silentstriker

P3a - Yes, but why? In reality, what government does is theft. It is just legalised. It is force to remove wealth from one party to give it to another. The use of force by jurists - especially your founders - is a very big deal. That ideal was why your country was formed in the first place. That is why your the writers of your constitution had very strict and defined roles for government. Whilst government is a necessary evil, it is necessary to defend people from harming each other and from harm external. It was not meant to be redistribute of wealth. You need defence and police to guard the rights inherent in the constitution. You do not need to pay Payroll tax to do that.

As a matter of economics, welfarism doesnt work - it's basically the best example of how to fail slowly. The DoE has a bigger budget than many nations combined. This was an entity that didn't exist a few decades ago when America was at the forefront. And it gets costlier and less effective by the day.

P2 - Well, I'd agree with you. The point being you can't demonstrate any perversion being brought about by consenting adults in the economy either. Or, better put for most examples, you can't prove that by letting consenting people contract that you can't have an even better economy. I make that distinction because the left will put forth some good or benefit derived by a regulation or a subsidy, yet they don't realise the opportunity cost which may be even bigger than that good or benefit derived by government intervention.

Government can use tariffs to protect domestic industries and then point and say we've made them last longer; our interference was a good thing for our country. Yet the opposite could be said; that by not making them compete you make them weaker and make it unsustainable to protect unless subsidised. I thought I'd make that distinction to make it clearer.

P1 - No, my point is that starting with a base or ideology where the purpose of government is to take from some to give to others to in order to facilitate some semblance of fairness is pretty much communism. Mine isn't because I don't think all taxation is for that purpose. Taxation being for the upkeep of government to be able to protect the rights of individuals - for all individuals - is different to taxing one segment more to subsidise a poorer segment. It only latter the former and is legalised force on the former.

Just because I see a need for government, doesn't mean that you and I are the same. In some cases it is a matter of degrees; largely in a Libertarian mindset the role of government is pretty limited and defined. Certainly, not near what the left prescribe it to be. In the end we want to defend people's rights and property; not play with it to bring about some perceived inequality.

P4 - "I see the main purpose of government as giving a level playing field as possible so people can be as free as possible." - Oh I see; so we first take your property against your will; so that other people can be freer. apologies but I couldn't resist.

P3 - And, who said it is my duty or your duty to pay for the wellbeing of somebody else? You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not that my exercising my freedom my cause someone harm - that is not the case (especially not directly). It is that by restricting my freedom you are aiding someone else; and yet where is the morality in that? Why should I? Why should government have the right to force me to do something for someone else? That is the very definition of tyranny. The idea of freedom comes with self-responsibility. Not just for you but for others. Only my actions, and those in close dealing with me, are directly aiding my welfare.

P2 - One could again use your logic against you. That by wanting to live in a civil society you must commit to the social mores the majority hold dear. (again, the argument that gay marriage may pervert society as a whole). Who said freedom of speech doesn't effect anyone else? Mate, that is the whole point! Remoteness!

You can no more show the effects on the economy by creating regulations than you can demonstrate how outlawing porn safeguard's society's virtues.

In both examples there are people arguing that remote damage may be done if legislation is not enacted. Yet in both worlds this is not only arbitrary, subjective...it is incalculable.

P1 - There's just a big problem: who said levelling the playing field makes it fair - or is fair? Your logic is basically a good reason for communism.

The difference between social interactions and economic interactions are monetary - and in some cases overlap (marriage). If I want to do something or have someone do something to me that is basically a contract. If there is a monetary component it is economic. That's simplistic but the difference is generally true.

You're basically saying that you think the right to demonstrate is more important than, for example, the right for blacks to own property?

What could be more perverse than a printing press purporting to regulate the economy, yet which devalues the savings of every man every time it is used? How did you come to the conclusion that rights pertaining to free speech are more important than rights pertaining to property? Break that down for me.

P3 - Firstly, a completely laissez-faire arrangement has yet to be had across a whole economy to make that statement. Moreover, the freer an industry the greater it tends to do.

You havent answered my question. Why is it that in an arrangement where people in a populous want to ban an activity (like homosexual marriage) because they feel it will pervert society (therefore, not just concerning the consenting parties) you defend their rights? Yet the government institutes a body which controls the monetary supply and the value of it by extension - which is far more perversive to the economic ongoings of individuals - you defend the government?

