Private charity doesn't work either. If it did, we wouldn't have the homeless, the Red Cross would never have a blood shortage, and the food banks would always have enough for those who need it.
This argument is entirely void, as I and the rest of working America are currently forced to give a significant portion of our hard-earned money to the federal government, where they redistribute it in the manner THEY deem fit.
When I say libertarians believe charities could do most of the work that the government does now, and do it better, I am of course meaning, "if the government wasn't taking so much in federal taxes."
And yet when the need is there, taxes or no, Americans step up now as always. Imagine if we were able to keep most of the money we work to earn?
As for the prosititution bit, I have to admit, I set up that one simply because I knew libertarians wouldn't be able to resist biting on that point and miss the actual issue. Now that you've proven me right, try substituting the "theft and home invasion" bit for prostitution, and leave the rest the same. The question still stands.
No shit. That's why I answered the question first, and THEN followed up with the retort on prostitution.
With respect to the pollution issue, how do you punish people for events that do not show results until many years after? When a company sets up a front company to bury nuclear waste on their own land and the groundwater contamination doesn't show up until well after the front is dead and gone, who suffers?
Let me first ask you -- how is this situation handled now so brilliantly? You explain that to me, and I will present you with a solution just as good or better in a libertarian society.
Now is the EPA effective? That's a separate argument from the issue of should there be regulation protecting people from actions that may seem non-damaging to begin with but turn out to be damaging later.. which was the entire point of this post.
What if instead of the EPA, which is the government (a primary polluter itself), we had private organizations heading up anti-pollution projects? And more private ownership of land so there is incentive to actually take care of it for the future, as opposed to large-scale "renting" of land, by the government, to people that have no incentive to see it cared for?
Here's a good start for you on libertarian views on the environment. We are not against protecting the environment, we just don't feel the government is a good, or fair, watchdog!
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html
Which is cheaper? Prevention or cure?
It IS a strawman because you are putting the libertarian position down as one of trying to fund the cure instead of the prevention of these evils you are discussing. This is an invalid argument. Then you argue against that position. That is a strawman argument.
Prevention is usually cheaper, and what's more, it is performed more precisely by private organizations rather than a huge bureaucracy that is answerable to NO ONE.
The libertarian philosophy is based on the misguided (in my opinion) beliefs that private society is capable of prevention with no governmental direction, and that what it can not prevent can always be cured through the courts.
Other than the 'misguided' part, you are absolutely correct.
You know, to the libertarian, it does not matter for any of those things. The Bad Shit (tm) happen long after the greedy-ass self-centered fuck is dead and buried.
There are greedy libertarians just like there are greedy liberals and greedy conservatives. They are not the majority of our party. I would much rather give a percentage of my money to organizations that I know are doing good work, rather than having the government take my money and spend it on entitlement programs that do not work.
It has nothing to with being "self-centered," it has everything to do with personal freedom. The freedom to give my hard-earned money to those people that I wish to have it. Why should you be able to come along and force me to redistribute my money to the people YOU want to have it? How is that the right thing?
Well, that and a completely out of touch view of what percentage of the government budget goes towards social/public institutions versus libertarian favorites - guns and bombs, bombs and guns. I'll give you a hint - it's already heavily weighted toward the latter.
I notice you offered no proof whatsoever. You say we are "heavily weighted" towards spending on the military? You are probably not even counting the money spent on veterans, but let's pretend for a minute you are. Take a look at this pie chart for fiscal year 2004, put together by ANTI-WAR protesters:
Notice the majority of the budget for 2004 is spent on non-military spending. Now, read the rest of the page and see what they left out, which skews it even more towards non-military spending: a little thing called Social Security.
How would you address non-point source polution where the producers of the polution cannot be specifically identified and the vicitms of the polution live 800 miles and two states away? Assume the costs to clean up the effects of the polution exceed the costs of preventing the polution by two orders of magnitude but that the producers of the polution derive no identifiable economic benefit from preventing the polution.
I will be glad to provide some ideas of how this would be dealt with in a libertarian setting. But first, I would like you to explain how you feel this is handled right now.
As a side note, "individual freedom" is not the greates thing of all if you don't have the security (financial, physical, political, etc.) to enjoy it.
Security is absolutely essential to individual freedom. If you are not secure from harm, then you do not have individual freedom. I don't see how this is supposed to be a negative against libertarianism, it is absolutely essential to our ideals. However, you are implying that the government should provide all manner of security, including financial security, and libertarians disagree. Local charities, including private companies specializing in charitable work, are great ways to provide financial security to the less fortunate.
There are places in the world that are lawless and so have no governmental intrusions on your freedoms. Would you rather live there or in the nanny-state of Sweden?
Libertarians do not believe in anarchy, as you are implying. The government should absolutely be maintained to protect the physical security and freedom of our citizens. This does not require a nanny state that seeks to control all aspects of your life.
Entitlement programs that make it so kids have the skills/abilities to get decent employment, or policing programs to catch those kids that didn't get those skills and so are looking for any way they can to survive -- which may involve home invasion and violence?
Don't confuse the issue. Libertarians believe in charities, they just don't believe the government is good at running them, and they don't believe everyone that earns a living should be forced to give to the charities that the government "runs."
Which is cheaper? Paying taxes so the single mom is able to feed her kid, or paying taxes to arrest, try, sentence, and punish the same mom who started prostituting herself to do the same.. and now having the state take on her child as a ward as well?
