Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 197198199200201 280>
Author
Message
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:07
Originally posted by The T

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.

Originally posted by The T

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.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:08
Expounding a little more on my blog post - often I've heard people say that a progressive tax rate is unjust.  But that would be like saying that I expect a D1 to be as productive as a D4.  Or lowering my standards and only expecting a D4 to be as productive as a D1.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:19
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:25
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:30
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.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:34
Originally posted by Epignosis

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."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 15:56
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

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
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 16:29
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

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.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 17:03
Originally posted by Epignosis

I will bet you anything that it isn't negative 22%, which is about what my federal income tax rate is. 
Shocked in Belgium I pay around 58% of my income as taxes, possibly you would freak about that! Of course it all depends on what do you get from that. I personally think 58% is too much but I still defend having a government and taxes.
 
The weird thing is the line of reasoning: 'our current government is not just so the solution is let's get rid of the government', instead of 'let's fight for a just government'. It's like saying 'cars cause accidents, solution let's get rid of cars' instead of trying to find a way where cars can provide their benefits while trying to minimize their potential dangers
If you think the current US government is not fair to the population, fight about it, don't just give up with the naive idea that 'no government' will be a better system.
 
 
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16139
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 17:03
Not to mention that rich capitalistic owners get more and millionaire while the players get a little less rich while the janitor in the NFL building is probably almost on minimum wage. Yes, socialist paradise.

The problem is really the stupidity of comparing a sport and a system to organize a country economically. It is quite incredibly stupid.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15344
Post Options Post Options   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 17:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by The T

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
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2505
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 17:23
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by Epignosis

I will bet you anything that it isn't negative 22%, which is about what my federal income tax rate is. 
Shocked in Belgium I pay around 58% of my income as taxes, possibly you would freak about that! Of course it all depends on what do you get from that. I personally think 58% is too much but I still defend having a government and taxes.
 
The weird thing is the line of reasoning: 'our current government is not just so the solution is let's get rid of the government', instead of 'let's fight for a just government'. It's like saying 'cars cause accidents, solution let's get rid of cars' instead of trying to find a way where cars can provide their benefits while trying to minimize their potential dangers
If you think the current US government is not fair to the population, fight about it, don't just give up with the naive idea that 'no government' will be a better system.
 
 


That's not really the argument - the argument is "government inherently tends to be corrupt, governmental methods of control are unjust, and government is unnecessary - so let's get rid of it".

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.  And who would fund most of the government in a system like this?  It would be the rich - because big businessmen will want protection for their business against theft; the rich and famous want to be protected from their enemies - and they're the ones who have the most money to pay, and the most property at stake for the government to protect for them.

Of course, such a system would have to be safeguarded by strict constitutional parameters for government, lest the government be influenced too much by big business and denigrate into a corporatist state (as we have now).
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 17:36
Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by dtguitarfan

Originally posted by Epignosis

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.  Smile

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.  Smile
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 18:06
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by Epignosis

I will bet you anything that it isn't negative 22%, which is about what my federal income tax rate is. 
Shocked in Belgium I pay around 58% of my income as taxes, possibly you would freak about that! Of course it all depends on what do you get from that. I personally think 58% is too much but I still defend having a government and taxes.
 
The weird thing is the line of reasoning: 'our current government is not just so the solution is let's get rid of the government', instead of 'let's fight for a just government'. It's like saying 'cars cause accidents, solution let's get rid of cars' instead of trying to find a way where cars can provide their benefits while trying to minimize their potential dangers
If you think the current US government is not fair to the population, fight about it, don't just give up with the naive idea that 'no government' will be a better system.
 
 


Is Belgium  involved in policing the world?  Belgium doesn't have drones striking down its own citizens, does it?  Does Belgium spy on its own citizenry?  Belgium doesn't allow it's own ambassadors to be killed and cover it up, does it?  And Belgium isn't $16 trillion in debt.

I can understand your contentment, even if I do not condone it.  The US government is corrupt and does not help our people efficiently.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8312
Post Options Post Options   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2013 at 23:33
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.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2013 at 06:32
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes



That's not really the argument - the argument is "government inherently tends to be corrupt, governmental methods of control are unjust, and government is unnecessary - so let's get rid of it".


That's an unhelpful argument.  A more helpful argument would be to say "why does government seem to tend towards corruption?"  Then, when you search for that answer, you find out "it's because of corporations giving them money and influencing their decisions."   And then you figure out that "the free market" is a bunch of crap.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2013 at 06:36
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.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2013 at 07:05
The whole idea of "free market capitalism" is that companies will naturally do what's right if government gets out of their way because consumers will pressure them to do the right thing.  But when you look at situations like Ralph Nader, you realize that's not true.  You realize that what really happens in life is that companies don't want to do the right thing because the right thing is difficult, and they just want to make a fast buck.  And rather than being pressured by the consumer, what companies do is to spend money on propaganda in order to convince the consumer that they NEED this product, and to convince the consumer that it either doesn't matter that the company is not doing the right thing, or that they are already doing the right thing.  And in America, these corporations buy politicians by giving them vast sums on their campaigns and by sending all kinds of lobbyists at them.  So then you realize - it's not government that is inherently evil.  It is greed.  So the answer is not "no government", the answer is "reign in greed."  The reason government is corrupt is that they haven't been doing that.  Use "socialist" principles and make campaign funding come straight from tax money, and reign in the lobbyists, and your problem is solved.

Edited by dtguitarfan - July 14 2013 at 07:06
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Post Options Post Options   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2013 at 08:20
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

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.
The rich can't influence this much because funding via donations is strictly limited and controlled.


Edited by Gerinski - July 14 2013 at 08:22
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31460
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2013 at 08:22
I don't really care about seat belts.  Used to ride in the back of pickup trucks all the time.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 197198199200201 280>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.797 seconds.