|
asdf32 posted:The bold would be an unquestioned success in my opinion. Such practical metrics are by far the most important things in my opinion and I'll buy into any political system that I think can deliver them. In most cases, I'd say 20-30 years'd be enough. In this specific case, though, Imma hold off for 40-50. Liberatarianism has no good methods I've seen for handling children and widespread education. In order for me to be convinced it'd work, then, I'd want to see greater than one generation elapse in order to make sure that it won't break down as soon as the statist-educated initial population croaks. So there you have it, Jrode. 50 year experiment of Libertopia. Show us how beautiful your ideas are.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
That experiment sounds unethical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's a trick question. Practitioners of praxeology only take issue with evidence if it contradicts their ideas. It's totally okay if some empirical evidence proves them right once in awhile, because they knew they were right all along. But if empirical evidence "proves" them wrong, then there's something wrong with the evidence. ToxicSlurpee posted:The basic idea that lolbertarians oppose stuff like taxation on is that taxation is ultimately not really voluntary. But that's the case for all transactions in ancap lolbertarian society. If you start renegging on contracts for no reason then your DRO drops you and, according to jrod's description, you starve to death inside of your home while repo men take all of your possessions. But because the repo men are private contractors and the DRO isn't called a government everything's cool. We pay taxes because we're all members of a society from which we derive some value. Taxes are the cost of membership. If you don't like taxes then you can pack up and leave, no one is forcing you to stay here. Go build a boat and live out on the sea. Lolbertarians reject taxes because they want all of the benefits of modern society without having to pay for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you can't even take somebody's money without their consent how would you even levy a fine? The pure-voluntarists eschew retaliation, so they need to rely on toothless arbitration mechanisms such as DROs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:The NAP applies to initiation of force. Most libertarians are willing to concede a natural-rights allowance for retaliatory force - such as defending oneself when struck (possibly including lethal force), trespassing into a thief's home to recover stolen property, or impeding the livelihood of a fradulent dealer (e.g. by filing a lien against his business holdings or by publishing defamatory material).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How is it fraud if you didn't get the person to consent to give you some property? If they don't consent and you just grab it, isn't that just stealing? If you really look at it fraud is just another form of theft the details are just different. But still, the whole basis of ancap thought is basically consent. QuarkJets posted:Practitioners of praxeology only take issue with evidence if it contradicts their ideas. It's totally okay if some empirical evidence proves them right once in awhile, because they knew they were right all along. But if empirical evidence "proves" them wrong, then there's something wrong with the evidence. Well see they'd be totally willing to pay for them, just so long as nobody is forcing them to, you know what I mean? The stupid thing is that there are some areas where privatizing it is just plain stupid. I've had really dumb arguments with lolbertarians that were totally OK with things like private fire departments. Like well if you didn't pay your fire department insurance and your house catches fire, well guess we just let it burn down! Totally ignoring that that could very easily catch the whole neighborhood on fire. A lack of public emergency services would guarantee an increase in preventable disasters but at least we'd be more free! Which is the other thing that ancaps fail to realize; paying taxes for emergency services means that they'll be there no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:What about retaliation that occurs after the other person initiates force, but before I am affected by said force? eg, say I'm a ninja and someone swings a bat at me. Before the bat lands, I hit him in the face. Who initiated force? I hit him first, after all. A reasonable person would say that the initiation of force can begin even before the first punch is thrown. Basically, if I present a credible threat to your safety, it is reasonable to say that you don't need to wait for me to act in order to defend yourself. So, for example, if I pull a gun out on you and point it at you, you don't need to wait for me to pull the trigger before you shoot back. I initiated force by pulling out the gun. I created the scenario where your safety is at risk. So, in your example, because the person swung a bat at you first, even though you hit him before the bat made contact with you, he initiated force. However, since you're a ninja, and ninjas are assassins, you initiated force by being there. After all, if you weren't trying to kill him, then what were you doing there? Unless of course, you're a ninja on your way home. In which case, sorry about the bat to the face. But still. gently caress you, ninja! ToxicSlurpee posted:The basic idea he's getting at is that all association should be totally voluntary. As in, you should not