Again, there are other options. Local charities funded by people who are no longer beholden to federal tax dollars. BTW, prostitution would not be illegal in a libertarian society. As George Carlin once said, "Fucking's legal. Selling's legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" Profane, but absolutely true. Consenting adults should be able to pay and fuck whoever they want.
Which is cheaper? Paying an agency such as the EPA to investigate and stop environmental contamination, or paying to clean it up later -- well after the company doing it has gone out of business?
First, you're assuming the EPA is even doing that now. They aren't. At least not what you are supposing above. The biggest polluters in the world are not the SUV's and gas guzzlers, it's the stationary polluters like coal factories.
Second, as I replied to someone else, in a libertarian society, the government is in charge of protecting our lives and our freedom, as the constitution mandates. This includes punishing individuals in corporations that harm others by releasing dangerous levels of toxins.
Which is cheaper? Prevention or cure?
Your examples are straw-men arguments. You are stating the libertarian position incorrectly and then arguing against this invalid position. Please read more about libertarian solutions to the problems. There are plenty of places to go, like www.lp.org.
They try to do things that could be better handled by private companies and private individuals.
What would you get rid of?
Any program not deemed necessary by the constitution.
What would you do in the face of opposition to your preferences on how government should be downsized?
My plan was not: switch to democracy, make the government smaller. Rather, the reverse. Make the government smaller, then when the government is down to what the constitution mandates, you are ready for a democracy, so long as the tyranny of the majority can be prevented through ammendments explicitly stating what cannot be voted on.
Why do some people think a "representative democracy" is the ONLY way to prevent the tyranny of the majority in a democratic government? Why can't there be other ways like my idea?
And direct democracy has too many shortcomings for something as large and complex as a nation of millions. Who will build roads?
Well in my idea of the perfect government, the government would only be in charge of building and maintaining roads on federal property. The majority of popular roads could be maintained by private companies through tolls and community taxes. Companies that make heavy use of roads would also subsidize their costs as they are more important to these people.
People immediately recoil at the thought of tolls or user fees, but you have to remember, this is in the ideal world where you federal tax bill is vastly lower.
Who will ensure that the food supply is not overly conta,minated by rat feces?
Not that this could not be managed by a private company, but I would not object to the federal government controlling quality of food and drugs with the FDA, as the government's primary roll is to protect your life and freedom. This includes incarcerating violent criminals, defending the nation with the military, protecting our food and drug supplies from contamination, handling disease and illness outbreaks.
How do you pay for things that are usefull but difficult to meter and/or do not have sufficiently large identifiable constituencies?
Give me an example and I will give you some ideas on how it can be done.
Will there be any controls when individual states' interests colide?
Give me an example, I can't comment on something so nebulous.
Should there be water projects? Etc. etc. etc.
What kind of water projects?
I always suspect that self-proclaimed libertarians are relatively young, relatively well off single types that, for whatever reason, have never realized the extent of their reliance on the fruits of government.
I don't really see what age has to do with it as long as the person claiming to be libertarian has given it a lot of thought. I am 27, and I have given all these issues a lot of thought. Most libertarians I know of are middle-aged. One example is Neal Boortz, the radio talk-show host.
One problem with people who are not libertarian is that they don't actually read libertarian thoughts on how to deal with many of these issues. They think libertarian, they think no taxes, user fees, and "oh that's crazy, the government does too much for us, user fees can't pay for everything." But these people need to do some more reading on practical libertarian solutions. Check out www.lp.org.
The big problem with libertarianism, in my view, is that it is only a reaction against things. It doesn't lead to anything.
I have no idea where you came up with that. Libertarianism leads to the greatest thing of all, individual freedom.
You are correct in identifying that democracy is tyranny of the majority. You are wrong in desiring to let it loose. The prior Republic form of government gave men hope that this demon could be tamed, as well as the tyranny of the minority, autocracy. Men of good character desire neither.
I'm not desiring to let the tyranny of majority loose. My desire would be to let true democracy loose, within the bounds of the constitution and the small government it defines, as you said.
Sorry, I didn't try to cover every aspect of the new government in my post.;-) I was hoping the 'libertarian' aspect would convey my feelings that the government needs to be shrunk down immensely.
As a libertarian I don't believe in the federal government collecting taxes for entitlement programs or 95% of what they currently spend taxes on. The government needs money to run the legal system, to jail violent offenders, to run the military capable of protecting our country.
To me, the first problem with our government is that it's too large. The second, which is directly related to the first, is that it's filled with too many politicians. Our government tries to do too much, most of which it sucks at. These thoughts are the main reason I call myself a libertarian.
As King Longshanks once said (in Braveheart at least), "The problem with Scotland... is that it's full of Scots!" The problem with U.S. politics is that it's filled with politicians.
In the simplest way, how do we solve this problem (and thus issues with gerrymandering, lobbyists, the inability to elect anyone outside the two party system, etc.)? "Easy"... just replace our representative democracy with a true democracy.
But wait, I hear you say, that would be rule by "tyranny of the majority."
Here is where my libertarian ideals come in to play. Of course this is all hypothetical, idealistic, unrealistic, and some might say, Unpossible... ahem.
But what if we eliminated this looming threat of tyranny under this truly democratic system? How could this be done? Well think about where tyranny of the majority comes from primarily -- issues related to control of private citizens lives.
Are you allowed to drink alcohol and smoke drugs? Look at porn? Own a weapon to protect your life and property? Practice atheism or a minority religion?
