yes because all those poor people are going to turn to illegal activities if they can't get handouts. And there certainly could never be charities without the government intervening.
having an imperfect system, which is what we will have no matter what.
Can you see the flaw in your logic given the above example? Come on, you can do it.
The flaw is you think because you could maybe poke holes in a libertarian system that you think the only option is to make it worse.
But anyways 2 points 1. There are a few places for local government. Children, Environment and Animals are cases that I think the local government can regulate to some degree. So maybe if your situation is exactly like you describe it, there would be some government involvemet.
2. Likely, it is not like you're describing anyways. You think people are just going to eat dangerous products? as i've stated, one part of the government that should be in place is a court system. So if the company sells you dangerous food, you can sue, you can file criminal charge potentially. So even if your feared scenario happens, you would still have plenty of avenues to pursue should it come to that. Someone can't sell you food as being safe and then it kills you, without there being repercussions.
Yo make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems worse.
yes it's called being objective and observing. That it's not hte piles of regulations that make no sense that make my life better, it's the fact that if i don't give someone my money, they can't just take it, so they have to convince me to give my money to them.
Given the history of the free market, where in the past, fewer regulations meant unsafe workplaces, child labour, lead in paint, fake medicines, etc, etc, I think it's safe to say my position has more evidence supporting it.
You enjoy all that you do largely because of the free market. Look around you, you would have so little of it if there was no free market. It's not because some bureaucrat wrote some legislation that congress passed, it's because people are pursuing profits. Look at hong kong, less than a life time it was a horrible place to live, compared to now where it's a decent place to live, relatively speaking. Largely a libertarian type government.
But, of course, libertarianism, like communism, has nothing to do with "evidence", and everything to do with blind idealism...
You should try being more condescending, it's a great way to get your point across.
Libertarianism is the root of this country, it's not done too bad really. But hey, feel free to take the blindfold off of me.
wait limited government = anarchy? ok well, ig uess if you want to call much of the years between the founding of our country and like the turn of the 20th century anarchy, i guess the term applies. (not that i think it was perfect at all, slavery, women's suffrage 2 obvious examples)
Your problem with 2 people not agreeing could be applied to any form of government.. obviously evne if i had my type of government, not everything i thought would stay, it would change.
Monopolies will be allowed, but they will rarely if ever happen, because nothing would be stopping anyone else from competing.
I'm anti union as far as, them getting special privileges from the government. I'm pro union as far as people have the right to associate with whom/whatever they want. But unions should get no special laws like they do now. Of course, in my view, no one gets any special laws at all.
Your logic is that it's either perfect or imperfect and thus should fear it and regulate it. Which is absurd. Besides, markets have regulations, they're generated by the markets, you know, customers who get to choose what they want and there is competition.
You also make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems better. Which it might, some of the time, but in the long run, since we never stop after just a little regulation(which have unintended side affects anyways), leads to far worse problems than what we were trying to prevent.
what the right thing? how can you know? how can anyone know all the right rules and regulations?
the common thought is, well, we can tinker with the rules and make them better. And i'm sure in some instances that has worked out OK. but eventually, what happens, you get mounds and mounds of paper work and regulations written by bureaucrat, who even if they are honest and well intended, can't really write the correct rules.
It's like you have some dude writing rules on coding. That's hard enough to do in a small group. But how is that even possible for a country? Can you imagine if there were government mandated practices on coding? when you could code, when you couldn't, what style, what languages, what platforms ect ect. It would be a huge mess. And all this is making the unrealistic assumptions that it's an expert or a group of experts, and that they have the best intentions. In reality it would be IBM and HP and MS and whoever else, lobbying and getting special things put in.
So yes, i conclude that it is better to let individuals and groups decide for themselves what's best for themselves and their customers.
Which is why i didn't and don't argue for anarchy. I argue for limited government. Government that is generally limited to contract enforcement (including things like fraud laws). And anything that forces people to do something that they have not agreed to do. That way, the only way you can be exploited is if you agree to it.
the federal reserve pumped in gobs of money trying to reinflate the dot com bubble and congress put pressure on banks to give out more housing loans. If that doesn't sound like a bubble waiting to happen..
