I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Apparently you are unfamilar with the concept of user fees.

Apparently you think the very poor don't deserve justice. I guess it's not one of those important rights.

Poor people in the US don't starve to death, nor do they walk around naked - obviously they can afford some basic necessities.

No thanks to people like you. If the poor have some limited amount of extra money to spend, it's because of government programs like: welfare, unemployment, social security, minimum wage, housing assistance, medicare & medicaid, etc. It's these programs which allow the working class to demand more for the price of labor, so that some of the working poor can have something beyond the bare necessities (though there are plenty of people who simply cannot make ends meet, and don't have $200 Air Jordans.

You also miss the fact that many, if not most, lawyers engage in pro bono work on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean they do it for poor people.

Monopolies formed because, to a large extent, the government was biased in favor of business, rather than staying neutral.

The fact that they were biased in favor of big business doesn't mitage the natural tendency towards monopoly. Even without the police turning the other way, enacting tariffs, or stomping on working folks rights, there would be monopolies, trusts, and cartels. They just would have all been British instead of American (at least in the U.S.).

But not receiving an education is not a deprivation of rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Without mandatory, public-financed education, capitalism couldn't have gotten this far. You can't innovate with ignorant people. Without state intervention, most children would have been working instead of learning. Our country would be much, much, poorer. This is an investment that returns many times the initial cost.

Why should poor parenting decisions be my problem?

Because the result is crime. Crime is your problem, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It happens to you, and saying, after the fact, that he had no right to do that means nothing to the dead. Plus, there are injuries for which a person can never be adequately compensated. You might as well deny a bear the right to eat you for all the good denying a criminal the right to rob, assault, or kill you does. Education is the single best crime prevention program there is.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why should the rehabilitation of criminals be a primary aim of the judicial system? Prison exists for punishment - not to molly-coddle violent criminals.

And it does such an effective job at preventing crime.

[Lincoln]

I have seen the effect of misguided social programs for the poor. In this area poor people used to dig up certain plants in the woods and sell them to nurseries etc.. They also used to raise hogs and chickens and support themselves. Now they sit on the porch with big fat bellies and wait for their welfare check and vote for the next Democrat that promises them more free stuff.

[David Floyd]

Apparently you think the very poor don't deserve justice. I guess it's not one of those important rights.

The poor don't deserve any GOOD or SERVICE that they can't or won't pay for, the same as anyone else.

No thanks to people like you. If the poor have some limited amount of extra money to spend, it's because of government programs like: welfare, unemployment, social security, minimum wage, housing assistance, medicare & medicaid, etc. It's these programs which allow the working class to demand more for the price of labor, so that some of the working poor can have something beyond the bare necessities (though there are plenty of people who simply cannot make ends meet, and don't have $200 Air Jordans.

Well, then, stop taxing their income, and everything else they buy, and they have extra money. Not enough for Air Jordans, I think we can all agree, but certainly enough for food and immunizations.

Oh, certainly, there will be some homeless people. And a very few people might even starve. But it isn't my responsibility to feed, clothe, and house these people, and in fact, I'd wager that most of these people are in their position because of their own poor decisions.

That doesn't mean they do it for poor people.

Not for poor people charged with Class C misdemeanors, no

The fact that they were biased in favor of big business doesn't mitage the natural tendency towards monopoly. Even without the police turning the other way, enacting tariffs, or stomping on working folks rights, there would be monopolies, trusts, and cartels. They just would have all been British instead of American (at least in the U.S.).

Well, if you are allowed to say that laissez faire systems will fail, even though we've never had one, then I'm allowed to say that true communist systems will also fail, even though we've never had one of those, either

Without mandatory, public-financed education, capitalism couldn't have gotten this far. You can't innovate with ignorant people. Without state intervention, most children would have been working instead of learning. Our country would be much, much, poorer. This is an investment that returns many times the initial cost.