These are examples of issues where the tyranny of the majority could have a negative effect. I think the central thing to all these issues is that they should not be controlled by the government in the first place. If we had an ammendment in the constitution that clarified the constitution, that the federal government shall not make laws that seek to control the behavior of a person not explicitly harming another person, then what is left for the tyranny of the majority to affect?
Then when an issue comes up in front of our tiny, truly democratic government of the citizens of the United States, it's a referendum that we all vote equally on. If there are multiple choices, we use a smart voting style (approval, counting, etc), and not the insane methods used now to pick such unimportant things as our next President.
This is just an idea that has been brewing in my head, can anyone see holes in it and offer constructive criticism?
FYI Microsoft did not develop it's terminal server technology. They bought it (shocker) from Citrix.
Not that I really care who developed the technology;-) but I would be interested to know how long ago and far away was the original citrix purchase from the current version in Windows XP/2003? It has improved a lot since it's first days (I think in Windows 2000).
People say the same thing about SQL Server being bought from Sybase, but in reality the current iteration is basically completely re-written and does not resemble the original product from Sybase (other than a lot of syntax features in Transact-SQL). At least that is my understanding of the situation.
I bring SQL Server up because this is perhaps the finest software product Microsoft has ever put out (since 7.0 anyway)... IMO.
However, when cross-platform is needed, I still pull out my VNC client.
Yeah, about the only thing I use VNC for now is this bizarre (but cool) device we bought that is actually a 16-port KVM switch that you connect to via VNC.
I wonder how many RDC exploits exist these days.
Who knows, but I would never in a million years open any remote control protocol ports up on my firewall. We require 3DES VPN access to any private services like that, especially for anything like VNC, RDP, PCAnywhere that can take control entirely of a machine.
Actually in my experience comparing RDC, PCAnywhere, and VNC, RDC blows the others away in terms of the speed and responsiveness it exhibits. It destroys VNC in other areas (copy/paste integration), and even though PCAnywhere has some file transfer capabilities, you can transfer files pretty easily with RDC in two different ways: (1) Copy a file on one end, paste it on the other, or (2) set RDC up to establish mapped drives for your remote computer so that you can copy files back and forth using normal windows networking.
I only wish there was a good client available for MacOS X, as I would love to switch to mac, but use RDC heavily and need a client with all the features available in the windows xp/2003 version.
The strawman is the one you create when you change what I actually said and then argue against that.
For example, I never, ever stated that they "had" to use Halliburton. Re-read all my replies if you don't believe me. I stated the facts: Clinton used Halliburton even when they didn't have the LOGCAP, and no one complained. Bush went with Halliburton when they DID have the LOGCAP, and everyone complains.
You create these strawmen with just about every statement I make, therefore I will stop debating with you.
You have severe reading comprehension skills, and therefore it is no fun arguing with you.
I wasn't trying to explain what "reading between the lines" means, I was giving you an example of how to form an argument. You make a statement, and then you provide more information to back up your point. I only gave you an example because you seemed confused.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton. Please find out what 'de facto' means. If you had read my original message, you would notice where I pointed out that Bill Clinton did not go with the de facto choice (the current LOGCAP holder), they went instead with Halliburton, supposedly because they thought they were the right company for the particular job. No one complained about that. This was the crux of my entire argument, and Neal's.
I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point.
Have you tried using Google to search his site? I haven't, but I think it might work. Use site:boortz.com on the keyword search with your keywords at google.
You want to be blind - go walk with the sheppard (Dabya)
I don't even like Bush, I'm a libertarian. I wouldn't have fought the war the same way he did, but it'll do. I wouldn't have had U.S. interests stationed in other parts of the world in the first place, which some would say is what ultimately started this mess.
the rest of us have IQ > 120.
Great retort. My IQ is 140, you know 10 times your age?
Then why don't you save yourself some time and just EXPLAIN it instead of coming out with crap like "read between the lines"?
Take an English grammar class, please. That way you can learn two things: How to form paragraphs, and how to first present a point and then back it up with more information.
For example, when I say something like "read between the lines," and then I follow that up with more information about what I mean.
No they are not [contradictory]. As you yourself say later.
Yes, they are. Since LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process, you can interpolate it in your sentences to read: They should have used a competitive bidding process, not a competitive bidding process [i.e. LOGCAP]. That is why it is contradictory.
But the contract does not HAVE to go to Halliburton. It COULD have been put up for a COMPETITIVE bid that included mid-eastern companies.
And that is what SHOULD have happened.
Who is funding this rebuilding process? America. Why should our money go to mideast companies? We have already spent billions getting rid of the dictator, and cleaning house in Afghanistan. Why should we spend even more money without an American company profiting?
Whatever company they hire does not CONTROL the oil fields, as you seem to suggest. Halliburton has a job to do. They are repairing infrastructure. This does not mean they own or control it. That is not even the argument the left has against Halliburton -- they are pissed off that Halliburton is being paid at all to do a job. Which is absurd because Halliburton is the de facto choice due to LOGCAP.
I can't help it if you want to take American tax money and give it to a middle east company, I think that is just plain dumb, and I know many on the left would agree. (BTW, just so we're clear, I'm not on the left or right -- I'm libertarian.)
The people shooting at our troops. Don't you watch CNN?
Ha, so that's where you are getting your one-sided news. I watch CNN, and Fox News, and I read international newspapers, and I have a brain that lets me filter out the noise. You were trying to imply that "they" were Iraqi's, and I was making the point that a small part of the guerillas are Iraqi... namely, those controlled by Saddam loyalists.