levy taxes to build public roads but rather people should be free to donate to roads or pay for toll roads as they need to use them. That sort of thing. Nobody should be holding a gun to anybody's head (as in, levying taxes) to get public things paid for. The logic is that "it's for the public good" is poor justification for threatening to harm somebody's person if they don't pay their taxes. The problem with this idea is that not all interactions can be voluntary. I mean, that's how society functions, people have obligations. Even Jrodefeld says that you would have to respect people's rights. Which is the problem. You can't have the structure required to ensure that rights are respected without having some sort of obligatory system. After all, I shouldn't be able to just murder someone and say "Hey, I don't consent to be part of this!" "But we have evidence that implicated you in a murder?" "Well, I don't consent to agree to your definition of murder!" See, Jrodefeld. It's these basic problems that we criticize you on. Yes. Libertarianism COULD work if people stopped being people, but that requires something that's not loving likely to happen. Let me make it simple: In order for libertarianism to make sense, human beings must be completely rational. However, even you admit that you can't persuade people to convert to libertarianism on the internet, making this argument irrational. I submit that you are irrational, and therefor, libertarianism cannot exist! poo poo. I just blew up the Jrodbot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
Crassus: everybody's favorite Triumvir
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you are trespassing you are using land that belongs to somebody else without their consent. If you pollute the you are dumping nasty poo poo on land that belongs to somebody else without their consent. If you are committing fraud you taking property from somebody else without their consent. All of these are harmful so they are considered violence i the idea of "causing harm to another person." Of course the way you prevent people from committing said acts of violence is never actually explained beyond "well obviously people would get together and agree not to harm each other" but like how would you enforce that without any acts of "violence?" If you can't even take somebody's money without their consent how would you even levy a fine? So JRod, would you say that "causing harm to another person" is what you mean by violence? I just want to make sure I know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Is not making GBS threads in the streets voluntary? I mean if I do it the police will tell me to stop, and if I don't they'll shoot me with guns. Is breathing voluntary? If I don't do it, my body will tell me to start, and if I don't it'll KILL ME!! Jrod, just quickly (and this isn't a 'gotcha', I'm just curious, and I don't think you answered when I asked before): is the state a historic aberration, or is it something which was necessary for human development at one point, but no longer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Jrod, just quickly (and this isn't a 'gotcha', I'm just curious, and I don't think you answered when I asked before): is the state a historic aberration, or is it something which was necessary for human development at one point, but no longer? He didn't, but a frequent libertarian answer is that long ago a branch of the Judicial-Enforcement-Warriors DRO went rogue and have been secretly corrupting human civilization ever since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is driving on the right side of the road instead of the left strictly voluntary? If I do it, the cops will tell me to stop, if I ignore them they'll come in force and if I resist they'll shoot me with guns. paragon1 posted:Is not making GBS threads in the streets voluntary? I mean if I do it the police will tell me to stop, and if I don't they'll shoot me with guns. Roads should be privatized and if you violate the terms of service of these private roads then private security will shoot you with guns and this is preferable because
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:However, since you're a ninja, and ninjas are assassins, you initiated force by being there. After all, if you weren't trying to kill him, then what were you doing there? Unless of course, you're a ninja on your way home. In which case, sorry about the bat to the face. But still. gently caress you, ninja!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:What about retaliation that occurs after the other person initiates force, but before I am affected by said force? eg, say I'm a ninja and someone swings a bat at me. Before the bat lands, I hit him in the face. Who initiated force? I hit him first, after all. That's a really dumb question. Pretty much every legal tradition has the concept of assault, even lolbertarian ideology. Attacking someone is a violent act in and of itself, it doesn't matter if the blow connects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:But you voluntarily chose to live in a covenant community that allows ninja residents. Ninjas are cool. It's the thoughtcrime of democracy that aggresses against the community and against the Natural Aristocracy that must be purged by the Tsar's privately-owned secret police. E: The Belgian Congo: an ideal libertarian society?Everything is private property, seems good! I mean yeah Leopold got that property by past aggression, but the market will sort all that out and ensure the land conveys to the most productive. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The bold would be an unquestioned success in my opinion. Such practical metrics are by far the most important things in my opinion and I'll buy into any political system that I think can deliver them. There is more to that trick question too: We HAVE tried elements of the very system he supports in the past. It didn't work. You HAVE to ignore history in order to accept libertarianism as valid Its why Praxeology is hilarious and sad, because its an almost religious faith in things that have a history of not working. Kinda like Trickle Down Economics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Is breathing voluntary? If I don't do it, my body will tell me to start, and if I don't it'll KILL ME!! Your body is a statist pig and will make you inhale against your will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Even if you're not very good at understanding statistics, you must realize by now that you're grasping at straws when you try to link liberal politicians to a longer recession. There's no correlation there. The recession was caused by a housing crash, so it's not surprising that the places with the greatest real estate market growth fared the worst. Hawaii is an outlier, but real estate there is such a special case that I'm willing to throw out that data point. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you and we may be talking at cross-purposes. Are you onboard with Mr. Interweb who originally said: Mr Interweb posted:Oddly enough, pro-freedom economics hasn't turned Kansas into job creation utopia: Caros posted:Absolutely. Kansas had $800 million in reserves in 2012. They are expected to have less than $80 million in their reserve fund as of next summer. Assuming you follow the general trend of Kansas state budgets since Brownback took office you can expect them to be roughly $800 million in the hole by 2019 when starve the beast starve the beaststarve the beast starve the beaststarve the beast starve the beaststarve poo poo, you sure got me there ace! FWIW they probably should ramped taxes down over time instead of what Brownback did. But speaking of actual unsustainable spending, America's only attempt at UHC experiences a 66% price inflation and implodes. http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin  Turns out taking employer contributions out of it really grind taxpayers' gears when they have to personally make up the difference. Oh but surely this isn't more reflective of what would happen in America, we should look at England where providers are government owned! That's a more realistic comparison. But it's not just the US of A.quote:About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades. Whether he is in Taiwan, Cyprus, or Vermont, the process is roughly the same: meet with legislators, draw up a plan, write legislation. Only half of those bills actually become law. The part where it collapses is, inevitably, when the country has to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
quote:About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades. Whether he is in Taiwan, Cyprus, or Vermont, the process is roughly the same: meet with legislators, draw up a plan, write legislation. Only half of those bills actually become law. The part where it collapses is, inevitably, when the country has to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
You sure are pleased with yourself that people are doomed to suffer and die in the American healthcare system out of sheer unwillingness to pay taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You sure are pleased with yourself that people are doomed to suffer and die in the American healthcare system out of sheer unwillingness to pay taxes. Caveat Emptor Wait, wrong one Poor Populus Nutrientibus
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You sure are pleased with yourself that people are doomed to suffer and die in the American healthcare system out of sheer unwillingness to pay taxes. I especially like the parting shot where any counter argument is just hand waving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I especially like the parting shot where any counter argument is just hand waving. Isn't hand waving all that Libertarians do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Isn't hand waving all that Libertarians do? No, they come up with hard hitting analysis, such as framing a budgetary proposal exercise for single payer in one state as inflation and implosion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:About half of countries who attempt to build single-payer systems fail. That’s Harvard health economist William Hsiao’s estimate after working with about 10 governments in the past two decades. Whether he is in Taiwan, Cyprus, or Vermont, the process is roughly the same: meet with legislators, draw up a plan, write legislation. Only half of those bills actually become law. The part where it collapses is, inevitably, when the country has to pay for it. Did you miss the parts where it mentions the reason its hard to pay for is insurance companies lobbying against it, the healthcare system being so broken currently that it requires a huge amount of startup money to move to a less broken one, and that over time the costs of healthcare of literally every single UHC nation quickly becomes lower than every single private healthcare nation? I don't see how this article helps you exactly? burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Did you miss the parts where it mentions the reason its hard to pay for is insurance companies lobbying