Every single vote ever is a vote to take money from one and give it to another.
I regularly vote against such regulation. What do you call my vote?
Your anarchy attempt
Who is an anarchist here? The government is necessary to uphold and protect the rights of individuals. And that's it.
at being a Libertarian is the reason Libertarians will never be taken seriously.
I agree, they will never be taken seriously. So long as the Libertarian Party is a mish-mash of random people with arbitrarily-intersecting opinions, whose goals ultimately contradict eachother, they cannot and should not be considered seriously. That is why I do not identify with Libertarians. What was your point, exactly?
People like you skew that as being "No government."
Again, who's making such a claim? You seem to have found a convenient category, and are attempting to lump me in that category. You'll fail in that regard.
You've confused the right to vote with the right to others' money - the latter does not exist. Voting to take others' money away does not justify that action - it is still a violation of their rights. From there your whole argument, which was merely an appeal to middle ground, disappears.
As for your attempt to separate yourself from the notoriety of communism - the only difference between communism and socialism is the degree to which rights are violated. The same rights are being violated under both systems, and thus they should both be vehemently rejected.
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
Please note that the viewpoints of the irrational need not reflect reality. That Euclid did not discuss the feelings of triangles should not count against him. I will acknowledge that most people have not considered all viewpoints, but am not sure what your point is. We were originally talking about economics, and you've somehow drifted off to social studies.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people.
I will not defend Marx, with whom I completely disagree, nor even Locke, who founded natural rights in the Divine. With respect to your argument, though, I can respond.
The reason your argument bears no relation to mine - essentially, you are talking past me - is that you measure a model's success by its results. This is quite common today. Most people take the pragmatic approach of supporting any and all actions that get the most convenient, immediate, positive results to them, without regard for the means involved, or for the long-term consequences of such actions. You are right to say that in such a viewpoint as has been widely accepted (by yourself included), it is impossible to construct a model that will succeed. There are indeed too many variables.
For me, however, the ends do not justify the means. The means are everything. Thus the appeal of my argument is in its support for individual rights, not necessarily in the outcome. However I do think the outcome would be beneficial to the producer and consumer in the long run, although certainly not universally true. But the goal is not to help everyone all the time - such is merely the goal of central planning, to which I am opposed. The goal is freedom to pursue your values without force from or directed toward others.
Oh, and because both you and Thomas Paine feel it is right and true, it has to be taken as gospel truth?
Nope. Taking things on faith is how we got to this point.
You're basically saying "just because I fervently believe I am right and you are wrong, you should believe me too".
Actually, I stated my conclusions and provided a link to an argument. I can provide an argument if necessary, though it has been stated ad nauseum elsewhere.
You're going to need to prove to me that your way is better than the one we have now.
"Better" how? You're going to have to explain what you mean by this first before we can hope to get anywhere. Otherwise, we'll simply continue to talk past eachother. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you further, but this first point is crucial - what do you mean by "better", ie, what is it you hope will be gained by any such change?
You mean, where did he say "look at all this shiny stuff we got", completely detached from and with no comment on how it was gotten? Well, that was his entire post...
I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation.
I do not believe so. On the contrary, I believe many here are in favor of such means. That is why posts such as mine are necessary - to contradict "common sense".
Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book.
And now you simply have to do the following:
1. Show that in a truly private, laissez-faire system, business would be interested only in "immediate profitability" - note that I am not talking about our mixed economy, in which the snap of the fingers of someone in political power (such as a Fed chairman, or a committee) can sway the whole economy. That people are unwilling to look to long-term prospects when their whole income could disappear overnight is not surprising.
2. Justify the rights violation that come with funding such programs. (Note that "justification" does not involve slinging FUD about what such a 'brave new world' would look like.)
Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.
Whether or not others agree with me does not change the fact that projects such as this are entirely outside the proper role of government.
For more intro on this, check out Thomas Paine's first chapter in Common Sense (ironic title, given how uncommon, this view is today).
"Pork"? WTF??? Do you have any idea how many technological advances, especially in medicine, that have come from the space program?
And now it's your job to show they would not have come about otherwise.
Do you have cable TV? A cell phone? GPS? None of these would be possible were it not for the "pork spending" on space.
So apparently for you the ends justify the means. How, then, can there be any foundation for a system of ethics? If my actions lead to a favorable or convenient result, then surely it doesn't matter how we got there.... or does it?
The problem with a libertarian government is that it can generally only react after the fact-- The free market can only punish after damage is done.