Yet Bush claims he made the world safer.
more attacks == safer?
Only to people like you.
This is another example of your void in logic.
Bush never claimed a war zone would be safe, did he? Only an idiot would expect it to be safe. The WORLD AT LARGE is safer because you don't have a mass murderer controlling Iraq. You don't have supporters of al Qaeda controlling Afghanistan.
Of course there will still be terrorist attacks while there are still terrorists. Do you think these attacks would have decreased if we let Saddam continue to control Iraq? A man that gassed his own countrymen? Did you read the recent bit of news that Saddam paid N. Korea $10 million to purchase a factory capable of producing missiles that would have been able to strike a great deal more targets than they had the capability for? The deal was not completed, because N. Korea felt the situation (with the war looming) made the transfer of these assets to dangerous for them, so they kept the money.
Did you miss the items where a "terrorist" shoots a US troop and then hides in a crowd?
That sounds like popular support to me.
I heard you say that, however you provided no details, no facts. Was this in Saddam's home town of Tikrit, where it is known that many Saddam loyalists still exist plentifully? You provided no details, what is to rebut?
Did you miss the item where two people were shot and then the crowd danced on their car, looted the bodies and smashed their skulls with bricks?
And these are the people that will be selling the US oil because they are happy that we liberated them from Saddam?
I am not going to go point by point because I don't have the time or desire to argue with someone who can't read between the lines.
No, there wasn't [a competitive bidding process]. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
Those two statements are contradictory. LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process for projects that the military requires be done. Halliburton is de facto choice for this work since they won the competitive bidding process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
Correct, it was for anything the military needs contractors to take care of, in different fields. Rebuilding IRAQ just happens to fall into that.
They're still shooting at our troops.
Who is "they"? Yes, there are people in Iraq shooting at our troops. They are also blowing up diplomats from other countries and Iraqi citizens, including police officers. They are killing red cross workers. They are killing UN diplomats.
No doubt, some of them are disgruntled Iraqi's. But many are foreign terrorists taking advantage of this opportunity. Look at the population of Iraq in total. The terrorists over there are but a tiny fraction of the population of Iraq.
These are insurgents controlled by terrorist groups and possibly even Saddam Hussein in hiding. They are not representative of the Iraqi population.
Boortz's commentary does not disprove the statement.
That is true, however it disproves what that statement implies... which is what all liberals complain about: that Halliburton is in bed with the white house and that is why they got the contract, and that is why Bush invaded Iraq.
No, Boortz doesn't think Clinton/Gore are great, quite the opposite. His point was those guys chose Halliburton when they didn't even need to, they chose the company that had previously LOST the *competitive bidding process* with LOGCAP. You don't hear the left complaining about that. Why not? Don't you think Halliburton had lobbyists then just like they do now? They were chosen OVER the company that won the LOGCAP contract at the time. Interesting.
Then this administration went with the company the ARMY recommended, Halliburton, who won the competitive bidding process and holds the LOGCAP agreement with the government.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process.
Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration.
And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened.
Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq. However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers.
Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?
We don't need to control them, even if we could. Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas.
Believe me, I am not defending the spending of Congress, I believe the federal government should be vastly reduced in size, not growing by leaps and bounds. However, the statement below that you made is quite ignorant.
They even started a war as a corporate welfare project.
I am so completely sick and tired of hearing these Bush-hating, left-wing, Saddam-appeasing neo-socialists rant and rave about Halliburton that I could..... well... I could just spit. What morons. These are people who hate capitalism, hate the profit motive, and believe that every evil visited on the world is done so in the name of corporate greed. Losers all.
To listen to these irrational cretins you would think that this entire war in Iraq was being fought for one purpose, to enrich Halliburton. It would be not at all surprising if some of these anti-capitalist geeks believed that Bush arranged for those airplanes to fly into the World Trade Towers for that one purpose.. enriching Halliburton.
Try this experiment. The next time you hear some liberal parrot squawk about Halliburton just ask them one simple question. "Well, pal --- since you're such an expert on Halliburton, why don't you tell me just what it is that Halliburton does? Name one product or one service that Halliburton provides."
Don't hold your breath waiting for cogent answer.
Part of the perceived evil that is Halliburton is the fact that Dick Cheney once ran the company. As everyone knows, we should strive mightily to avoid ever placing anyone with the know-how and ability to run a multi-million dollar corporation in a position of responsibility in the political realm. Actually making a success of yourself in the private sector disqualifies you for public service, while not having any actual discernable private sector job skills is the supreme qualification for public service.
So... let's get to the bottom of this. Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?
We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends. Ask them if they've ever heard of LOGCAP. They will tell you that they don't know what that is. You won't be at all surprised. LOGCAP is the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program created by the United States Army. It is a program that uses a competitive bidding process to award a contract to a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services the Army might need... right then. Some brilliant thinkers in the Army came to the conclusion that it might not be such a swell idea to screw around with competitive bidding processes for logistics and other services during wartime. Imagine that.
Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. Odd, isn't it. The same people who are screaming about Halliburton right now had absolutely nothing.. nada.. nunca.. not one thing to say about Halliburton when it was the Clinton Administration that was handing out contracts.. with no bidding, by the way. You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton. Gore's reinventing government panel had some very complimentary things to say about Halliburton and the services it provides to the U.S. government. Ahhh... but what does Al Gore k
Slashdot Mirror
Private charity doesn't work either. If it did, we wouldn't have the homeless, the Red Cross would never have a blood shortage, and the food banks would always have enough for those who need it.