That's not necessarily true. Children with families who could afford it wouldn't have been working, but rather have been in schools - much better schools than the public crap we have today.

That's a fairly facetious statement, of course - but the fact remains, the only people who are entitled to an education are those who can afford it.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that mandatory public education funded through taxes made the US richer, but I'm not concerned with money, I'm concerned with freedom.

Because the result is crime. Crime is your problem, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It happens to you, and saying, after the fact, that he had no right to do that means nothing to the dead. Plus, there are injuries for which a person can never be adequately compensated. You might as well deny a bear the right to eat you for all the good denying a criminal the right to rob, assault, or kill you does. Education is the single best crime prevention program there is.

People should be taught personal responsibility. If their parents don't teach it, then 20 years in prison for robbing my house ought to do the trick. And I don't care if a person who robs a grocery store was starving - he should STILL go to prison for a good long time.

But you're right. Crime is my problem. That's why there should be no restrictions on the type of weapons I can arm myself with. That way, when the starving guy breaks into my house in the middle of the night for food, I can shoot his ass without worrying about the knife or Saturday Night Special he may or may not be carrying.

[Theben]

I think DF makes an interesting point- libertarians don't care about anyone else. The concept of freedom they espouse begins and ends with themelves. There is no hint of a society in their ramblings, just a desire for anarchy. I suppose this desire is fueled by a wish that they will come out on top of the heap once the power vaccuums are filled.

That's why I've always called them libertyrants. In their hearts they believe they are yours masters.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

Apparently you think the very poor don't deserve justice. I guess it's not one of those important rights.

Ah yes, and you send a large chunk of your income to S Africa so the poor get justice? Oh, that's their problem? Yes it is, isn't it... Hmm...

No thanks to people like you.

There's a ******* left winger for ya, steal us blind to pay for all sorts of crap and then spit in our faces. No chegitz, it is because of people like DF because if we didn't exist, you a@@holes would have to pay for all that **** yourselves.

If the poor have some limited amount of extra money to spend, it's because of government programs like: welfare, unemployment, social security, minimum wage, housing assistance, medicare & medicaid, etc.

Gee, and where do "we" get the money for all those programs? Oh yeah, "taxes". Here's an idea, don't "tax" away our money and we'll have more to spend on the necessities of life. That's a left winger for ya, tax people into poverty and then give 'em back some of their money in the name of "compassion".

It's these programs which allow the working class to demand more for the price of labor, so that some of the working poor can have something beyond the bare necessities (though there are plenty of people who simply cannot make ends meet, and don't have $200 Air Jordans.

Those programs don't "allow" a working man to earn a living, his skills sold in the marketplace creates his wealth.

The fact that they were biased in favor of big business doesn't mitage the natural tendency towards monopoly. Even without the police turning the other way, enacting tariffs, or stomping on working folks rights, there would be monopolies, trusts, and cartels. They just would have all been British instead of American (at least in the U.S.).

This natural tendency toward monopolies is mitigated by the marketplace, that's why some corporations seek to create government biases by bribing politicians.

Without mandatory, public-financed education, capitalism couldn't have gotten this far. You can't innovate with ignorant people. Without state intervention, most children would have been working instead of learning. Our country would be much, much, poorer. This is an investment that returns many times the initial cost.

A desire to learn creates education, not government schools. Technology and the market is what determines educational opportunities, not government schools. We have government schools and we see a surplus of people who are qualified to teach or run for Congress and not much else. But you didn't refute DF's assertion that we have no right to force others to pay for our education, you merely argued we should legalise stealing because you like the alleged result.

Because the result is crime. Crime is your problem, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. It happens to you, and saying, after the fact, that he had no right to do that means nothing to the dead. Plus, there are injuries for which a person can never be adequately compensated. You might as well deny a bear the right to eat you for all the good denying a criminal the right to rob, assault, or kill you does. Education is the single best crime prevention program there is.