P2 - And that person paid taxes for that schooling, for those roads, etc, just as everyone else did who weren't successful. There is no reason to double up on them for being a success. In fact, they should be encouraged to create more wealth as by doing that they raise their fellow man far more effectively.

Especially the way your founders thought and wrote the constitution; property was a huge deal. I am not sure you've read Locke or know the history about those laws and the theories they're based on, but you'd understand the reason why America was deemed the freest and most prosperous country in the world in such a short time.

P1 - I am not talking about those acts, I am talking about States rights, individual's rights, etc. Things which are still held in esteem today but are bastardised in some facets. The fact that things changed doesn't mean they were changed for the better nor that all people accepted the changes.

Taxation is a way to collect resources for the betterment of the populous but as a former Libertarian I shouldn't have to point out where I think that line should be drawn. A limited/small government has to have funds to exist, the same way an unlimited/big government does. It doesn't mean they're the same thing.

P3 - To me, that is not only immoral, it is nonsensical. What more, it is seen throughout many countries and history that the more a society is taxed or the gains of society centralised, the less efficient and wealthy it becomes.

But let me try to get back to my original question: why is it that in social matters you defend consensual agreements or arrangements yet not for economic considerations? For me, you can't argue for the former without arguing for the latter without being a hypocrite. I have yet to hear an argument how that can possibly make sense without creating a double standard that IMO can't be rationally explained away.

P2 - It's also a pandora's box - for who thinks what is fair and how much is fair is upto the person who yields that power. And once that power is given, then many will vie to abuse it - just look at lobbyists as an example.

The left often use that argument - that a person's gain has been brought about by society but, in all honesty, it is very remote if not just untrue. If I am a rich person, I have gained by giving society something which has been heavily sought after. I have traded with individuals consensually to meet my ends. Society, in effect, has given me nothing more for free (than another individual) for I have paid for my wealth through my labour and endeavor. Now, ontop of me aiding society with something so valuable that it has garnered wealth for me; society also wants to take even more for me for having helped them.

P1 - Well, some of the things the founders did do beg question but I am referring to the more eternal and esteemed things they believed - like the rights of the individual, and protection from tyranny. The very basis for why your country formed and things that the left still fight for on social matters while butchering those same values when it comes to things like the economy.

As far as I see it, the reality is that we don't live in a Utopia and whatever that is - the meaning of that term - differs from individual to individual. I see no reason to protect an individual from an act that he consents to. Why should I? His loss, his benefit, so it is his choice.

I don't see it as the role of government to redistribute wealth or resources because I think it is immoral and has been shown time and time again to be ineffective. It's a noble goal sought the wrong way.

That explains everything

For the above, there are very few exceptions I'd be willing for government to come in and function towards. Regardless, your government in its current incarnation; and the people running for government (like Obama and Romney); are almost the antithesis of the above thought. I think your founders would be rolling in their graves. Especially seeing that a lot of the populous misunderstands so much that they proactively vote this way.

I don't mind having the discussion on the wall. Would you like to have it elsewhere?

I am not sure on the purpose of society, unless you mean the purpose of a government. Essentially, that people who consent to do things that harm and benefit themselves should be able to do it. That the purpose of government is to protect individuals from each other in the state and from outside dangers. Outside of that, I see very little need for government nor do I see a government like that having a long tenure because of the legal, moral and economical realities it will eventually face. And in 'dangers' or 'harms' I do not include very remote dangers such as certain people getting together corrupting the moralities of other people - like the excuses to ban gay marriage or not allow them to adopt.

Dude you know spider-man, that could really happen if someone was bitten by a spider right? Thanks

Well, as hard as I argue on topics I am a very open minded person. I'd like to know the answer to my questions with regards to why on the economy you are open for less liberty on social issues you are for me. For me, and many, they are the same consideration. I cannot see a reason to separate. Perhaps you can explain why you do and why you would disagree with your past self.

Can't put up with these imbeciles mate. It's a simple point and I'm grateful that you found it. Thanks.

Yeah I remember that. When all that blew up I recall being pro-HBS because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. But by the time the summer was over on CW, I could never wish well upon India as a team again. Mostly due to the ****wits on here.