This argument is entirely void, as I and the rest of working America are currently forced to give a significant portion of our hard-earned money to the federal government, where they redistribute it in the manner THEY deem fit.
When I say libertarians believe charities could do most of the work that the government does now, and do it better, I am of course meaning, "if the government wasn't taking so much in federal taxes."
And yet when the need is there, taxes or no, Americans step up now as always. Imagine if we were able to keep most of the money we work to earn?
As for the prosititution bit, I have to admit, I set up that one simply because I knew libertarians wouldn't be able to resist biting on that point and miss the actual issue. Now that you've proven me right, try substituting the "theft and home invasion" bit for prostitution, and leave the rest the same. The question still stands.
No shit. That's why I answered the question first, and THEN followed up with the retort on prostitution.
With respect to the pollution issue, how do you punish people for events that do not show results until many years after? When a company sets up a front company to bury nuclear waste on their own land and the groundwater contamination doesn't show up until well after the front is dead and gone, who suffers?
Let me first ask you -- how is this situation handled now so brilliantly? You explain that to me, and I will present you with a solution just as good or better in a libertarian society.
Now is the EPA effective? That's a separate argument from the issue of should there be regulation protecting people from actions that may seem non-damaging to begin with but turn out to be damaging later.. which was the entire point of this post.
What if instead of the EPA, which is the government (a primary polluter itself), we had private organizations heading up anti-pollution projects? And more private ownership of land so there is incentive to actually take care of it for the future, as opposed to large-scale "renting" of land, by the government, to people that have no incentive to see it cared for?
Here's a good start for you on libertarian views on the environment. We are not against protecting the environment, we just don't feel the government is a good, or fair, watchdog!
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html
Which is cheaper?
Prevention or cure?
It IS a strawman because you are putting the libertarian position down as one of trying to fund the cure instead of the prevention of these evils you are discussing. This is an invalid argument. Then you argue against that position. That is a strawman argument.
Prevention is usually cheaper, and what's more, it is performed more precisely by private organizations rather than a huge bureaucracy that is answerable to NO ONE.
The libertarian philosophy is based on the misguided (in my opinion) beliefs that private society is capable of prevention with no governmental direction, and that what it can not prevent can always be cured through the courts.
Other than the 'misguided' part, you are absolutely correct.
You know, to the libertarian, it does not matter for any of those things. The Bad Shit (tm) happen long after the greedy-ass self-centered fuck is dead and buried.
There are greedy libertarians just like there are greedy liberals and greedy conservatives. They are not the majority of our party. I would much rather give a percentage of my money to organizations that I know are doing good work, rather than having the government take my money and spend it on entitlement programs that do not work.
It has nothing to with being "self-centered," it has everything to do with personal freedom. The freedom to give my hard-earned money to those people that I wish to have it. Why should you be able to come along and force me to redistribute my money to the people YOU want to have it? How is that the right thing?
Well, that and a completely out of touch view of what percentage of the government budget goes towards social/public institutions versus libertarian favorites - guns and bombs, bombs and guns. I'll give you a hint - it's already heavily weighted toward the latter.
I notice you offered no proof whatsoever. You say we are "heavily weighted" towards spending on the military? You are probably not even counting the money spent on veterans, but let's pretend for a minute you are. Take a look at this pie chart for fiscal year 2004, put together by ANTI-WAR protesters:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Notice the majority of the budget for 2004 is spent on non-military spending. Now, read the rest of the page and see what they left out, which skews it even more towards non-military spending: a little thing called Social Security.
How would you address non-point source polution where the producers of the polution cannot be specifically identified and the vicitms of the polution live 800 miles and two states away? Assume the costs to clean up the effects of the polution exceed the costs of preventing the polution by two orders of magnitude but that the producers of the polution derive no identifiable economic benefit from preventing the polution.
I will be glad to provide some ideas of how this would be dealt with in a libertarian setting. But first, I would like you to explain how you feel this is handled right now.
As a side note, "individual freedom" is not the greates thing of all if you don't have the security (financial, physical, political, etc.) to enjoy it.
Security is absolutely essential to individual freedom. If you are not secure from harm, then you do not have individual freedom. I don't see how this is supposed to be a negative against libertarianism, it is absolutely essential to our ideals. However, you are implying that the government should provide all manner of security, including financial security, and libertarians disagree. Local charities, including private companies specializing in charitable work, are great ways to provide financial security to the less fortunate.
There are places in the world that are lawless and so have no governmental intrusions on your freedoms. Would you rather live there or in the nanny-state of Sweden?
Libertarians do not believe in anarchy, as you are implying. The government should absolutely be maintained to protect the physical security and freedom of our citizens. This does not require a nanny state that seeks to control all aspects of your life.
Entitlement programs that make it so kids have the skills/abilities to get decent employment, or policing programs to catch those kids that didn't get those skills and so are looking for any way they can to survive -- which may involve home invasion and violence?
Don't confuse the issue. Libertarians believe in charities, they just don't believe the government is good at running them, and they don't believe everyone that earns a living should be forced to give to the charities that the government "runs."
Which is cheaper?
Paying taxes so the single mom is able to feed her kid, or paying taxes to arrest, try, sentence, and punish the same mom who started prostituting herself to do the same.. and now having the state take on her child as a ward as well?
