SupaNova wrote: » The world wide credit crunch is a result of monetary intervention in the form of artificially low interest rates. Wall Street got particularly creative this time with its financial products fueling an even more spectacular boom. When credit could no longer be expanded the bust set in. The boom bust is a result of monetary policy. Artificially low interests discourage savings and encourage speculation through cheap credit, when there is not enough real savings left to fuel the credit expansion the bust sets in. That is totally different to saving and investing, the credit crunch was a result of an assault on saving in favor of credit whilst forgetting that you need savings to have credit, as soon as there is no savings to back credit, credit cannot expand further.
SupaNova wrote: » I know there is plenty of in between. Taking every penny from those who invest and redistributing it to people who likely don't save and invest but mostly consume, all the savings would be consumed and end all further investment. A government who wipes out savers and investors, is obviously a government who thinks it can 100% run an economy. So if you've done that you would be ready for your first taste of the realities of socialism.
Less regulation let Wallstreet run riot, when it went tits up the country was facing another great depression. Those responsible are able to kick back with their ill gotten gains while the rest of us suffer. With no regulation this would even be worse.
Tax rates on the wealthiest have been going down with republican presidents since Raygun poverty and unemployment increased.
There is empirical evidence that trickle down does not work.
SupaNova wrote: » Yes they did run riot but they were not the cause of the boom and bust. As for illgotten gains they should be confiscated and a people should be arrested.
SupaNova wrote: » Poverty and unemployment have not increased as a result of tax cuts, but as a result of the bust.
I'm referring to data since the 80's. Tax decreases for the richest have fallen dramatically still lower and middle incomes have stayed relatively the same. No trickle down there.
SupaNova wrote: » You are trying to correlate tax cuts with increasing poverty, explain how you think that can happen, remember tax revenues didn't decrease despite tax cuts. The 'tax cuts equal increasing poverty' political propaganda has no basis in reality. Think about it if leaving people keep their income correlated with poverty should we not tax 100% of peoples income.
Another silly example, how about this one why not have no tax then.
SupaNova wrote: » No tax sounds good.
So your the anarchist branch then?
SupaNova wrote: » No.
20Cent wrote: » Libertarians say that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but doesn’t that happen very easily. If my neighbour likes to take drugs and owns an assault rifle in the comfort of his home that is his business. But what about my right to be able to sleep at night without worrying he's going to get all paranoid and start firing through the walls.
Valmont wrote: » What if he uses his lawnmower to try and kill you? What if he constructs a bomb using everyday household products? What if he tries stabbing through the walls to get at you? What if he tries to burgle your house with a crowbar? These examples show that your point is logically inconsistent, unless of course you propose banning anything, including, behaviour, that could potentially hurt you. One question for you: Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
20Cent wrote: » Haven't heard of someone murdering another person with a lawnmower or someone stabbing you through a wall. Doubt either scenario is possible. Suppose constructing a bomb out of everyday household products and burgling with a crowbar is possible but so is being hit by a meteor.
20Cent wrote: » The question I asked was regarding where is the line between doing whatever you want to yourself and in your property and where it harms others. Maybe you are taking it too literally.
20Cent wrote: » What does this mean?Would you propose to regulate and control where there is a higher risk of offence against an innocent individual?
Valmont wrote: » This is very simple. You can do whatever the hell you want to yourself or on your own property as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of another, and that includes their person.
Valmont wrote: » For example if I was a property developer in a stateless society and wanted to encourage people to buy houses in my estate, I would ensure that everyone sign a contract whereby reneging would result in the cancellation of said contract.
whatstherush wrote: » Is there a definitive list of property rights that Libertarians would like? Who enforces contracts in a stateless society?
whatstherush wrote: » Is there a definitive list of property rights that Libertarians would like?
Valmont wrote: » I'm not sure I understand the question.
Valmont wrote: » A company paid to do so, which would be outlined in any decent contract. A contract that doesn't outline a dispute resolution procedure would be no good. If the person who is signing the contract does not like the terms then they wouldn't have to sign in the first place. We already have private enforcement firms at work today, for when contracts are reneged upon. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Valmont wrote: » Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that being burgled with a crowbar has the same chances of occurence as being hit by a meteor? Face it, when you start banning anything with the potentiality to hurt someone, it's a slippery, inconsistent slope to madness. Eg banning bleach and crowbars.
Valmont wrote: » This is very simple. You can do whatever the hell you want to yourself or on your own property as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of another, and that includes their person. For example if I was a property developer in a stateless society and wanted to encourage people to buy houses in my estate, I would ensure that everyone sign a contract whereby reneging would result in the cancellation of said contract. Shooting through walls included. I've lived in a small community where many people smoked marijuana and owned semi-automatic centre fire "assault" rifles and funnily enough, after a year there, nobody was shot through a wall by a stoned up junkie.
Valmont wrote: » Sorry. If certain circumstances like drink driving or drug addiction or firearms ownership, were to result in a higher risk of these individuals hurting an innocent individual, would you seek to control and regulate these risks at the expense of individual freedom? I mean in all potential cases of one person posing a statistically higher chance of hurting another.
20Cent wrote: » The point I was making was not to do with banning anything. I was asking about the property rights idea. If someone is doing something perfectly legal in their home but it is harming me how does libertarianism deal with that situation.
20Cent wrote: » They could also write up a contract banning black and or gay people..
20Cent wrote: » Marijuana is grand. Would you like to live next door to a guy smoking crack with a machine gun?
20Cent wrote: » Not talking about regulating anything. I'd love if everyone could do whatever they want. But everything we do affects others so just asking how this works in a libertarian society
Valmont wrote: » Presumably you and your neighbour live in a community which I'm sure would have asked you both to agree to certain terms and conditions before you bought property in the area.
Soldie wrote: » In your opening sentence you point out that you "really dislike libertarianism"; in the following paragraphs you then proceed to display your complete ignorance of that which you claim to dislike. You then disingenuously invite others to "discuss" libertarianism, even though it's patently obvious that you're only interested in swatting at straw men. So, in answer to your question, no, that's not what a discussion is, at all. In fact, it couldn't be much further from what a discussion is. If you were genuinely interested in discussing libertarianism then you would have the courtesy to familiarise yourself with the basics of the ideology at the very least. It's clear that you have not done so, nor do you have any intention of doing so.
whatstherush wrote: » I live in a community called Ireland, it has certain terms and conditions called laws. What is different in the situation you describe above besides scale.
silverharp wrote: » there is a big difference between laws based on property rights and the product of a democratic process.
Valmont wrote: » One point first - Libertarianism doesn't deal with anything, you need to jettison this reference. People deal with these situations in whatever manner they see fit. There is no central plan. Which is the whole point really. Well if they are harming you or your property then you have a genuine grievance with which to seek compensation. How you approach this would be up to you. Presumably you and your neighbour live in a community which I'm sure would have asked you both to agree to certain terms and conditions before you bought property in the area. On that contract you have both agreed to defer judgement to Private Court B or something on the occasion that any property damage has occurred. There are many ways this sort of agreement could have been established in this situation.
Valmont wrote: » We may not like it but does an individual not have the right to discriminate as they see fit on their own property? I'm sure the Klu Klux Klan would want their own ultra white community and I would imagine that not many Black people would want to live there anyway. Right now, I may not like the colour of your skin and as such, could ban you from entering my property, and there isn't a thing anyone could do about it. It's my house, I don't want you here, that's the end of it regardless of my reasons, whether they be racist or bigoted or whatever.
