|
Serrath posted:Look at it another way, if I had a public clinic with an average wait time of 2h and then, overnight, I started charging a fee per use and the wait time the next day declined to 30min, would you call that a success? What do you suppose the people who formally sat in that queue are doing instead? You act like making the wait time short specifically for people with money isn't the intended outcome? I always assumed triage-based wait times were a big bother to people who are used to getting their way immediately  Where I'm from, people are always bitching that people with private insurance get appointments with doctors faster (generally true), but at least my state mandated mediocre insurance loving functions and if I have real urgent problems, I'll be treated ASAP anyway. Not saying Germany's healthcare system is super amazing (I am uneducated in how it compares) but it's done right by my family, since we're poorish and my mother especially takes meds that would cost over a thousand bucks a month to just buy. I expect US-type healthcare would have loving ruined this family years ago, since we're really really lower middle class at best anyway. I thought Caros made some good arguments and I am looking forward to the original poster getting to the ones he hasn't glibly discarded yet. I am generally confused by the argumentative thrust I notice in these libertarian arguments that claim needs would be fulfilled by non-State factors because clearly everyone is interested in it. This seems insane. People do not generally give a poo poo about the world around them. They just don't. This is why taxes and regulations exist in the first place! Does a libertarian society only work if you replace regular human beings with some weirdly utopian logic engine on two legs? Sure I can see people taking payment to provide services but I guess I don't see where the motivation comes in to not cut costs and not half-rear end whatever it is that needs doing. I don't know. I think in a libertarian society there are too many steps in any proceeding that pre-suppose everyone will care enough to pay for it to happen. Imagine somehow the groundwater in an area goes bad. Ok. 1) You need to probably figure out why and if it's ongoing. This costs money and the more distant to the problem you are, the less inclined you're to pitch in. 2) Environmental clean-up costs money. 3) What if some local company is somehow at fault? How do you seek justice? Almost certainly the company has a bigger budget than your neighborhood, which seems relevant when arbitration is presumably also a service that costs money, and so are lawyers. There already isn't enough pro-bono work being done today....because doing something necessary for no compensation is not super attractive. And this entire scenario consists of necessary steps that cost money! 4)Perhaps the company at fault is run by a bunch of cartoonish jackasses who know that there's no actual state above them, so they just start hiring thugs to shut up complainers. Yeah yeah, this ain't Shadowrun, but it seems more realistic than just assuming everyone just turns into rational, moral actors just because there is no longer a State. Now suddenly the victims in my scenario also need to have money to pay a security agency (in absence of state-sponsored police). Now, I'm bad at coherently arguing and I do apologize. I think what it boils down to is this: I do not understand how Liberatarianism/Removing the state would be advantageous to the poor and the disadvantaged or the chronically ill. It seems in fact that without even the rudimentary protection granted by the state, these people would, in fact, be MORE disadvantaged. If people were really so moral about the misfortune of others, half the scummy companies around today would have been boycotted out of business already. Can you present an argument why life would be so much more just for everyone (you specifically mention minorities) when it seems like people prefer their lifes to be expedient, and taking a stand on some reasonably abstract injustice is not expedient? I just haven't seen an explanation for this yet that isn't "The free market!" Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Aug 9, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Ayn Rand posted:[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent. So because I've not long been dealing with the subject matter, this quote is new to me. I suppose it partially answers my nagging question why legitimate land ownership only appears to start with libertarians and their immediate forebears. Going by Randian logic here, how much do you have to DO with your land to avoid accidentally ceding your rights to it? Cause this train of logic might make for fun with the home owner's organizations or whatever. Lawn not mowed in too long? Inherited a small piece of land and just letting it go wild around your house? How much glorious civilization do you have to have on your land for property rights to kick in? Does your ethnicity add a modifier to this minimum value? Can my neighbor just come in and chop down my trees or pick berries, or is untouched wilderness property when you're white and not a native american? Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:The stupidest thing about libertarians and especially an-caps is that modern economics wouldn't exist without the stability provided by states. Ultimately it seems like libertarians are just mad that there are already established economic systems that require effort, time, and extensive knowledge to enter successfully so they just want to destroy the current system so they can have an easier chance at becoming captains of industry. In the case of a stateless society this would not be the result since the people that banded together first would easily overpower any people trying to get by individually. Although considering most libertarians are hypocrites/sociopaths they would probably just try to be the rulers/upper class of these new states. This reminds me of a partial quote on the topic I saw, but it's unattributed and without context. quote:Libertarianism, by contrast, is a theory of those who find it hard to avoid their taxes, who are too small, incompetent or insufficiently connected to win Iraq-reconstruction contracts, or otherwise chow at the state trough. In its maundering about a mythical ideal-type capitalism, libertarianism betrays its fear of actually existing capitalism, at which it cannot quite succeed. It is a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, if it was in an argument or somewhere published. Anyone know? Edit for extra content: I've still only read claims that people will just DO the right thing to make libertopia work, or that ostracism will prevent people from being lovely, when demonstrably, people are frequently somewhere between apathetic and actively lovely and if you're enough of a gently caress-up that locals actually turn away from you, you can just MOVE. The US isn't even that small. One the Libertarian revolution dismantles the State you probably won't even have to leave the continental US, you just move about three postapocalyptic libertopian enclaves in any direction and meet a whole new set of people who'll never hear of your backstory. But I've not read any convincing arguments as to WHY regular people will simply be better than today by a large enough margin to make libertopia function. DoctorWhat posted:Here you go, I just googled "capitalist inadequacy". I have no good excuse why this course of action didn't occur to me 
Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I understand that Donald Sterling it a reprehensible human being for holding racist views. But, even still, he made quite a few black athletes and coaches millionaires. In contrast, Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War that actually caused the death of more than one million people. Well I guess your view that team of black athletes apparently had no agency worth mentioning in their own success and were in fact shepherded towards wealth by a racist white guy is pretty insightful! I can't tell if this is racism or some kind of weird libertarian view where the captain of Industry gets sole credit for the work of his employees
Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Even if relatively few people are true jackasses, some of them have a knack for ending up in positions of power to poo poo things up for the middle of the road apathetic citizen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
He's bitten into the racism issue like an angry dog and is just shaking his head back and forth ignoring any other questions posters have posed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
platedlizard posted:That reminds me, jhoder, how would a libertarian society deal with organized crime? You know, extortion, theft, kidnapping, human trafficking etc would all still exist probably. How would a libertarian society enforce the few rules it has? Especially since w/ organized crime you are dealing with large conglomerates intent on violating libertarian "rules", not just individuals. The initial DRO world salad claims that organized crime only exists because it gets incentives from the state, such as an easily bribed police force. Since Libertarians believe the state is directly responsible for organized crime, it won't exist in a stateless society, because DROs with only the oversight of...rational actors ( )probably won't be interested in taking large amounts of money to look the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 10:59
|
|