How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "redistribution" of wealth?

But neither are politicians gods.

By "to whom they are born" I assume you mean the lack of wealth of those who have children resulting in their inability to provide adequately for their offspring? Government has mandated the purchase of liability insurance, and most recently health insurance reasoning that the lack of each produces a burden on society if one injures another in a vehicular accident, or illness. Would you accept a government mandate to require financial evidence one has the means to provide child care until adulthood before conception? After all that too can produce a burden on society for decades, limiting societies ability to provide assistance to those who just temporarily require assistance, or a hand up.

Free? or just shifted the cost to everyone?

Most everything government runs becomes inefficient, and costly. While initial public funding might be a good way to begin something, I still believe privatization later would assure it to continue in a more cost effective way, and allow competition to become involved to eliminate monopolistic pricing.

 

It's a lengthy expanse of time, but repetitious in many ways.

If you feel it irrational and/or unreasonable, ignore it.

It would appear that there is only a small handful of persons who contribute to these forums anyway, so it would be an inefficient use of time and space. I've yet to see more than 3 or 4 persons contribute much in any thread, other than a passing comment.

 

You propose as the problem lack of wealth, then wouldn't the solution be for the poor to have fewer children? What would you define as the purpose of having a child?

 

How would you sum up concisely, WHY you have the views you have?

 

yes, shifted, or better, shared

this should come naturally, people helping one another, but apparently it either does not or we have been raised not to do it

i suspect that as americans specifically are not very good at this that it is in fact learned behavior

so, since some people are in urgent need, and others dream of bugattis, is not a little correction in order?

 

Indie

So what do you think I mean by "redistribution" of wealth?
*

And what does that have to do with the price of fish?
*

No the NHS it is paid for by a National Insurance scheme and taxation. A communal pot paid into by the many to that benefit the many.
*

I know that’s what you think but can you back it up? To me there can be good and bad public and private entities, I’m just not as dogmatic as you.

*

Ok, I’m game - so what lesson have you learnt from ancient near eastern history about the societal agenda of the Left today?

*

 

Indie

We have been through this a length before and it seems to be a common theme with you (for example post 136 and onward in the Small government thread).
You have suggested that it should be illegal for the poor to have children for the children of poor people to be forcibly removed from their family to be put up for adoption there has even been the hint of sterilisation.
As I’ve said before as an insight into how your mind works it is not a pretty one.

 

Indie

How would you sum up concisely, WHY you have the views you have?

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.
But I’ve written extensively on these forums why I have particular outlooks on some things, like democracy, free market economics, or governance and I’ve even linked to many of them, although you have admitted you don’t read them, if you did you would know a lot more about why I have my views.

As to you I’m sorry to say your main contribution to debates is evasion. Which it precisely what you are doing here. I ask a question and put forward a supposition and rather than been an honest and trying to answer you throw the question back in my face.

But then I’m happy to answer.

Why aren’t you?

 

Confiscated or seized might be a better term. Would you say a thief is just sharing what he takes from you?

I think it does come naturally, otherwise there would be no charities. Do you feel that the world owes you a living? More to the point, those who achieve success owe you, and those who do not?

I don't think the evidence bears this out, Americans appear to be quite responsive when disasters occur. What kind of behavior would you call envy?

Perhaps the pursuit of happiness is not an inalienable right after all? Why should someone who earns the money not have a right to spend it as they wish? You should be thankful there are those who can afford to buy Bugattis and other expensive items, it keeps the workers who produce them employed, and that's how wealth should be redistributed.

 

i used to make enough money to pay taxes, over 20 years ago

i never once thought anyone was stealing from me

why do you put everything in those terms?

 

we've discussed charities, their limitations, and the various motivations of those who work for them before, done

i didn't use the word envy

and you're right, of course, everyone should be thankful that some person might want to spend enough money to feed a normal family for 3 generations on a fucking car - how much are they paying those workers, anyways?

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Am I close?

Quite a lot since government regulates the industry.

Essentially paid for wholly by the working taxpayers? Isn't that the same as the Canadian system?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12740663

Try the U.S. Postal Service vs Federal Express. The only problem is that while private entities usually go out of business if they can not operate at a profit, public entities even with greater public funding are allowed to continue to operate at a loss. Not only that, but even good private entities must continue to find ways to satisfy their customers and face new or innovative competition or they can be put out of business. Private sector entities allow us to make choices as to where we wish to spend our hard earned cash, while public entities provide us no alternative, and can therefore treat us any way they wish. Try dealing with the I.R.S, U.S. Immigration services, or U.S. Embassy employees. That's about the extent of my contact with government employees currently.