Whereas in a non-free society, governments react to international threats with diplomacy rather than a swift attack before the enemy can follow through on his irrational threats.
But really, though, government's should only act after-the-fact, ie, after rights have been violated, or if caught in time, prior to obvious rights being violated. Any other actions, such as the ones you claim should be taken, simply protect the rights of some while violating others' rights.
A libertarian modern society will rapidly fall victim to millions of melamine and lead poisoned products
Err... what are you going on about?! Do you plan to back that bald assertion up with some rationale?? You're shooting around aimlessly, according to some undefined goal for society, regardless of whether the alternative can actually produce that goal, and regardless of the rights that are violated along the way.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband
But I do mind. If you would like to promote the spread of broadband, donate to relevant causes. What you should not do is persuade the government to expand its purpose beyond security and the protection of individual rights.
This reminds me of my boss, who falls into the $250,000+ tax bracket that Obama is supposed to hit hard. He said, "I'm all for using more of my money if it will fix the economy." What I felt like saying was, "what about the other 250k+'ers who aren't 'all for it' or who see how ludicrous the plan is? Do you presume to speak for them when you promote the violation of their rights?"
Again, efficient for whom? A central planner, or individual companies? I'm arguing against central planning, so it's futile for you to present it in the reference frame of a central planner. The *only* way to avoid a persistent, deleterious monopoly is to have completely parallel services that are privately owned. Any attempt at central planning by a government is simply going to open the door to corruption (and thus the monopoly).
You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care.
I thought it was because of their relatively low risk of heart disease. Did they invent some magic drug I'm unaware of, or do they simply eat differently? If you're going to make such extraordinary claims about the wonders of Japan's healthcare system (which somehow has a limitless supply of cash on hand), you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence to back it up.
Telecom is a natural monopoly, because building multiple networks in parallel is economically inefficient.
Inefficient for whom? Companies are independent and have their own goals. Their goals - whatever they may be - are not the same as your idealized "goal" for the economy or country as a whole. If a service provider is providing poor service, then there is a huge incentive for a large company to come in and providing competing service. The only thing stopping them is the local government's restriction on laying parallel lines.
The end result of your plan would be something similar to the local telecom monopolies we're all familiar with. You can't contrive competition through central planning. You must simply let competition exist. But competition cannot exist so long as the determining factor is the size of the bribe given to the politicians controlling the service.
but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
What?!? You're saying that we should not always aim for the "common ground", the "bipartisan" route - that sometimes it's actually right to stick to your principles??? What an un-American thing to say!
You are correct about the potential for a false sense of security but don't mistake incompetence of regulators (the SEC) with corruption of a trusted agent (Madoff).
You need to keep up on the news. Madoff's niece is a lawyer for his firm, and she's married to an SEC investigator. That might help explain why the complaints that have poured in since 1999 (or earlier) were ignored.
Yes, privacy is one of the few area's where I welcome government action.
Well then all you're asking for is a false sense of security, because the opportunity for corruption is ridiculously high. (Bernard Madoff comes to mind)
Do the right thing: there needs to be legal means by which I can obtain, verify and erase all personal data associated with me.
You really want the government to be involved in the means to your privacy? Wouldn't you just be begging for some warrantless wiretapping? The problem with your proposal is the enormous likelihood of corruption that comes with government involvement in services such as this.
The right solution is something like a VeriSign for privacy. Independent competing organizations demand privacy practices and transparency from companies in exchange for their "seal of approval". By having competing organizations, you minimize the risk of corruption. Best of all, no rights are violated in the process.
Typo: "If the goal is government control of the economy to fund your agenda (e.g. universal healthcare, social security), then of course the free market will not succeed. But, then, your goals are ill-conceived and will likewise fail."
Slashdot Mirror
Every single vote ever is a vote to take money from one and give it to another.
I regularly vote against such regulation. What do you call my vote?
Your anarchy attempt
Who is an anarchist here? The government is necessary to uphold and protect the rights of individuals. And that's it.
at being a Libertarian is the reason Libertarians will never be taken seriously.
I agree, they will never be taken seriously. So long as the Libertarian Party is a mish-mash of random people with arbitrarily-intersecting opinions, whose goals ultimately contradict eachother, they cannot and should not be considered seriously. That is why I do not identify with Libertarians. What was your point, exactly?
People like you skew that as being "No government."
