20Cent wrote: » So I check out this Hayek guy and it comes as no surprise that he was a Pinochet supporter as so many right wing hero's including Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher. This reinforces my view that when the libertarian talks about freedom etc they are not talking about individual freedom but actually the removal of safeguards to protect people from exploitation.
RockinRolla wrote: » Nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarianism is about repealing laws that have created barriers to entry. If this is your idea of exploitation then I'm not sure if we're all on the same page or not. If by "removing safeguards to protect people" means destroying monopoly privileges government has given special interests groups over the last number of decades, then yes..I'd be all for that. I believe you have a very strange view of the ideology at large - perhaps, you should do some reading on the subject as your contributions have shown nothing but ignorance towards the topic thus far.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
SeanW wrote: » I'll take on the OPs challenge, though I myself am something of a "Left Leaning" Libertarian, e.g. I focus on social issues and to a lesser extent financial ones. e.g. I think that having no labour rights laws or no welfare could work IF there were constantly some scarcity of labour (thus the market would dictate that all workers should have a decent quality of life and reasonable capacity for career improvement) but I'm skeptical about this to a degree (e.g how could the poor advance without help with education?) In my Libertarian society, the following would be a given, at minimum:The principle of the legal system would be "Liberty and Law" i.e. your rights (Liberty) are recognised and Law exists to enforce those rights and punish transgressors. Most other objectives would be rescinded from Law. E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken. Gambling (subject to local statutes and planning law on casinos etc) would be permitted, as would prostitution. There would be no "morality" laws against homosexuality etc. Citizens with clean criminal records, or otherwise if they could show themselves to be of good character, would be permitted to hold firearms for their defense of life and property. ALL laws remaining, e.g. ones relating to the protection of the rights of individuals (and to a lesser extent corporations) would be enforced to the fullest extent possible and violators (murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals etc) could expect little mercy. There would be very little of the "extenuating circumstances" rubbish prevalent in our courts, the aforementioned phrase being used and twisted so much as to be virtually meaningless. No State would assume responsibility for the failure of any bank or other business beyond perhaps compensating retail depositors. All government issued currency would be backed by gold, either Specie Gold Backing or a credible Gold Reserve & Redepmtion Standard. "Legal Tender" laws mandating the use of any currency in transactions would be abolished. Other elements could be added as well if a case could be made.
It would be more likely. In a libertarian society it would be perfectly legal to sit in your house doing drugs with a loaded gun. So long as the guy does not start shooting he'd be fine. Still aren't my rights are being infringed because of the stress?
Heard of Khanacademy think its very good but wouldn't think it is a replacement for attending a school. So there would be no public schools? The poor parents will have to pay for education (presuming there is some available which they can afford) or rely on a charity. Would education be compulsory?
re Health. Those that cannot afford treatment would have to rely on extended family and community and charity. So what happens if that does not work out?
20Cent wrote: » ... and particularly the republican party in the us.
20Cent wrote: » Thanks Sean. Still a bit wishy washy if you know what I mean. Say a child born into a poor family in a libertarian society, what happens to the re education, health work etc?
SeanW wrote: » [*]E.g. you would be free to consume whichever drugs you wished, but if one's habit required a transgression of anothers rights (i.e. robbing someone to pay for a fix) severe action would be taken.
SeanW wrote: » Let's see - corporate welfare, international wars and imperialism, supports the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, bank bailouts, extreme levels of Social Conservatism (i.e. heavily influenced by religion), the "Patriot" Act, insane runaway deficits started under Bush Jr. ... etc ... Yeah, the Republican Party is really Libertarian ... I don't think so! In fact, as a Left-leaning Libertarian, I cannot imagine one good thing the Republicans have done, perhaps with the exception of opposing Obama-care.
SupaNova wrote: » Has making things illegal decreased drug use and limited people who really want a gun getting one. The US's war on drugs has had the opposite effect of the desired. Violent criminal gangs in our own country have no problem getting either.
SupaNova wrote: » We are currently paying for our schools, far more than what they would cost under in a free market system. I wonder if they tested kids who only used the Khanacademy for a period of time vs kids in a public school who would score better. Did you watch the TED talk i linked to where kids learning by themselves in India's slums were able to outperform kids in public schools.