Well you'd be wrong. The hard libertarian point of view is simple, that people should be free to do what they want (form groups/companies/organizations), so long as they don't force anyone else to do anything. The government's job is therefore not to determine whether a market is free enough, because by definition it is, since no one can force anyone else to do anything.
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked, and yet everyone fears it so heavily. But don't worry, you and most of/. will get your way, and in the future we'll miss out on the next youtube/facebook/wikipedia, because there will be so much red tape in place, it will crush innovation. Some will still get through of course. And of course, the big companies will push regulation (you know, the ones you're now so worried about? yeah they'll eventually get more power and control of the market because of crap like this.)
I don't know why freedom is such a hard concept to grasp.
your point is completely valid. If everyone watches commercial free TV, with no other source of revenue for the content(as bit torrent currently is), it will still be made because people will just make content out of the goodness of their heart.
gold(and silver) has had value for thousands of years. You can't say the same about the us dollar or the euro. Also, people can't just make gold, unless most currencies, which are easy to print more of.
Slashdot Mirror
yes because all those poor people are going to turn to illegal activities if they can't get handouts. And there certainly could never be charities without the government intervening.
yeah fuck people who might have different priorities than me and a different view. They shouldn't be allowed to vote.
with no other source of revenue for the content(as bit torrent currently is)
is what i said.
So unless there is a source of revenue those shows will stop being made if everyone switches to using bit torrent.
So the other position is... what?
having an imperfect system, which is what we will have no matter what.
Can you see the flaw in your logic given the above example? Come on, you can do it.
The flaw is you think because you could maybe poke holes in a libertarian system that you think the only option is to make it worse.
But anyways 2 points
1. There are a few places for local government. Children, Environment and Animals are cases that I think the local government can regulate to some degree. So maybe if your situation is exactly like you describe it, there would be some government involvemet.
2. Likely, it is not like you're describing anyways. You think people are just going to eat dangerous products? as i've stated, one part of the government that should be in place is a court system. So if the company sells you dangerous food, you can sue, you can file criminal charge potentially. So even if your feared scenario happens, you would still have plenty of avenues to pursue should it come to that. Someone can't sell you food as being safe and then it kills you, without there being repercussions.
Yo make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems worse.
yes it's called being objective and observing. That it's not hte piles of regulations that make no sense that make my life better, it's the fact that if i don't give someone my money, they can't just take it, so they have to convince me to give my money to them.
Given the history of the free market, where in the past, fewer regulations meant unsafe workplaces, child labour, lead in paint, fake medicines, etc, etc, I think it's safe to say my position has more evidence supporting it.
You enjoy all that you do largely because of the free market. Look around you, you would have so little of it if there was no free market. It's not because some bureaucrat wrote some legislation that congress passed, it's because people are pursuing profits. Look at hong kong, less than a life time it was a horrible place to live, compared to now where it's a decent place to live, relatively speaking. Largely a libertarian type government.
But, of course, libertarianism, like communism, has nothing to do with "evidence", and everything to do with blind idealism...
You should try being more condescending, it's a great way to get your point across.
Libertarianism is the root of this country, it's not done too bad really. But hey, feel free to take the blindfold off of me.
wait limited government = anarchy? ok well, ig uess if you want to call much of the years between the founding of our country and like the turn of the 20th century anarchy, i guess the term applies. (not that i think it was perfect at all, slavery, women's suffrage 2 obvious examples)
Your problem with 2 people not agreeing could be applied to any form of government.. obviously evne if i had my type of government, not everything i thought would stay, it would change.
Monopolies will be allowed, but they will rarely if ever happen, because nothing would be stopping anyone else from competing.
I'm anti union as far as, them getting special privileges from the government. I'm pro union as far as people have the right to associate with whom/whatever they want. But unions should get no special laws like they do now. Of course, in my view, no one gets any special laws at all.
When did laissez faire fail?
