it as highly detrimental that people whose political opinions amount to little more than what they read on campaign billboards actually have a say in how the country is run. I see it as highly detrimental that a democracy should be replaced by an oligarchy. Although I'm not convinced that large numbers of people are "born stupid". You will become convinced of it in time. stupidity or intelligence is a result of learning. Incorrect. You cannot learn to be intelligent or stupid. I don't think the modern education system does very much to raise students' intellectual ability You cannot raise intellectual ability through education any more than you can raise combat ability through playing CoD. such that only the students motivated enough to figure it out independently will actually learn how to think You cannot be taught how to think. You can only be given the opportunity to do so. hence we see in modern society a small number of people who can think and write critically, and large numbers who can't. What do you mean "modern society"? There are more people capable of reading, thinking critically and writing today, at a higher percentage, than in any other time in human history. Side: Meritocracy
That's fine if you believe in democracy. It is the best system of government we have seen in practice so far, whereas my very tentative proposal is entirely untested, and not even fleshed out. Or if you're objecting to it because you believe that not allowing every adult citizen to have the vote automatically violates some fundamental human right... well, I see the universal adult right to vote to be largely a practical right, derived out of concerns that a tyrannical government could oppress its people if the people could not vote it out of power. If a smaller group of educated persons would vote into power a government that would be fair and consider the welfare of all members of society (and that is a very big if, upon which the success chance of my proposal will be determined), I would not see any urgent need for everyone to have the vote - although I would still hope that the voting population would increase over time as more people learn to think and write rationally. I know that my choice of the words "stupidity" and "intelligence" is unusual; these words are popularly taken to refer to natural ability rather than learned. I use them to highlight my disagreement with the belief that people's ability to think is determined by birth and cannot be improved. I cannot disagree more emphatically that you can't teach people to become better thinkers. If that were the case, there would be little point in having courses in logic or critical thinking, because people who cannot think rationally will never be able to do it no matter how you explain the concepts to them, and the ones who could have gotten any benefit out of these courses won't need courses. That's clearly not true; there are plenty of people who struggled to analyse a passage or form anything resembling a coherent argument until they took a course or read a teach-yourself manual on logic or critical analysis, then practised what they learned. I can, however, readily believe that some people are born more enthusiastic about learning/practising critical thinking than others, or that some people grasp ideas more quickly than others, or that some people are naturally more inclined to learn to think critically on their own than others. Perhaps the latter two skills are what you call "intelligence". By the way, you can raise combat ability through playing CoD, both gaming combat ability (that is clear for anyone who started off getting shot constantly, then improved through play) and real life combat ability. The US Army (I think it was them - the news is a few years old, my memory's gone fuzzy on it) has bought a multi-player FPS game and used it to train their troops in reaction and teamwork after studies suggested that soldiers who regularly played FPS games were generally more effective than those who didn't. And when I said "modern society", I meant only "society at the time of the modern education system", because I was specifically criticising how poorly the modern education system trains students to think. I'm not implying anything about pre-modern society. Side: Meritocracy
1
point
Or if you're objecting to it because you believe that not allowing every adult citizen to have the vote automatically violates some fundamental human right. Well, in Europe, we ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so it might be argued that such a system would violate articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 19, 21, 28 and 29 and 30 thereof. If wish to resort to savagery and barbarism, that is your prerogative, but don't expect me to take you seriously. well, I see the universal adult right to vote to be largely a practical right, derived out of concerns that a tyrannical government could oppress its people if the people could not vote it out of power. I would submit that it was more a recognition of the moral obligation to allow the citizens of a state to have some measure of say in its operation. If a smaller group of educated persons would vote into power a government that would be fair and consider the welfare of all members of society (and that is a very big if, upon which the success chance of my proposal will be determined), I would not see any urgent need for everyone to have the vote - although I would still hope that the voting population would increase over time as more people learn to think and write rationally. What you have proposed is an oligarchy masquerading as a meritocracy. You propose that the power to vote should be given to an elite, as well as the authority to bestow that power upon others. I suggest you should hold yourself to the standards you proposed, and "learn to think and write rationally". I know that my choice of the words "stupidity" and "intelligence" is unusual; these words are popularly taken to refer to natural ability rather than learned. As you have demonstrated, the reverse is true. One is born either with or without intelligence. In much the same way, one is born into either wealth, sufficiency, or poverty. If that were the case, there would be little point in having courses in logic or critical thinking, because people who cannot think rationally will never be able to do it no matter how you explain the concepts to them That is a logical fallacy. One could say the same of anything, thus: "there would be little point in having courses in advanced mathematics or biological chemistry, because people who cannot think logically will never be able to do it no matter how you explain the concepts to them". I submit that the existence of such courses, and of people who can and cannot follow them, effectively demonstrates the wretchedness of what you purport constitutes rational thinking. and the ones who could have gotten any benefit out of these courses won't need courses. Another logical fallacy. David Beckham was not born an international footballer. Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay was not born the greatest political essayist (and I suggest you read this, that you might comprehend what constitutes real critical thinking) of the 19th century. The US Army (I think it was them - the news is a few years old, my memory's gone fuzzy on it) has bought a multi-player FPS game and used it to train their troops in reaction and teamwork after studies suggested that soldiers who regularly played FPS games were generally more effective than those who didn't. Which is why they are winning the Afghanistan war? Irony aside, CoD does not raise combat skills. One can heal by hiding behind a wall. One can reload a gun without losing the bullets still inside the old magazine. One can cool down an overheated machine gun by pressing a button. One can fire a Dragunov accurately whilst standing. One can see precisely where enemies are based upon their gunshots... need I go on? And when I said "modern society", I meant only "society at the time of the modern education system", because I was specifically criticising how poorly the modern education system trains students to think. I'm not implying anything about pre-modern society. Implicit in any criticism of modern society is praise for pre-modern society. If the defect were not exclusive to modern society, one would simply say "society". Side: Meritocracy