SupaNova wrote: » They would die. But that fault lies with the individual, his family, extended family and charity. The general wealth levels of the individual, his family, extended family and size of charity would be much greater in a Libertarian society. The poorest would be able to afford far better quality than is available to them for 'free' through the public health care system.
Watched the TED (thanks for the link) talk and saw the Khan one before. In a free market system there would still be some without access to education if they can't afford anything for education. Tough luck I suppose. Freedom to me means that you have more options available to you. Education is the most important factor in having success. In a society with little social safety net or healthcare surely people will go for stable safe careers. Starting your own business would be very risky as there would be no second chance if something goes wrong.
At last someone finally said it. You die! Sounds like a warped type of society where the Gov has no interest in the lives of human beings but the copyright on a dvd is protected!!
The US is the closest thing to a free market health system and it is the most expensive in the world.
People go bankrupt in the US because of an accident or illness. The fear of losing health cover means that they must stay in their job, starting your own business is a big risk if you are not covered, it reduces people freedom instead of increasing it. Imagine your wife gets sick, you ask your boss for some flexibility in work to go to appointments and look after her offering to make up the time at weekends and evenings. The boss fires you! Happened in the US.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJT0...embedded#at=20
SupaNova wrote: » If you are hung up on state style education you will find that school attendance was gradually increasing in the US before state education just as poverty was declining before Welfare was introduced. This is the point i am making that even in the poorest in a free market environment would be better off than those getting 'free' healthcare, or 'free' education. The point again is in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state. How many people die on wait lists for guaranteed state care. What happens when state's hyperinflate their currency and the default on all its promises cause deaths. You obviously have no knowledge of US healthcare as its not close to a free market system in the slightest.
SupaNova wrote: » Someone lost their job because it was not profitable for the employer to keep them hired. This is what makes me believe you have not read a single economics book. If employers started running losses they would go out of business and many more people would be affected. The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc. When people think they can rely on the state they ignore individual responsibility, thinking they can depend on the state. You are making an argument similar to that of a young Michael Moore made to Friedman, not one of principle, but one of price. If you understand basic economics and that a business can't run at a loss, you are only asking a question of price, how much of a loss should the employer take when someone asks for flexible working hours is what you are asking?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&playnext=1&list=PLB5287C011F43E5C1
Well we have historical evidence of societies without public education and health. Well documented by people like Charles Dickens. I guess the person dieing slowly of cancer would be glad to be free of evil socialist healthcare. I actually lived in the US and worked in banking thanks. I do recall my collegues main concern was to keep health cover for themselves and their families. There was also the time I took a neighbour to the emergency room at 3am in a terrible fever. She got five minutes with a doctor a perscription and a bill for 800 dollars. To believe something without empirical, historial or even anecdotal evidence is called faith I believe. Those with the faith think that others would also believe if only the knew enough. Sorry not buying it.
Firing someone because his wife got cancer. Lovely society being descrbed here. What about my question, There is no profit to be made insuring old people, handicapped, disabled, even people with dangerous jobs. What happens to them
The sight of Friedman makes me want to puke. The young fella asked a real world question with facts and figures which actually happened. Friedman replies with a made up theoretical situation and claims victory.
Typical of the theorist, his policies were enacted much to the detriment of many south American countries. They also involved plenty of murder and torture guess he thought it was worth it. Horrible human being.
Read plenty of economics books thanks, maybe not the frings faith based ones by the chicago "school" or the austrians. Haven't read scientology books either.
SupaNova wrote: » ...in a free market system the poorest would get healthcare better than the 'free' healthcare 'guaranteed' by the state.
The fact that someone has a sick relative is unfortunate, but the responsibility is not with the employer. It is with the individuals involved to have adequate cover for the eventualities, insurance, savings for a rainy day, etc.
SupaNova wrote: » He wasn't fired because his wife got cancer! Listen to the video, he was let go because he wanted different working hours.
How? Who pays for it?
Whose responsibility is it to make sure the insurance company doesn't cheat you out of your entitlements? What happens when the insurance company decides they've paid out enough, and stop your benefits?
You can argue that it's the responsibility of the individual to make sure that they have adequate insurance to cover any possibility that could possibly occur, but in a free market, people will be forced to balance the assessment of risk against the cost of such cover.