Your logic is that it's either perfect or imperfect and thus should fear it and regulate it. Which is absurd. Besides, markets have regulations, they're generated by the markets, you know, customers who get to choose what they want and there is competition.
You also make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems better. Which it might, some of the time, but in the long run, since we never stop after just a little regulation(which have unintended side affects anyways), leads to far worse problems than what we were trying to prevent.
are you kidding me? my argument is that is better than anything else, not that it is perfect.
I guess i missed the part where i claimed it was perfect.
what the right thing? how can you know? how can anyone know all the right rules and regulations?
the common thought is, well, we can tinker with the rules and make them better. And i'm sure in some instances that has worked out OK. but eventually, what happens, you get mounds and mounds of paper work and regulations written by bureaucrat, who even if they are honest and well intended, can't really write the correct rules.
It's like you have some dude writing rules on coding. That's hard enough to do in a small group. But how is that even possible for a country? Can you imagine if there were government mandated practices on coding? when you could code, when you couldn't, what style, what languages, what platforms ect ect. It would be a huge mess. And all this is making the unrealistic assumptions that it's an expert or a group of experts, and that they have the best intentions. In reality it would be IBM and HP and MS and whoever else, lobbying and getting special things put in.
So yes, i conclude that it is better to let individuals and groups decide for themselves what's best for themselves and their customers.
Which is why i didn't and don't argue for anarchy. I argue for limited government. Government that is generally limited to contract enforcement (including things like fraud laws). And anything that forces people to do something that they have not agreed to do. That way, the only way you can be exploited is if you agree to it.
that a crap ton of regulations didn't prevent the bubble from forming and popping.
Canada didn't have the government help create a bubble.
the federal reserve pumped in gobs of money trying to reinflate the dot com bubble and congress put pressure on banks to give out more housing loans. If that doesn't sound like a bubble waiting to happen..
Well you'd be wrong. The hard libertarian point of view is simple, that people should be free to do what they want (form groups/companies/organizations), so long as they don't force anyone else to do anything. The government's job is therefore not to determine whether a market is free enough, because by definition it is, since no one can force anyone else to do anything.
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked, and yet everyone fears it so heavily. But don't worry, you and most of /. will get your way, and in the future we'll miss out on the next youtube/facebook/wikipedia, because there will be so much red tape in place, it will crush innovation. Some will still get through of course. And of course, the big companies will push regulation (you know, the ones you're now so worried about? yeah they'll eventually get more power and control of the market because of crap like this.)
I don't know why freedom is such a hard concept to grasp.
Great point, because there wasn't a shit ton of regulations and other protections in place.
Oh wait..
your point is completely valid. If everyone watches commercial free TV, with no other source of revenue for the content(as bit torrent currently is), it will still be made because people will just make content out of the goodness of their heart.
go to fb, go to friends page, go back, go to another friends page, go back, go to farmville, go back
7 page views, for doing very little, right? how many times a day?
that's ignoring things like farmville gifts which require i think 3 page views for accepting/sending/returning each gift.
and of course there's the teen girl that does lord knows how many things.
$ gcc moon_landing.c
moon_landing.c:1:2: invalid preprocessing directive #DEFINE
you may have been here in 2000, but you were not registered with that account in 2000.. unless you know some way of switching UID.
here*
aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggg
yeah but with that UUID you were certainly not hear when the turn of the century happened.
is a euro money? why won't my atm accept them?
gold(and silver) has had value for thousands of years. You can't say the same about the us dollar or the euro. Also, people can't just make gold, unless most currencies, which are easy to print more of.
i really don't know, but i wonder what the difference is between a transaction fee and buying the physical stuff over spot.
which is way different from blaming it on a republic/capitalistic approach, unless i'm missing something
This nation was 'destroyed' long ago when it was decided to be a republic and/or follow a capitalistic approach.
So, it was destroyed when it was founded 200 some years ago? Not a bad run but anyways.
The problem is simply because we don't follow our own rules, in this case, there's that 4th amendment. but that problem is hardly a new one.