Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
I know what you're saying but TBF, you have my stance or my reliance on that ideology wrong I feel. I have seen you comment in saying that extremism one way or another is lazy. For me, that generalisation in itself is lazy; for sometimes one alternative is far better than another and that may simply be the reality of it. Some things don't necessarily have to have a balance or a middle-ground.
The way I see the free market is that it is simply the best alternative - almost always. Whatever you wish to legislate and regulate can still occur, they'd just be private bodies. Then comes the objection that those bodies can be influenced, yet this criticism is shortsighted as people don't realise that so can governmental ones. And I find the latter more abhorrent because through the justification of the greater good coercion is then adopted. If something is good, let people opt into it. If you actually have to force people "for their own good" then you're going down a slippery slope.
In general, I find opinions on issues differ on a subjective level which is why I abhor the left's reliance on Democracy. On face value, it is a good system; but then again you are forcing the view of some over others. Why can't they have a choice? In the society I envision as ideal; if you want to kill yourself, you have the right. At the least, the federal system allows those who think differently, even if they are a minority, to locate in one area and create laws that they like. Like the free market, this kind of difference creates an innovation in culture.
To reply to the restaurant example: the aim is to safeguard against harm. But the reality is that even those regulators can only give assurances for a very short time - the week they inspect - and any other time other than that your guess is as good as anybody else's until the next inspection. This is simply a waste of resources, and again: people who pay to eat out should pay for this privilege. I don't see the need to subsidise other people's eating habits. It's immoral to me. Where I am more inclined with these kinds of regulations or laws is in the mass production of food - like agriculture. You see, in some areas I too would pay over the odds for some safety. It may be counter to my ideology on the purest level, but I can live with it. But I dislike when such a concession is applied to justify huge bureaucracies.
Ultimately, people have to be responsible. The way I've experienced life; subsidisation, on any level, just breeds inadequacies - eventually, and on a big scale. I come from a country which is basically a dictatorship, and sometimes I feel that those fortunate enough to grow up in the west (like America or Australia) do not realise just how fragile the balance of power is. Just how easily tyranny can come about. It is not something that happens overnight - it is essentially the boiling frog analogy. The frog slowly boils, not realising the temperature is rising. For me, it's simple: I want people to have the freedom to do what they deem is good, for their benefit; not a group of people legislating for a group of other people in what they think is desirable. It's not just a matter of legal rights either; I don't think big bureaucracies are economically viable - and they're continuously shown not to be.
I honestly like discussions like these and if you like you can PM me, I don't mind.
Last edited by Ikki; 22-08-2012 at 02:01 AM.
my brain hurts....
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
go see a doctor. it won't cost you an arm and leg unlike our yank pals!
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
A single doctor visit will more than take care of the tax difference.
There is a balance between bureaucracy and free market, it doesn't have to be one way or the other and that's borne out by evidence. Such binary thinking = American politics today. Was provably destructive pre-war (WWI, that is) as it is now.
Five things government does better than you - Salon.com
On the other hand, what is good or best is subjective. And there is no justification, IMO, to force someone to do something against their will because you believe it is to their benefit. As I said, for me, if a person wants to kill himself, no body should have the right through force of law to even stop that. Let alone do things which might be less advantageous to him, in your view. Force, coercion, etc, are the very antithesis of a free society. If people want to save up, that is their choice; if they want to blow their retirement money, that is their choice.
Last edited by Ikki; 22-08-2012 at 05:36 PM.
Ikki, out of curiosity, are you against superannuation?
if he isn't, he should hand back his guns 'cause he's a disgrace
Look, if you want to remove yourself from society based solely on personal choice, go ahead. Feel free to do your own plumbing, waste management, food aquisition, communication, etc. while you're at it. Otherwise, you have to accept compromise and that compromise means stuff like the majority outweighing the personal needs of a the minority. By posting on this forum you're using a communication tool developed communally for 30+ years after a government research project made it viable for the benefit of many, you realise that right? I mean if you were living as you espouse, fine. But you're not and, I'm guessing, never will.
Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a formation of society where there is a role for government and people are looking for the well-being of others. It is just that what is good or bad is inherently subjective. You can do almost anything you wish through government through private means. You want to fund research? You want a regulatory body? You want to provide health care? All very easily done. Government is no magic organism - it is a group of people coming together and doing something.Look, if you want to remove yourself from society based solely on personal choice, go ahead. Feel free to do your own plumbing, waste management, food aquisition, communication, etc. while you're at it. Otherwise, you have to accept compromise and that compromise means stuff like the majority outweighing the personal needs of a the minority.
There is no justification in the needs of the majority outweighing the needs of a minority. If something works on a large scale, then it doesn't cease to stop working because a segment in the minority doesn't wish to partake. I find that logic troubling.
I can name you 1000x more inventions created through private initiatives. Do you think your computer was made because the government ordered it? How about the hardware in your computer? How about LCD screens? Did government invent the wheel? In this respect, it's a losing comparison.By posting on this forum you're using a communication tool developed communally for 30+ years after a government research project made it viable for the benefit of many, you realise that right? I mean if you were living as you espouse, fine. But you're not and, I'm guessing, never will.
But it's irrelevant. It is people's ingenuity that creates things. It has nothing to do with which political philosophy you adhere to. Although, I'd argue, it's been shown that in less regulated environments you encourage more creativity.
Last edited by Ikki; 22-08-2012 at 06:26 PM.
You did not just cite liquid crystal displays as an argument against government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)