against it, the healthcare system being so broken currently that it requires a huge amount of startup money to move to a less broken one, and that over time the costs of healthcare of literally every single UHC nation quickly becomes lower than every single private healthcare nation? I don't see how this article helps you exactly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:You sure are pleased with yourself that people are doomed to suffer and die in the American healthcare system out of sheer unwillingness to pay taxes. "Man, libertarians assume all countries' populaces can/do/should view things a certain way." "Single payer would work if only everyone would get onboard with my program if only the entire country would blah blah" DrProsek posted:Did you miss the parts where it mentions the reason its hard to pay for is insurance companies lobbying against it, the healthcare system being so broken currently that it requires a huge amount of startup money to move to a less broken one, and that over time the costs of healthcare of literally every single UHC nation quickly becomes lower than every single private healthcare nation? I don't see how this article helps you exactly? Being able to survive taxpayer displeasure is kinda crucial and real world. If you can't convince the state most open to it in the country that the long term benefits will pan out or are worth the initial investment or the program will deliver on how good it looks on paper then yeah it's very unrealistic. But if only humans in America would unilaterally change! (see first quote) DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I honestly don't know how Vermont thought it could fund single-payer on its own. Here in Canada, the system is financed via a combination of federal and provincial taxation -- the federal government sends lump sums to the provinces in order to help pay for it. Without the federal half of the budget, every province's system would collapse within a month. I don't know what Vermont's chances of getting funding from Washington were, but I'd wager they were approximately zero. On top of that, I might be wrong, but Americans' tax burden looks substantially slanted towards the federal government compared to Canada, with the income tax rate in Vermont ranging from 4% to 9%. By comparison, the Canadian province with the lowest tax rate has a 10% flat tax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"Single payer would work if only everyone would get onboard with my program if only the entire country would blah blah". All evidence and real-world examples show this is literally true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"Single payer would work if only everyone would get onboard with my program if only the entire country would blah blah" Single payer would work if the country went to a single payer system yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Single payer would work if the country went to a single payer system yes. As for Europe's UHC in particular, I can't make any conclusive statements besides that's waaaay more taxes that Americans would like to pay (ethics). But I would be very interested to see what changes they'd have to make to their budgets if the NATO gravy train disappeared tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"Man, libertarians assume all countries' populaces can/do/should view things a certain way." The only thing libertarians assume, is that we're all stupid enough to willingly eliminate the last remaining safeguards (read: democracy itself) against the rebirth of aristocracy. The rest is just flowery words and pandering to the lowest common denomenator (We don't like war, pass the weed maaaaan!). It's because we have people like you to constantly advocate for the insurance companies and pre-existing conditions, while trying to convince the people getting hosed over that they have it just so wonderful. American exceptionalism is a joke, and a bad one. Only morons still believe the line you're shilling, and it's only because they can't be bothered to actually look up other countries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wasn't aware enacting a program guaranteed its success. You're moving into an area of ethics versus numbers, convincing people that it's better to take a risk on a program (all programs involve risks, period) versus major short term costs and changes is partly numbers, but convincing them they should no matter what is totally ethics. If your argument is your political philosophy would work if everyone was onboard, congrats, you're nearly in the same boat as the "all people should be rational actors" type. I can't imagine a philosophy that wouldn't work with 100% total dedication, full-on ant colony style communism included. But that's not real world. The difference is that one of these things has provided dozens of examples of functionality (and superiority) over the last 130 years and the other is libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Being able to survive taxpayer displeasure is kinda crucial and real world. If you can't convince the state most open to it in the country that the long term benefits will pan out or are worth the initial investment or the program will deliver on how good it looks on paper then yeah it's very unrealistic. But if only humans in America would unilaterally change! (see first quote) So in the span of one post you've gone from "Heh looks like UHC actually is worse than the Free Market  " to "The Free Market hosed healthcare so good it'll be pretty hard politically to raise the money needed to fix it ". I mean it's cool that you don't really care about quality/availability of healthcare but that kinda makes Libertarians seem like sociopaths?E: Also this "unrealistic" healthcare system actually already exists, you might want to check out most other nations on Earth. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I oppose universal health care because universal health care is not politically popular. Let the hand waving about circular arguments commence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:As for Europe's UHC in particular, I can't make any conclusive statements besides that's waaaay more taxes that Americans would like to pay (ethics). But I would be very interested to see what changes they'd have to make to their budgets if the NATO gravy train disappeared tomorrow. Americans pay more in taxes to fund their healthcare than most UHC nations so you're clearly chatting poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wasn't aware enacting a program guaranteed its success. You're moving into an area of ethics versus numbers, convincing people that it's better to take a risk on a program (all programs involve risks, period) versus major short term costs and changes is partly numbers, but convincing them they should no matter what is totally ethics. If your argument is your political philosophy would work if everyone was onboard, congrats, you're nearly in the same boat as the "all people should be rational actors" type. I can't imagine a philosophy that wouldn't work with 100% total dedication, full-on ant colony style communism included. But that's not real world. That wasn't his point. Single payer systems require there to be a single payer. This is pretty much well understood by anyone who actually knows things about healthcare because the cost savings in single payer come primarily from the fact that everyone is insured in one enormous risk pool. The larger the risk pool, the lower the costs, and likewise the larger the insurer the more they are able to negotiate prices down to a reasonable level. I've applauded the Vermont experiment but I never really laid my hopes for you guys upon it. Starting a universal healthcare plan from scratch in the US is going to be hard because people are going to initially see a bump in taxes to cover it, and people don't like that bump, even if it turns out that ten years down the road they'll have lower taxes and higher income because their employer won't be paying a huge chunk of their possible earnings by way of healthcare premiums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Well if all you guys have is weak-rear end arguments like "single-payer only works if you do single-payer, here's the proof" then I'm just going to become a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So maybe I'm misunderstanding you and we may be talking at cross-purposes. Are you onboard with Mr. Interweb who originally said: If you believe that the policies of these respective states did not significantly influence unemployment numbers over the last 10 years, then I would agree with you. Kansas policies didn't positively influence its unemployment numbers any better than California policies did theirs. Examining pre- and post-recession, everything appears to be most tightly correlated to the height of the mousing markets in their respective regions before the bust. Places like Kansas and Utah fared really well, because no one was building houses in Kansas, no one wants to move there. Alaska's unemployment was basically flat, going down slightly when the rest of the country plummeted. Meanwhile, states that experienced a housing boom like Arizona, Michigan, and California experienced a huge spike in unemployment when the bubble popped, unsurprisingly. That said, I don't think that Mr Interweb was claiming that conservative policies negatively influenced unemployment, but rather that they did not keep unemployment as low as was promised by the rigid supply-side policies that have been instituted there in recent years. And that is true; Governor Brownback took on the long-discredited Laffer as an adviser and began instituting strict supply-side policies in what he described as an attempt to create a successful red-state model for the rest of the country to follow. As a result, the wealthy have experienced huge gains in income, the poor have actually wound up paying more in taxes, and huge cuts in education resulted in the closing of numerous schools, forcing Kansas citizens to spend even more of what little money they had on shutting their kids far distances. After several rounds of income tax cuts, while maintaining a high sales tax, what does Kansas have? Its unemployment rates aren't any better off, its deficit is enormous, and its economic growth is worse than ever, despite promises from Laffer and his ilk. The Kansas budget is so dysfunctional that its bond rating was recently downgraded to "poor". The red-state model in Kansas has been disastrous, and I won't be surprised when conservatives choose to ignore the Kansas experiment in 2016. So really, you're both right. Unemployment rate is not a good enough metric to drat someone's policies, especially not in light of much great factors like a worldwide recession. Also, Kansas FYGM policies have resulted in a raiding of the treasury for high-income tax cut giveaways with nothing positive to show for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Why do you statists call it universal healthcare if it doesn't cover the entire universe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:37
|
|