"Freedom" thread or something

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: manofmystery wrote: Turn for what? Have you gone back and seen what this guy's been posting the last how many pages and how he responds to any criticism of it? I respect the other regulars here for being above responding in kind. I'm not above that sort of thing, as we all know. I do watch myself a bit more these days, though. You want to look back at this thread (and the news thread and most poltical threads) to see how often tag-teaming is used once "an opponent" has been put on the defensive.. Then you'll see that it is Teo's turn next. That's unfortunately an unavoidable accident of having a thread dedicated to one political philosophy - whether it be libertarianism, socialism, conservatism, or any other political idea, the proponents of that philosophy are going to dominate the discussion on their own thread; I don't think the "tag-teaming" is malicious or anything; just a result of several people with similar opinions all wanting to get them out at once.EDIT: oh, you kind of meant something else.  Oops.MoM, there are about...er...7 or 8 libertarians here?  You, me, Rob, Pat, Logan, Teo, JJ...I'm not sure if Padraic is a libertarian (he doesn't post here as much and I haven't been on here that long) but I thought he was.

The pattern here has always been that every once and awhile someone comes in trying to explain why libertarianism is wrong and we all need the government's chains, those of us who feel like posting engage the person in debate and challenge their assertions, they either ignore responses completely or respond by plowing further ahead with flawed reasoning (sometimes becoming nasty in the process), then their is some mocking and perhaps mud slinging (on our end this is only really done by me and only when I feel I'm merely responding in kind). I will say that a couple have chosen to open their minds and research, instead of continuing to smash their heads into the wall, as a result of this thread and that we've had one seemingly full conversion and one partial conversion .

Edited by manofmystery - July 14 2013 at 19:30

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: 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. The rich can't influence this much because funding via donations is strictly limited and controlled. Funding political parties is not the same as funding government programs. What if you don't agree with any of the political parties?  What if you don't care about politics?  If I lived in Belgium I may just be put in prison for tax evasion.  And I'm not kidding. Well, in Belgium voting is compulsory, of course you may vote blank. In my native Spain voting is not compulsory, you may pass. It makes no difference, the point is that every citizen has to contribute to the sustainment of the democratical political system, regardless if you support democracy or not (the must to accept democracy is taken as a given, no choice about that) or which ideology you support. You pay taxes and part of them go to funding the political parties proportionally to their voting results, that's it. If you choose to vote blank or not to vote, your money still goes to the most voted parties, proportionally. I think it's fine and it's also a way to make people interested in politics. It's easy to say 'I don't care about politics' but the plain truth is your life is governed by politics, like it or not.

But let's say there are three political parties in Belgium (don't know the political situation, just making it up for illustration purposes).  And let's say I don't like any of the parties, which wouldn't be that out of the ordinary (I personally do not affiliate myself with any political party, I am libertarian in philosophy but do not attach myself to the Libertarian party).  Is it not unfair to force me to give money to an organization I do not agree with?

What about a "quietist," someone who chooses to abstain from politics for religious or other reasons?  Aren't they having their rights violated by being forced to give their money to a political party?

What if I am interested in politics but simply think that there are better uses for my money than to fund a political party?  Shouldn't parties be able to raise money themselves?  A simple cap on donations from any person or organization (though I would not necessarily support it) would seem to me to be a less coercive and more effective method of preventing undue corporate influence on politics than making everyone pay for something they may not support.

Also, I said this before and I will say it again: I am intrigued by the parlimentary system and the way in which it allows a larger variety of points of view into the government, but that benefit is offset by a system in which taxes go to support political parties proportionately, based upon votes.  The more votes you get, the more money you get; the more money you get, the easier it is to get more votes - it can only spawn a vicious cycle in which one party could easily rise to dominate all the others.  The American two-party system is awful, but imagine how much worse it would be if either the Democrats or the Republicans gained a vast majority in all branches of government for a long period of time.  Freedom would disappear.

Epignosis wrote: Gerinski wrote: Epignosis wrote: What happens in Belgium if someone refuses to vote?  Or cannot make it to the poll? In Belgium voting is compulsory, but if for any reason you can't vote (you're away on trip, in hospital badly sick or injured etc, even if of course voting by mail or internet is often still possible) you ask for an exemption from the voting obligation and it's ok, you just need the certification from the doctor, or the travel ticket etc. Actually when there are ellections, reservations for travelling rise up a lot so people use then to justify not having to go vote, even if many are then cancelled last minute But if you don't have an acceptable excuse and you don't go vote, you get a penalty.   In Spain voting is not compulsory so it doesn't matter, you may not vote but that will not save you from paying the part of your taxes which is destined to funding the political parties. Ah, interesting.  What is the penalty?