That's a great argument, if you don't let us steal your money now to educate our children, it will be stolen later by our children. Is that a contract? If so, can we sue the parents of children who commit crimes for breach of contract? Because we are being ripped off to pay for the government schools and by the products of those schools.

[chequita guevara]

Libertarians are religious. They have a mystical belief in the power of the market.

[Berzerker]

Thieven -

I think DF makes an interesting point- libertarians don't care about anyone else. The concept of freedom they espouse begins and ends with themelves.

When slaves were asked what they want, did they say, free that other guy? You may not like the idea of being free, but libertarians want you to be free too. If you decide freedom is too scary, then choose servitude, but don't force the rest of us to join you.

There is no hint of a society in their ramblings, just a desire for anarchy. I suppose this desire is fueled by a wish that they will come out on top of the heap once the power vaccuums are filled.

"Society"? What does that mean? Oh yeah, "society" means you get to steal from us in the name of society.

That's why I've always called them libertyrants. In their hearts they believe they are yours masters.

Yes, we want you to leave us alone and we will do the same for you and that means we want to be your master.

[Berzerker]

Libertarians are religious. They have a mystical belief in the power of the market.

Communists are religious. They have a mystical belief in the morality of government.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

most people don't

[NeOmega]

Since when are libertarians against court appointed lawyers? I have never seen, nor read anything about that. The judicial system is on eof the crucial responsibilities of the government, as set forth in our constitution. You should not misrepresent the ideology until you know what you are talking about. Other essential constitutional powers of the government include elections and the post-office. Allthough of course the post office could theoretically be privatized, I also do not expect to see privated elections supported by libertarians.

Private Police: It is funny how libertarians are always painted to such extremes. You will never find a Libertarian office holder who realistically would advocate a private police force, all though definitely you would find one who could argue various services provided by the police, such as security for political or sporting events, constant domestic violence calls, and of course drug warriors, are either un-needed or even detrimental. I mean why does the Washington Taxpayer pay for the security of a Seahawks football game?

Another point regarding lawyers: right now the poor do not recieve justice, even with court appointed attorneys. It has nothing to do with the economic system and everything to do with a bloated political beauracracy.

Public Education: Waht has the constant pumping of money into public colleges done? Produced a bunch of idiots with degrees in useless fields and rates continue to skyrocket at rates unheard of. Public K-12 schools? Taken oppurtunity from the poor and given it to the "college educated" elite. Now you have to have a master degree to teach third grade..... and there is a shortage of teachers.... what a surprise.

[Bosh]

I have never seen, nor read anything about that.

Haven't talked to old Floydy too much have you. But then he's a bit of a walking self-caricature...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Communists are religious. They have a mystical belief in the morality of government.

Who ever said we thought the government was moral? Morality is besides the point. No society is moral. All have a foundation of theft and genocide and slavery. We commies simply say, we feel free to take the whole of society since you have no just claim anyway, as you stole it from others.

Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged. "Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I don't think it's irritating.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Theban,

I think DF makes an interesting point- libertarians don't care about anyone else.

Actually we care primarily about ourselves, in that we feel that it is best to independently pursue our own self interests, rather than pursuing what we imgaine to be the interests of others - those interests are better left up to that one person.

The concept of freedom they espouse begins and ends with themelves.

No, actually I believe that everyone has equal rights. But I'm not going to give up my rights just because you say I should.

There is no hint of a society in their ramblings, just a desire for anarchy.

No, anarchy is what anarchists want.

That's why I've always called them libertyrants. In their hearts they believe they are yours masters.

That's idiotic. Find one Libertarian who believes he is the "master" of another. Please. I'm waiting.

che,

Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged. "Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

Actually one good reason for opposing reparations for slavery is that the former slaves are FAR, FAR, FAR better off being in this country - that is, being descendants of slaves - than they would be if their anscestors were never enslaved. They themselves are profiting from the slavery of their ancestors.

But if they insist on going back to West Africa, I certainly won't stop them.