Again, there are other options. Local charities funded by people who are no longer beholden to federal tax dollars. BTW, prostitution would not be illegal in a libertarian society. As George Carlin once said, "Fucking's legal. Selling's legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" Profane, but absolutely true. Consenting adults should be able to pay and fuck whoever they want.
Which is cheaper?
Paying an agency such as the EPA to investigate and stop environmental contamination, or paying to clean it up later -- well after the company doing it has gone out of business?
First, you're assuming the EPA is even doing that now. They aren't. At least not what you are supposing above. The biggest polluters in the world are not the SUV's and gas guzzlers, it's the stationary polluters like coal factories.
Second, as I replied to someone else, in a libertarian society, the government is in charge of protecting our lives and our freedom, as the constitution mandates. This includes punishing individuals in corporations that harm others by releasing dangerous levels of toxins.
Which is cheaper?
Prevention or cure?
Your examples are straw-men arguments. You are stating the libertarian position incorrectly and then arguing against this invalid position. Please read more about libertarian solutions to the problems. There are plenty of places to go, like www.lp.org.
And what is it that an atheist practices?
Ignoring religions?
In what way is our government too large?
They try to do things that could be better handled by private companies and private individuals.
What would you get rid of?
Any program not deemed necessary by the constitution.
What would you do in the face of opposition to your preferences on how government should be downsized?
My plan was not: switch to democracy, make the government smaller. Rather, the reverse. Make the government smaller, then when the government is down to what the constitution mandates, you are ready for a democracy, so long as the tyranny of the majority can be prevented through ammendments explicitly stating what cannot be voted on.
Why do some people think a "representative democracy" is the ONLY way to prevent the tyranny of the majority in a democratic government? Why can't there be other ways like my idea?
And direct democracy has too many shortcomings for something as large and complex as a nation of millions. Who will build roads?
Well in my idea of the perfect government, the government would only be in charge of building and maintaining roads on federal property. The majority of popular roads could be maintained by private companies through tolls and community taxes. Companies that make heavy use of roads would also subsidize their costs as they are more important to these people.
People immediately recoil at the thought of tolls or user fees, but you have to remember, this is in the ideal world where you federal tax bill is vastly lower.
Who will ensure that the food supply is not overly conta,minated by rat feces?
Not that this could not be managed by a private company, but I would not object to the federal government controlling quality of food and drugs with the FDA, as the government's primary roll is to protect your life and freedom. This includes incarcerating violent criminals, defending the nation with the military, protecting our food and drug supplies from contamination, handling disease and illness outbreaks.
How do you pay for things that are usefull but difficult to meter and/or do not have sufficiently large identifiable constituencies?
Give me an example and I will give you some ideas on how it can be done.
Will there be any controls when individual states' interests colide?
Give me an example, I can't comment on something so nebulous.
Should there be water projects? Etc. etc. etc.
What kind of water projects?
I always suspect that self-proclaimed libertarians are relatively young, relatively well off single types that, for whatever reason, have never realized the extent of their reliance on the fruits of government.
I don't really see what age has to do with it as long as the person claiming to be libertarian has given it a lot of thought. I am 27, and I have given all these issues a lot of thought. Most libertarians I know of are middle-aged. One example is Neal Boortz, the radio talk-show host.
One problem with people who are not libertarian is that they don't actually read libertarian thoughts on how to deal with many of these issues. They think libertarian, they think no taxes, user fees, and "oh that's crazy, the government does too much for us, user fees can't pay for everything." But these people need to do some more reading on practical libertarian solutions. Check out www.lp.org.
The big problem with libertarianism, in my view, is that it is only a reaction against things. It doesn't lead to anything.
I have no idea where you came up with that. Libertarianism leads to the greatest thing of all, individual freedom.
I agree, this would be a great start to a truly democratic system in a liberterian world:
... there are plenty of good, honest people out there).
- Term limits (my preference would be one term
- Improved voting methods, elimination of the advantages given to the two parties.
- Elimination of corporate lobbying, corporations contributing to campaign funds, limits to the amount an individual to contribute to a campaign fund.
You are correct in identifying that democracy is tyranny of the majority. You are wrong in desiring to let it loose. The prior Republic form of government gave men hope that this demon could be tamed, as well as the tyranny of the minority, autocracy. Men of good character desire neither.
I'm not desiring to let the tyranny of majority loose. My desire would be to let true democracy loose, within the bounds of the constitution and the small government it defines, as you said.
Taxes.
;-) I was hoping the 'libertarian' aspect would convey my feelings that the government needs to be shrunk down immensely.
Sorry, I didn't try to cover every aspect of the new government in my post.
As a libertarian I don't believe in the federal government collecting taxes for entitlement programs or 95% of what they currently spend taxes on. The government needs money to run the legal system, to jail violent offenders, to run the military capable of protecting our country.
To me, the first problem with our government is that it's too large. The second, which is directly related to the first, is that it's filled with too many politicians. Our government tries to do too much, most of which it sucks at. These thoughts are the main reason I call myself a libertarian.
... just replace our representative democracy with a true democracy.
As King Longshanks once said (in Braveheart at least), "The problem with Scotland... is that it's full of Scots!" The problem with U.S. politics is that it's filled with politicians.
In the simplest way, how do we solve this problem (and thus issues with gerrymandering, lobbyists, the inability to elect anyone outside the two party system, etc.)? "Easy"
But wait, I hear you say, that would be rule by "tyranny of the majority."
Here is where my libertarian ideals come in to play. Of course this is all hypothetical, idealistic, unrealistic, and some might say, Unpossible... ahem.