I do not, as you perhaps do, accept every modern statement of rights as the God-given truth and see every violation of it as savagery and barbarism. Anyone who proposes an alternative government system to democracy necessarily envisages changes to the current accepted standards of human rights and freedoms, as democracy is enshrined in pretty much every full statement of rights. Using current statements of human rights to point out flaws in my proposal is as helpful as using the Bible to argue with an atheist. Remember that I was not referring to "statements of human rights", as that would be ludicrous, but to "fundamental rights" - i.e. asking you if you thought that suffrage is something that every adult human must have, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of what is written on pieces of paper, and regardless of what the general opinion is. Everyone can and should have the right to determine how their own life is lived to the extent that practicality allows. But my basic belief is that not everyone should also have a say in how other people are or are not allowed to live their lives, which is what results from a universal suffrage. If more people like a representative who says men can beat their wives than like a representative saying the opposite, then men can beat their wives. That is the result of democracy - tyranny of the majority - and is what I hope to mitigate with my proposal. It is not true, or even possible, that my proposal is "an oligarchy masquerading as a meritocracy". Meritocracy, on its own, barely begins to describe a system of government. What the hell is a meritocratic government, period? Show me how it will operate. Who leads, who determines who leads, how many people lead, how do they lead? None of these basic questions are answered except the first; you need some additional descriptor for the other questions. Rather, it is an ideology concerning the political status of people in a state, where the intelligent or knowledgeable rise higher within the political structure; what that structure should be is left completely open. Democracies, oligarchies, and monarchies can all operate on the meritocratic principle. I chose to call my proposal a "meritocratically limited democracy" as I find it more similar to conventional interpretations of democracy than that of oligarchy. If you don't like that term, feel free to call my proposed system a meritocratic oligarchy, as that's not an unreasonable way of describing it. But that is quite different from claiming that it is a political structure masquerading as something that is not a political structure. You have not understood the scope of my argument. Basic logic (at least the informal types, which was what I had in mind rather than formal logics or programming) and critical thinking are "rational thinking", codified into a form that is easy to understand, not some specialist subject that involves the application of rational thinking among many other things. So no, one can not say the same of anything. What you said in your previous post was that one cannot be taught how to think, and that one cannot learn to be intelligent; one can only be given the opportunity to think. But since there are people in the world who can think, people who are intelligent, I assume that you believe some people are born intelligent, and learn to think simply from being exposed to material that allow for critical analysis. And now I expand on my argument from my last post, hoping that this time you will read it as I intended for you to: If this were the case, why do teachers in the courses I mentioned even bother to hand out textbooks and explain how to detect arguments and syllogisms and fallacies? All they needed to do was produce a passage, then tell their students to read it and think about it. The born intelligent ones will figure out what's right or wrong with it, and the born stupid ones won't. That, of course, is as ridiculous as it sounds, because thinking is something that, to a large extent, can be taught and honed with the right resources. Furthermore, your claim (at least I think that is your claim - your wording was so vague that it was difficult to decipher your meaning) that the fact that some people fail courses in logic/critical thinking effectively demonstrates that a fair number of people are born incapable of thinking rationally is much too strong. There are many other factors influencing one's achievement in a course; "natural stupidity" is only one possibility. Similarly, whether or not I have displayed intelligence in my posts does nothing to support your claim that one is born with or without intelligence. It only suggests whether or not I have intelligence now. (And by the way, repeatedly calling me stupid or implying that I am stupid will not further your argument, will not scare me, and will not anger me. The only things it will do is very mildly annoy me, and demonstrate to me that you find childish insults a suitable addition to what I had attempted to make a polite dialogue.) I had started preparing a reply for CoD, but to prevent further lengthening this post I'll leave it out. You have read more into my term "modern society" than I intended, or is appropriate. If I say that the limitations of modern medical practice meant my relative's failing heart couldn't be revitalised, am I implying that medical knowledge of past ages would have saved her? No; it could mean that I hope organ cloning in the future could give such patients a new heart. If I say that the modern home computer doesn't have 3D viewing capability, am I implying that computers from the 80s or 90s could have done it? No; it could mean that I hope 3D viewing will become an affordable home technology soon. Along the same lines, why should criticising modern society necessarily imply that pre-modern society was better? I am saying only that the x we have now is not good enough, and perhaps implying that I hope the x in the future will be better. That pinpointing one period of time for criticism involves implications about other periods of time isn't a far-fetched supposition, but to suppose that it involves, specifically, a positive implication about a previous time period is reading too much meaning in. I do understand why you assumed that I was praising pre-modern society, because criticisms of modern society do often involve nostalgic comments about the good old days. But as I have clarified, I am saying no such thing here. And I will very rarely say such a thing, since I believe modern society is in most aspects vastly improved from earlier times. Side: Meritocracy
1
point
|