It's a fine, around 50 euro I think (not a lot). If you repeat a 2nd time or more though, the amount gets higer.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: But let's say there are three political parties in Belgium (don't know the political situation, just making it up for illustration purposes).  And let's say I don't like any of the parties, which wouldn't be that out of the ordinary (I personally do not affiliate myself with any political party, I am libertarian in philosophy but do not attach myself to the Libertarian party).  Is it not unfair to force me to give money to an organization I do not agree with? What about a "quietist," someone who chooses to abstain from politics for religious or other reasons?  Aren't they having their rights violated by being forced to give their money to a political party? What if I am interested in politics but simply think that there are better uses for my money than to fund a political party?  Shouldn't parties be able to raise money themselves?  A simple cap on donations from any person or organization (though I would not necessarily support it) would seem to me to be a less coercive and more effective method of preventing undue corporate influence on politics than making everyone pay for something they may not support.

I don't see that Geoff implied that the car manufacturers were indifferent to the deaths of their customers and would never have installed safety measures. He said they had to be forced to do it (as standard, across the range, on every car produced), and that they strongly lobbied against the legislation (which they did) and that they even used dirty tricks to discredit Nader (which they also did).

Edited by Dean - July 15 2013 at 08:19

Dean wrote: I don't see that Geoff implied that the car manufacturers were indifferent to the deaths of their customers and would never have installed safety measures. He said they had to be forced to do it (as standard, across the range, on every car produced), and that they strongly lobbied against the legislation (which they did) and that they even used dirty tricks to discredit Nader (which they also did).   The argument they put forward was that it was too expensive (which Geoff extrapolated to "they would not make a profit") - which was a specious argument as far as I can tell - the more likely explanation as to why they resisted was because seat belts at that time were an "optional extra", (and as we know they can charge a lot more for an optional extra becuase it is a "desirable" - no one really believes metalic paint costs an extra £500 per vehicle over normal paint do they?), and since this particular optional extra was a saftey feature, their salesmen could use it as a selling point to bump up the showroom price. For want of a more rational reason for the car manufacturers resistance to the legislation, profit does seem to be the most likely, just not the one they gave at the time.   Whether seat belts would have been fitted as standard across the range on every car produced without legislation is something we can never prove so Geoff assertion is also unproven, it seems more likely that through a steady war of attrition it would have become standard practice eventually, (I was going to cite DRL as an example but the adoption of that is also the result of legislation), but that is not a given.

I'm not quite sure what his point was then. Though I also kind of doubt that seatbelts would have failed to become standard, but that's rather impossible idea to test as you say.

That without legislations corporations (and many individuals) tend to go beyond the limits of what most of us consider morally acceptable for increasing profit or personal benefit seems an undeniable fact. You only need to look at what they do in the underdeveloped countries where such legislations do not exist (and even how many times they try even where the regulations exist)  

Edited by Gerinski - July 15 2013 at 08:51

Gerinski wrote: That without legislations corporations (and many individuals) tend to go beyond the limits of what most of us consider morally acceptable for increasing profit or personal benefit seems an undeniable fact. You only need to look at what they do in the underdeveloped countries where such legislations do not exist (and even how many times they try even where the regulations exist)     The sad truth is, in a de-regulated society you would need a vastly bigger police force (maybe rather an army).

dtguitarfan wrote: Dean wrote: I don't see that Geoff implied that the car manufacturers were indifferent to the deaths of their customers and would never have installed safety measures. He said they had to be forced to do it (as standard, across the range, on every car produced), and that they strongly lobbied against the legislation (which they did) and that they even used dirty tricks to discredit Nader (which they also did).   The argument they put forward was that it was too expensive (which Geoff extrapolated to "they would not make a profit") - which was a specious argument as far as I can tell - the more likely explanation as to why they resisted was because seat belts at that time were an "optional extra", (and as we know they can charge a lot more for an optional extra becuase it is a "desirable" - no one really believes metalic paint costs an extra £500 per vehicle over normal paint do they?), and since this particular optional extra was a saftey feature, their salesmen could use it as a selling point to bump up the showroom price. For want of a more rational reason for the car manufacturers resistance to the legislation, profit does seem to be the most likely, just not the one they gave at the time.   Whether seat belts would have been fitted as standard across the range on every car produced without legislation is something we can never prove so Geoff assertion is also unproven, it seems more likely that through a steady war of attrition it would have become standard practice eventually, (I was going to cite DRL as an example but the adoption of that is also the result of legislation), but that is not a given. See, Dean gets it.  And he's correct that I cannot prove that without legislation we never would have had seat belts in every car.  Neither can the Libertarians prove that if we had a "free market", we would have eventually gotten seat belts in every car either.  All I can do is look at the way things are and the way things have been done in the past and make an assumption as to how to get things done.  And what I've been trying to say when I have said that the burden of proof is on the Libertarians is that I can look at situations like Nader and say "this was the situation, this was what was done, and it worked."  You can do no such thing because there has never been a Libertarian government.  So I am coming from a position that is more grounded in reality than yours, which is why I say the burden of proof is on you.

The weird thing is that I don't really disagree with anything that Dean said, and it doesn't seem to be proving that free market capitalism is a failure.

Well in this context, calling it a failure and saying it doesn't work would be the same thing.

You act as though I'm reluctant to give proof, or as if I couldn't replace whatever you call your particular political philosophy with libertarianism in that statement and throw the same argument back at you.