As a matter of interest, in a free market society, who would prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions?
Let's hope he had enough of his income left over after paying for medical insurance to insure against losing his income - and that the income insurance doesn't invoke some small print to refuse to pay out.
20Cent wrote: » The republicans are still the nearest thing to libertarians with power in the world. Ron and Rand Paul are republicans. It is the republicans who are trying to cut welfare and healthcare.
This is one of the few examples I've seen of real Libertarianism in action. I think you'll agree this chap is making tremendous use of his right to private property and freedom from pesky government regulation
SupaNova wrote: » The individual pays for it through savings, insurance, help from extended family. Charity if necessary.
Its your responsibility...
...and its in the company's own interest to pay the customers what they are entitled.
People don't want to cover any possibility, they cover the possibilities that are most likely to affect them and balance the cost involved. We pay for a health insurance package based on our own situation and our likely health risks. We don't insure ourselves against every possible obscure disease.
Breaking contracts would expose them to legal action. They would be forced to pay compensation to the customer, and face massive loss of future business or bankruptcy.
SupaNova wrote: » Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige.
Of course it is. I'm unable to work, barely alive due to cancer, my insurance company is shafting me, and they have infinite funds and ten thousand lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?
I love this fantasy that in a free market, every single dishonest thing a company does will immediately be pounced upon by a vigilant customer base and the company promptly drummed out of the market. It's about as likely a vision as the socialist workers' paradise, and I'm equally unconvinced by both.
Originally Posted by SupaNova Do you blame the employer? If i hire an individual and he asks to change his working hours to something that would make business unprofitable, i obviously can't oblige.
Who says flexible working hours are necessarily unprofitable?
Originally Posted by SupaNova If you can understand that you can only argue about how much money you should force me to give up to help the individual i am hiring without going out of business.
SupaNova wrote: » If you were responsible in a libertarian society in which you were not feeding a giant welfare state you would have savings, and plenty for a good insurance plan, and some left for legal costs...
You seem to want to paint worst case scenario, regardless of how likely it is.
Forgetting the rationing of public healthcare through waiting lists that people die on, and when governments default on 'free' healthcare.
Its not a fantasy give me examples of company that commits fraud against its customers and has stayed in business without government help.
We have a whole financial institution of legalised fraud permitted by governments in case you haven't noticed with the most devastating effects on the economy.
The person in the video would still have his job if it had no effects on profitability.
Sorry, not impressed. The communists want us to think that if only we could steal all the money from rich people, everyone would live happily ever after. Some libertarians would have us believe that poverty is exclusively a result of the government stealing tax money from people who would otherwise be quite well off. There's far too much overlap between "ideology" and "idealism" for my taste. The idea that there would be no poor people if the government would only stop stealing from them is an insult to the intelligence of anyone you try to sell it to.
And you seem to want to pretend that worst case scenarios can't happen. It's all very well to paint the picture of a Utopian society without worst case scenarios, but when you are the person to whom the worst case happens, you might be forced to change your tune.
Man, I hate monochromatic thinking. It's faulty logic at its worst. People die while waiting for public healthcare; therefore, ipso facto, if you eliminate public healthcare people won't die. Or at least, if they do, it won't have cost me anything.
No; those frauds were perpetrated in the main by private companies, facilitated by governments. Which reinforces my point: a company will do whatever the hell it can to maximise profits. If that involves collapsing economies, or letting people die in the gutters - whether or not a government is involved - then so be it.
Someone who refuses to allow flexibility to an employee whose wife has cancer is an asshole. You can dress that up or down any way you want - including the blind faith that the poor unfortunate employer would have gone out of business if he showed some flexibility to an employee in difficulty - but an asshole in a party frock is still an asshole.
Trickle down economics, still clinging to that one despite it being proven not to work. They have been trying that since Raygun in the US income inequality is increasing while wages stagnate and unemployment increases.
SupaNova wrote: » He just described saving and investing, since when does that not work. If we took every cent the rich have tomorrow and redistributed it, there would be no more free economy we would have full blown socialism where government would be in charge of money, where it goes and what your job would be, and that has been proven not to work.
Hasn't it just been proven by the world wide credit crash that just happened?
The only choice isn't between socialism or libertarianism there is a lot in between.