Again, who's making such a claim? You seem to have found a convenient category, and are attempting to lump me in that category. You'll fail in that regard.
You've confused the right to vote with the right to others' money - the latter does not exist. Voting to take others' money away does not justify that action - it is still a violation of their rights. From there your whole argument, which was merely an appeal to middle ground, disappears.
As for your attempt to separate yourself from the notoriety of communism - the only difference between communism and socialism is the degree to which rights are violated. The same rights are being violated under both systems, and thus they should both be vehemently rejected.
Is it better to have a society that only works in fantasy, or one that actually works in reality?
I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "works".
That must be great for your new clients, what with all the free BRAAAIIINS you have to give them now.
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
Please note that the viewpoints of the irrational need not reflect reality. That Euclid did not discuss the feelings of triangles should not count against him. I will acknowledge that most people have not considered all viewpoints, but am not sure what your point is. We were originally talking about economics, and you've somehow drifted off to social studies.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people.
I will not defend Marx, with whom I completely disagree, nor even Locke, who founded natural rights in the Divine. With respect to your argument, though, I can respond.
The reason your argument bears no relation to mine - essentially, you are talking past me - is that you measure a model's success by its results. This is quite common today. Most people take the pragmatic approach of supporting any and all actions that get the most convenient, immediate, positive results to them, without regard for the means involved, or for the long-term consequences of such actions. You are right to say that in such a viewpoint as has been widely accepted (by yourself included), it is impossible to construct a model that will succeed. There are indeed too many variables.
For me, however, the ends do not justify the means. The means are everything. Thus the appeal of my argument is in its support for individual rights, not necessarily in the outcome. However I do think the outcome would be beneficial to the producer and consumer in the long run, although certainly not universally true. But the goal is not to help everyone all the time - such is merely the goal of central planning, to which I am opposed. The goal is freedom to pursue your values without force from or directed toward others.
Oh, and because both you and Thomas Paine feel it is right and true, it has to be taken as gospel truth?
Nope. Taking things on faith is how we got to this point.
You're basically saying "just because I fervently believe I am right and you are wrong, you should believe me too".
Actually, I stated my conclusions and provided a link to an argument. I can provide an argument if necessary, though it has been stated ad nauseum elsewhere.
You're going to need to prove to me that your way is better than the one we have now.
"Better" how? You're going to have to explain what you mean by this first before we can hope to get anywhere. Otherwise, we'll simply continue to talk past eachother. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you further, but this first point is crucial - what do you mean by "better", ie, what is it you hope will be gained by any such change?
Turns out reality has quite a bit more variables involved in it than Locke or Marx previously considered.
That's a nice little bald assertion you've got there. Were you planning to affix any content to that... or were you hoping it would stand on its own?
Where did he say the ends justifies the means?
You mean, where did he say "look at all this shiny stuff we got", completely detached from and with no comment on how it was gotten? Well, that was his entire post...
I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation.
I do not believe so. On the contrary, I believe many here are in favor of such means. That is why posts such as mine are necessary - to contradict "common sense".
Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book.
And now you simply have to do the following:
1. Show that in a truly private, laissez-faire system, business would be interested only in "immediate profitability" - note that I am not talking about our mixed economy, in which the snap of the fingers of someone in political power (such as a Fed chairman, or a committee) can sway the whole economy. That people are unwilling to look to long-term prospects when their whole income could disappear overnight is not surprising.
2. Justify the rights violation that come with funding such programs. (Note that "justification" does not involve slinging FUD about what such a 'brave new world' would look like.)
Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.
Whether or not others agree with me does not change the fact that projects such as this are entirely outside the proper role of government.
For more intro on this, check out Thomas Paine's first chapter in Common Sense (ironic title, given how uncommon, this view is today).
"Pork"? WTF??? Do you have any idea how many technological advances, especially in medicine, that have come from the space program?
And now it's your job to show they would not have come about otherwise.
Do you have cable TV? A cell phone? GPS? None of these would be possible were it not for the "pork spending" on space.
So apparently for you the ends justify the means. How, then, can there be any foundation for a system of ethics? If my actions lead to a favorable or convenient result, then surely it doesn't matter how we got there.... or does it?
The problem with a libertarian government is that it can generally only react after the fact-- The free market can only punish after damage is done.
Whereas in a non-free society, governments react to international threats with diplomacy rather than a swift attack before the enemy can follow through on his irrational threats.