Basically that we perpetually repeat the mistakes of past either willingly or unwillingly. There's no use in expanding the argument when we have resolved nothing pertaining to the current one.

 

I've just tried to focus some attention toward the "source" of the problem as you present it. You say that the children have no choice in the decision of to whom they are born, and while I and all others aside from the couple who produce them also have no choice in the matter you feel that we should be forced to take responsibility for the poor choices made by others rather than trying to eliminate the cause at its source. To subsidize poor behavior does little more than promote it.

 

You've summed up your view quite laudably, and while I don't disagree with the results you would like to see produced I don't see the impediments to achieving them caused by those who have been successful or those who have acquired great wealth. Instead I see them as a source who provides much of the opportunity we have to climb the ladder of success in a productive way achieving our own individual success. Increased productivity leads to a sound economy, while increased government spending may offset the loss of productivity it does so only by increasing debt which eventually has consequences. At my age the consequences are irrelevant as I won't be around to face them, but many of those who are younger and their offspring will be.

 

Word

 

Indie

A quote from Marx, but I keep telling you that I’m not a Marxist, not all of those on the left are you know, although you seem to think so.

But let us take another viewpoint from someone who was definitely not a communist - Adam Smith

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion” The Wealth of Nations

Basically I want to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

For that to happen there has to be some balance, between the interests of the few and those of the many and between the individual and the community, it is about increasing the potential of people to achieve success and about raising the quality of life of all.

*
And what does that have to do with the price of fish?

But why is it regulated?

In Europe there is regulation in place because of over fishing; private firms in search of short term profits were threatening long term sustainability by basically hunting the fish to extinction. Now one of the things that such regulation encouraged was the development of much more sustainable fish farming.

Anyway rather than trying to be ‘clever’ why not answered the question about control.

*

But that’s the thing I don’t think you have an argument, and just as you’ve done so far when actually called on to produce it you seem to be doing all your best not to.

I mean it has been something of a theme with you – you hint that you have some kind of killer argument but when asked what it is you seemingly refuse to say what it is, it then comes out in small snippets that when assembled produce something that isn’t that persuasive and is easily countered.

*

 

Indie

Well in the UK a courier service delivers to your door and if you are not in they go away, this often means you have to arrange a time when you are in and they cannot give an exact time so this means taking time off work, or having to travel a long distance to an out of town depot. On the other hand Royal Mail has Sorting Offices or Post Offices in every area (When I grew up there was one in every village and in London at the last place I lived it was a five minute bus journey away and now a five minute walk away).

If I was sending to a business and needed speed I’d use a courier, but if I didn’t need speed or I was sending to a person’s private house I’d use Royal Mail.

*

The thing is that it is not always desirable to let companies fail try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

In the up period the government pays off its debts incurred in the low period and possibly its stakes in some industries and business it nationalised or bought in the low period…In the low period the government is then in a position to put money into the system and nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble.

As I go on to explain the neo-liberal approach does not have any mechanism for a crash, which can have a detrimental even disastrous impact on people and society.

But without regulation and monitoring they can become monolithic in nature. For example the result of deregulation in the financial sector in the US and UK brought about institutions that were ‘too big too fail’ (and still are).

The thing is that you seem to favour policies that would increase the likely hood of this happening and while I’ve asked you why - all I’ve got so far is evasion, you either deny without submitting any proof or you ignore it.

 

Indie

But this is the problem you can’t back up the premise that all disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved.

As I’ve explained at length you seem to have this simplistic approach based on outcome and biased assumption.

To countenance the forceful removal of children from their parents and sterilisation on the basis of a premise you can’t even defend seems to me monstrous as well as deeply irrational.

*

Thank you, but while I wish to increase the potential of people to achieve success which is more likely to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life

You on the other hand seem to favour policies that would limit many people’s potential which is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

I’ve asked you to address the criticism of your views but you seem incapable or extremely reluctant to do so, and I wonder why?

 

Then let them do their job.

I only used it in asking a question. But it would appear to be applicable relating to your view of those who possess wealth. They just aren't giving what you feel to be a fair share of money which may represent but a small portion of their wealth.

I didn't say anyone should be thankful, but neither should they let their envy run amok. How someone spends the money they earn or inherit should be no ones business but that of the person who earned it or inherited it.

 

where do you think this wealth comes from???

from the sweat of their workers

from the purse of a woman buying overpriced food for her children

from the bank accounts of everyone buying overpriced cars and gasoline to get to their crappy job, paying rents or the interest on mortgages

selling us our inheritance - the fruits of our soil, our mineral wealth, selling our own sweat back to us

jesus, are you that fucking dense???

free us from the slavery of money!!!