But what if we eliminated this looming threat of tyranny under this truly democratic system? How could this be done? Well think about where tyranny of the majority comes from primarily -- issues related to control of private citizens lives.
Are you allowed to drink alcohol and smoke drugs? Look at porn? Own a weapon to protect your life and property? Practice atheism or a minority religion?
These are examples of issues where the tyranny of the majority could have a negative effect. I think the central thing to all these issues is that they should not be controlled by the government in the first place. If we had an ammendment in the constitution that clarified the constitution, that the federal government shall not make laws that seek to control the behavior of a person not explicitly harming another person, then what is left for the tyranny of the majority to affect?
Then when an issue comes up in front of our tiny, truly democratic government of the citizens of the United States, it's a referendum that we all vote equally on. If there are multiple choices, we use a smart voting style (approval, counting, etc), and not the insane methods used now to pick such unimportant things as our next President.
This is just an idea that has been brewing in my head, can anyone see holes in it and offer constructive criticism?
FYI Microsoft did not develop it's terminal server technology. They bought it (shocker) from Citrix.
;-) but I would be interested to know how long ago and far away was the original citrix purchase from the current version in Windows XP/2003? It has improved a lot since it's first days (I think in Windows 2000).
Not that I really care who developed the technology
People say the same thing about SQL Server being bought from Sybase, but in reality the current iteration is basically completely re-written and does not resemble the original product from Sybase (other than a lot of syntax features in Transact-SQL). At least that is my understanding of the situation.
I bring SQL Server up because this is perhaps the finest software product Microsoft has ever put out (since 7.0 anyway)... IMO.
Awesome thanks! I had no idea there was an 'approved' client for Mac OS. I had only seen an open source attempt that didn't appear finished.
However, when cross-platform is needed, I still pull out my VNC client.
Yeah, about the only thing I use VNC for now is this bizarre (but cool) device we bought that is actually a 16-port KVM switch that you connect to via VNC.
I wonder how many RDC exploits exist these days.
Who knows, but I would never in a million years open any remote control protocol ports up on my firewall. We require 3DES VPN access to any private services like that, especially for anything like VNC, RDP, PCAnywhere that can take control entirely of a machine.
I appreciate the offer, but it might be easier for me to test it myself on my mom's iMac... where can I get this program? Thanks!
Actually in my experience comparing RDC, PCAnywhere, and VNC, RDC blows the others away in terms of the speed and responsiveness it exhibits. It destroys VNC in other areas (copy/paste integration), and even though PCAnywhere has some file transfer capabilities, you can transfer files pretty easily with RDC in two different ways: (1) Copy a file on one end, paste it on the other, or (2) set RDC up to establish mapped drives for your remote computer so that you can copy files back and forth using normal windows networking.
I only wish there was a good client available for MacOS X, as I would love to switch to mac, but use RDC heavily and need a client with all the features available in the windows xp/2003 version.
Where's the strawman?
The strawman is the one you create when you change what I actually said and then argue against that.
For example, I never, ever stated that they "had" to use Halliburton. Re-read all my replies if you don't believe me. I stated the facts: Clinton used Halliburton even when they didn't have the LOGCAP, and no one complained. Bush went with Halliburton when they DID have the LOGCAP, and everyone complains.
You create these strawmen with just about every statement I make, therefore I will stop debating with you.
You have severe reading comprehension skills, and therefore it is no fun arguing with you.
I wasn't trying to explain what "reading between the lines" means, I was giving you an example of how to form an argument. You make a statement, and then you provide more information to back up your point. I only gave you an example because you seemed confused.
Despite your claims to the contrary, they were not.
Nowhere did I state they HAD to go with Halliburton. Please find out what 'de facto' means. If you had read my original message, you would notice where I pointed out that Bill Clinton did not go with the de facto choice (the current LOGCAP holder), they went instead with Halliburton, supposedly because they thought they were the right company for the particular job. No one complained about that. This was the crux of my entire argument, and Neal's.
I'm sorry, I can't go on arguing with you because you continue to misrepresent what I said and then you attack this strawman. This is a common tactic of someone who is arguing an illogical point.
Why let logic get in the way right? ;-)
Have you tried using Google to search his site? I haven't, but I think it might work. Use site:boortz.com on the keyword search with your keywords at google.
You want to be blind - go walk with the sheppard (Dabya)
I don't even like Bush, I'm a libertarian. I wouldn't have fought the war the same way he did, but it'll do. I wouldn't have had U.S. interests stationed in other parts of the world in the first place, which some would say is what ultimately started this mess.
the rest of us have IQ > 120.
Great retort. My IQ is 140, you know 10 times your age?
Then why don't you save yourself some time and just EXPLAIN it instead of coming out with crap like "read between the lines"?
Take an English grammar class, please. That way you can learn two things: How to form paragraphs, and how to first present a point and then back it up with more information.
For example, when I say something like "read between the lines," and then I follow that up with more information about what I mean.
No they are not [contradictory]. As you yourself say later.
Yes, they are. Since LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process, you can interpolate it in your sentences to read: They should have used a competitive bidding process, not a competitive bidding process [i.e. LOGCAP]. That is why it is contradictory.
But the contract does not HAVE to go to Halliburton. It COULD have been put up for a COMPETITIVE bid that included mid-eastern companies.
And that is what SHOULD have happened.
Who is funding this rebuilding process? America. Why should our money go to mideast companies? We have already spent billions getting rid of the dictator, and cleaning house in Afghanistan. Why should we spend even more money without an American company profiting?