But really, though, government's should only act after-the-fact, ie, after rights have been violated, or if caught in time, prior to obvious rights being violated. Any other actions, such as the ones you claim should be taken, simply protect the rights of some while violating others' rights.
A libertarian modern society will rapidly fall victim to millions of melamine and lead poisoned products
Err... what are you going on about?! Do you plan to back that bald assertion up with some rationale?? You're shooting around aimlessly, according to some undefined goal for society, regardless of whether the alternative can actually produce that goal, and regardless of the rights that are violated along the way.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband
But I do mind. If you would like to promote the spread of broadband, donate to relevant causes. What you should not do is persuade the government to expand its purpose beyond security and the protection of individual rights.
This reminds me of my boss, who falls into the $250,000+ tax bracket that Obama is supposed to hit hard. He said, "I'm all for using more of my money if it will fix the economy." What I felt like saying was, "what about the other 250k+'ers who aren't 'all for it' or who see how ludicrous the plan is? Do you presume to speak for them when you promote the violation of their rights?"
Where's the article?
Ohhh! Right right! This is the article. Slashdot is now a primary source!
And which is more efficient ?
Again, efficient for whom? A central planner, or individual companies? I'm arguing against central planning, so it's futile for you to present it in the reference frame of a central planner. The *only* way to avoid a persistent, deleterious monopoly is to have completely parallel services that are privately owned. Any attempt at central planning by a government is simply going to open the door to corruption (and thus the monopoly).
You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care.
I thought it was because of their relatively low risk of heart disease. Did they invent some magic drug I'm unaware of, or do they simply eat differently? If you're going to make such extraordinary claims about the wonders of Japan's healthcare system (which somehow has a limitless supply of cash on hand), you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence to back it up.
Telecom is a natural monopoly, because building multiple networks in parallel is economically inefficient.
Inefficient for whom? Companies are independent and have their own goals. Their goals - whatever they may be - are not the same as your idealized "goal" for the economy or country as a whole. If a service provider is providing poor service, then there is a huge incentive for a large company to come in and providing competing service. The only thing stopping them is the local government's restriction on laying parallel lines.
As opposed to capitalism: Failing companies begging for money to survive in the market?
Err... what? Was that supposed to be an argument? Or just a non-sequitur?
The end result of your plan would be something similar to the local telecom monopolies we're all familiar with. You can't contrive competition through central planning. You must simply let competition exist. But competition cannot exist so long as the determining factor is the size of the bribe given to the politicians controlling the service.
so the government (and US taxpayers, in the longer turn) should be given stocks appropriate to the investment size.
And thus you've completed the transition to socialism.
Just because someone could potentially act unethically doesn't automatically imply that they did in fact act unethically.
You know what they say about absolute power and corruption...
I know it makes for a nice conspiracy theory but let's get some actual evidence first shall we?
I'm fully in agreement, but when it comes to the government, it's usually safest to accept the theories until they've been disproved. :)
"Unfortunately, the font is only available at 120pt or higher, so it will takes twelve times the paper to print out your book report."
I'm willing to make that sacrifice if it means saving Mother Earth!
but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
What?!? You're saying that we should not always aim for the "common ground", the "bipartisan" route - that sometimes it's actually right to stick to your principles??? What an un-American thing to say!
[/sarcasm]
You are correct about the potential for a false sense of security but don't mistake incompetence of regulators (the SEC) with corruption of a trusted agent (Madoff).
You need to keep up on the news. Madoff's niece is a lawyer for his firm, and she's married to an SEC investigator. That might help explain why the complaints that have poured in since 1999 (or earlier) were ignored.
Yes, privacy is one of the few area's where I welcome government action.
Well then all you're asking for is a false sense of security, because the opportunity for corruption is ridiculously high. (Bernard Madoff comes to mind)
Do the right thing: there needs to be legal means by which I can obtain, verify and erase all personal data associated with me.
You really want the government to be involved in the means to your privacy? Wouldn't you just be begging for some warrantless wiretapping? The problem with your proposal is the enormous likelihood of corruption that comes with government involvement in services such as this.
The right solution is something like a VeriSign for privacy. Independent competing organizations demand privacy practices and transparency from companies in exchange for their "seal of approval". By having competing organizations, you minimize the risk of corruption. Best of all, no rights are violated in the process.
Typo: "If the goal is government control of the economy to fund your agenda (e.g. universal healthcare, social security), then of course the free market will not succeed. But, then, your goals are ill-conceived and will likewise fail."