"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: Any comments on what Pat (Equality) said about the NFL comparison? Because it seems the "moving on" is a "I can't answer that so let's ignore it" strategy. .

No, it's more like "it's not worth answering."  But since you insist - Pat seems to think that since the system has problems that proves that it's a bad system.  I say the fact the the system uses socialism to its advantage is very problematic for Libertarians who insist all government is bad, and I wouldn't expect ANY system to be perfect - that's just stupid.  I've been a computer programmer for a decade now - I design systems for a living.  And in my time I've never worked on a system that didn't need more work.  No system is perfect.

The T wrote: Also, what better invitation to read your blog and your ideas than dropping some insults... Come on.

Did you read it?  Are you familiar with the concept of situational leadership?

Basically, the Libertarianism I've witnessed here is saying "there shouldn't be leadership, and everyone's situation should be treated the same - with a hands off approach."  The situational leadership model says it's appropriate to use different leadership styles for different situations and it's a proven system.  That's why I think Libertarianism of this flavor is idiotic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/07/nfl-owners-love-the-gop/

It isn't socialist though- not by a long shot, and that you are using the NFL as an example of socialism proves that you know as much about socialism as you do about Libertarianism.

In a nutshell, the NFL draws its money from willing customers.  Governments do not.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: It isn't socialist though- not by a long shot, and that you are using the NFL as an example of socialism proves that you know as much about socialism as you do about Libertarianism. In a nutshell, the NFL draws its money from willing customers.  Governments do not. I never said it was a PURE socialistic system.  I said it was an example of how socialistic principles can work.  That's the difference between you and me.  You adhere to a 100% purist view that says "anything that doesn't match this system I've come up with is wrong and must be abolished."  Whereas I say "sometimes it's appropriate to use these principles and sometimes it's appropriate to use those - every person is different and every situation is different.  It would be wise to learn from all systems and take each situation on its own, endeavoring to match the appropriate response to the current situation."

The NFL is a 501(c)(6), and as such, is a non-profit league.

The NFL isn't a socialist system.  It isn't even close.  It's a private affiliation.  They can do as they wish.  They don't put people in jail for not buying tickets.  They don't go to war.  They don't create rules that affect people who don't want to watch or play football.

Edited by Epignosis - July 13 2013 at 15:57

Epignosis wrote: I will bet you anything that it isn't negative 22%, which is about what my federal income tax rate is.

dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: Any comments on what Pat (Equality) said about the NFL comparison? Because it seems the "moving on" is a "I can't answer that so let's ignore it" strategy. . No, it's more like "it's not worth answering."  But since you insist - Pat seems to think that since the system has problems that proves that it's a bad system.  I say the fact the the system uses socialism to its advantage is very problematic for Libertarians who insist all government is bad, and I wouldn't expect ANY system to be perfect - that's just stupid.  I've been a computer programmer for a decade now - I design systems for a living.  And in my time I've never worked on a system that didn't need more work.  No system is perfect.

Translation: I have no way to respond to anything he brought up. I didn't have any point. You're the one who made the moronic comparison. I just poked holes in your half-baked sound bite which you clearly thought everyone would swallow without an iota of thought.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 13 2013 at 17:17

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: It isn't socialist though- not by a long shot, and that you are using the NFL as an example of socialism proves that you know as much about socialism as you do about Libertarianism. In a nutshell, the NFL draws its money from willing customers.  Governments do not. I never said it was a PURE socialistic system.  I said it was an example of how socialistic principles can work.  That's the difference between you and me.  You adhere to a 100% purist view that says "anything that doesn't match this system I've come up with is wrong and must be abolished."  Whereas I say "sometimes it's appropriate to use these principles and sometimes it's appropriate to use those - every person is different and every situation is different.  It would be wise to learn from all systems and take each situation on its own, endeavoring to match the appropriate response to the current situation." The NFL is a 501(c)(6), and as such, is a non-profit league. The NFL isn't a socialist system.  It isn't even close.  It's a private affiliation.  They can do as they wish.  They don't put people in jail for not buying tickets.  They don't go to war.  They don't create rules that affect people who don't want to watch or play football. My god, you are so stubborn and blind sometimes.  It's like you don't WANT to understand what I'm saying. The NFL uses socialist principles such as revenue sharing and salary caps.  And my point in bringing it up is not that America should adopt a pure socialist system.  I'm not an absolutist like you.  My point is that sometimes "socialism" is appropriate.  Sometimes it works.  Hybrid systems that combine socialism and capitalism might be the best of both worlds, as is illustrated in the NFL.

I understand you quite well.  You're wrong and you've yet to make one compelling argument. 

We currently have a blend of socialism and capitalism.  That is what the USA is.  Bailouts (socialism) with private corporations (capitalism), welfare (socialism) with people buying and selling land (capitalism), and grocery stores (capitalism) with negative income taxes (socialism).

We have "the best of both worlds" as you put it.  Clearly you don't like it. 

Geoff, I don't understand your NFL comparison at all. You're saying that a private organization uses collectivist techniques to the betterment of itself, and that that is a good thing. Fine, I won't argue that one way or the other, because I don't know much about the NFL, but none of that is inconsistent with libertarianism.

We have no problem with collectivism. If you and your buddies want to set up a commune built around collectivist principles, that's fine with me, because it has nothing to do with me. If you believe profit sharing can improve things for your organization, knock yourself out. Wonderful! It has nothing to do with me, just as the NFL has nothing to do with me.

Despite the fact that we've explained it over and over again to you, you still don't understand that we're not preaching a "every man for himself" ideology. We encourage cooperation and organization. We see unforced examples of it all the time and we applaud them. What we object to is the tyranny, bullying and lack of accountability that comes from an organization that has a license to take whatever it wants from us, to imprison us if we try to hold onto our property and to kill us if we try to resist going to prison.

The NFL doesn't do any of those things, so if they want to use socialist principles, I am very happy to allow them to do so, but it has nothing to do with whether or not government is just.

Nobody addressed Ralph Nader and seat belts.  You like seat belts?  You know you have them because of legislation that Ralph Nader made happen? 

That's what I think it so stupid about this "free market" idea.  The corporations fought Nader tooth and nail on seat belts and air bags, and said things like "if we have to do this, we won't make a profit!"  That was proven wrong in the end, but it took government FORCING (oh, you guys hate when I use that word, don't you) them to do the right thing.  It usually takes some governmental authority FORCING companies to do the right thing before it becomes common practice.  Which is why "the free market" is crap.  Actually, there's a ton of legislation that Nader made happen that goes against your silly "free market" theory, you should study up on his life sometime.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I do think that there should be a government, but I'm beginning to come around to the idea that taxation should be voluntary.  Think about it - if people want the things that a government typically provides, won't they be willing to pay for them?  They already do!  Except in a system like this, if the people don't like what the government is doing, they can just stop paying them - and the government will have to alter their policies to fit the will of the people.

That's what we do. Since our political parties are funded from the taxes proportionally to the votes they get, if you stop voting for party A and decide switching your vote to party B, this effectively means that you stop paying to party A and decide to pay instead to party B, whose policies you agree more with. But paying to some party is compulsory, you can't just say, sorry I don't contribute.

Edited by Gerinski - July 14 2013 at 08:22