Whatever company they hire does not CONTROL the oil fields, as you seem to suggest. Halliburton has a job to do. They are repairing infrastructure. This does not mean they own or control it. That is not even the argument the left has against Halliburton -- they are pissed off that Halliburton is being paid at all to do a job. Which is absurd because Halliburton is the de facto choice due to LOGCAP.
I can't help it if you want to take American tax money and give it to a middle east company, I think that is just plain dumb, and I know many on the left would agree. (BTW, just so we're clear, I'm not on the left or right -- I'm libertarian.)
The people shooting at our troops. Don't you watch CNN?
Ha, so that's where you are getting your one-sided news. I watch CNN, and Fox News, and I read international newspapers, and I have a brain that lets me filter out the noise. You were trying to imply that "they" were Iraqi's, and I was making the point that a small part of the guerillas are Iraqi... namely, those controlled by Saddam loyalists.
Yet Bush claims he made the world safer.
more attacks == safer?
Only to people like you.
This is another example of your void in logic.
Bush never claimed a war zone would be safe, did he? Only an idiot would expect it to be safe. The WORLD AT LARGE is safer because you don't have a mass murderer controlling Iraq. You don't have supporters of al Qaeda controlling Afghanistan.
Of course there will still be terrorist attacks while there are still terrorists. Do you think these attacks would have decreased if we let Saddam continue to control Iraq? A man that gassed his own countrymen? Did you read the recent bit of news that Saddam paid N. Korea $10 million to purchase a factory capable of producing missiles that would have been able to strike a great deal more targets than they had the capability for? The deal was not completed, because N. Korea felt the situation (with the war looming) made the transfer of these assets to dangerous for them, so they kept the money.
Did you miss the items where a "terrorist" shoots a US troop and then hides in a crowd?
That sounds like popular support to me.
I heard you say that, however you provided no details, no facts. Was this in Saddam's home town of Tikrit, where it is known that many Saddam loyalists still exist plentifully? You provided no details, what is to rebut?
Did you miss the item where two people were shot and then the crowd danced on their car, looted the bodies and smashed their skulls with bricks?
And these are the people that will be selling the US oil because they are happy that we liberated them from Saddam?
You have some serious blinders on.
I am not going to go point by point because I don't have the time or desire to argue with someone who can't read between the lines.
No, there wasn't [a competitive bidding process]. Halliburton won the LOGCAP bid process.
Those two statements are contradictory. LOGCAP is a competitive bidding process for projects that the military requires be done. Halliburton is de facto choice for this work since they won the competitive bidding process.
The LOGCAP bid process was NOT for re-building of Iraq.
Correct, it was for anything the military needs contractors to take care of, in different fields. Rebuilding IRAQ just happens to fall into that.
They're still shooting at our troops.
Who is "they"? Yes, there are people in Iraq shooting at our troops. They are also blowing up diplomats from other countries and Iraqi citizens, including police officers. They are killing red cross workers. They are killing UN diplomats.
No doubt, some of them are disgruntled Iraqi's. But many are foreign terrorists taking advantage of this opportunity. Look at the population of Iraq in total. The terrorists over there are but a tiny fraction of the population of Iraq.
These are insurgents controlled by terrorist groups and possibly even Saddam Hussein in hiding. They are not representative of the Iraqi population.
Boortz's commentary does not disprove the statement.
... which is what all liberals complain about: that Halliburton is in bed with the white house and that is why they got the contract, and that is why Bush invaded Iraq.
That is true, however it disproves what that statement implies
Haha... funny reply. However, lacking in logic.
No, Boortz doesn't think Clinton/Gore are great, quite the opposite. His point was those guys chose Halliburton when they didn't even need to, they chose the company that had previously LOST the *competitive bidding process* with LOGCAP. You don't hear the left complaining about that. Why not? Don't you think Halliburton had lobbyists then just like they do now? They were chosen OVER the company that won the LOGCAP contract at the time. Interesting.
Then this administration went with the company the ARMY recommended, Halliburton, who won the competitive bidding process and holds the LOGCAP agreement with the government.
But that does not mean what you think it does.
There is nothing ruling out a competitive bid process.
Can you not read? There WAS a competitive bidding process, and Halliburton won it! They do this on a regular basis, not when a war is in progress or being planned. One reason is to avoid the bias of the current administration.
And it would seem to be more sensible to have a company in that region doing the work.
Why is this "more sensible?" It would seem more sensible for America to pay an American company that has won the LOGCAP, which is what happened.
Bush declared war to gain control of the oil fields.
Man, he failed miserably then since the oil fields there still belong to Iraq. However, once the U.S (Halliburton) fixes the oil pipelines so that the oil can be sold, the money will actually go to help the people of Iraq instead of into Saddam Hussein's coffers.
Do you honestly think the Iraqi's that currently are waiting for us to finish up and leave, are actually going to allow the U.S. to "control" the oil fields of Iraq?
We don't need to control them, even if we could. Iraq will sell us oil at a reasonable price because we liberated them from a cruel dictator and rebuilt the parts of the oil field that were destroyed by Saddam's army and the guerrillas.
They even started a war as a corporate welfare project.
I will quote Neal Boortz who lays into this lame argument quite nicely:
I don't even live in the US, and reading about the ads affected me.
Amazing! Do you live in the UK? Because that's where the ads are going to be...
Now I know why you limies are always saying "bloody hell!"