Announcement

**connorkimbro** · November 4, 2003, 22:18

why do you say "thanks" at the end of every post? it's irritating.

**Tuberski** · November 4, 2003, 22:20

Originally posted by connorkimbro
why do you say "thanks" at the end of every post? it's irritating.

I don't think it's irritating.

ACK!

**David Floyd** · November 4, 2003, 22:24

Paying for police protection: this is mind-boggling for me. while the police can be corrupt or incompetent and there probably should be more vigilantism allowed, the basic idea of a "non-partial" police force protecting and serving the entire public is crucial. I can't imagine how the cities would be like when the security companies realize people in them can not afford to pay their fees. imagine there suddenly being no arrests and crime will run even more rampant than it does today.

Apparently you are unfamilar with the concept of user fees.

Such basic things as immunizations, however, MUST be given to everybody and thus, MUST be free for the poor if only to prevent epidemics. do we really need to have the plague, polio, smallpox, and a thousand other diseases killing millions just because people couldn't afford immunizations.

Poor people in the US don't starve to death, nor do they walk around naked - obviously they can afford some basic necessities. In fact, most poor people enjoy various luxuries, like basketballs and Nikes. If they say they can't afford immunizations, then stop buying sporting equipment and nice shoes, to start with.

Court representation: no public defenders? well damn, let's just throw tens of thousands of poor people in jail now!

Absolutely! Let's throw everyone in jail who commits a crime!

Now, you might address the problem of the police arresting the wrong person, but look at it this way: Without someone like John Ashcroft in the Justice Department, there won't be a huge, government-mandated push for strict sentencing - it will be much easier for the truly innocent to walk out of court free men. Eliminate the War on Drugs, and it becomes even easier.

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

Capitalism that will destroy itself: Lasseiz-faire capitalism has the odd attribute of being so capitalistic, it can only destroy capitalism. You have complete free trade and no regulation at all and monopolies form... trusts form... and suddenly, competition is effectively destroyed.

You might be surprised to know that the two eras most people view as "laissez faire" - that is, Victorian England and 1880s era US - were in fact not laissez faire at all. Monopolies formed because, to a large extent, the government was biased in favor of business, rather than staying neutral.

Libertarians, however, are against both public schools and vouchers. now, how can we say that every american has an oppurtunity to succeed through his hard-work if, as a child, he was too poor to attend school?

Similarly, how can we say that everyone has the opportunity to own a nice car, if he can't immediately afford one?

Look, there are ways to pay for education. Working, loans, charity, etc. And yes, I fully acknowledge that some people will be too poor to get any non-homeschool education. But not receiving an education is not a deprivation of rights, in any way, shape, or form.

now the libertarian response is all the tax money that would go towards education will go back to the pockets of the people. first of all, this is based on the assumption that the parents will spend the money on said child's education. Frankly, I'm positive a good-sized minority of parents wouldn't spend this money to send their children to school.

Why should poor parenting decisions be my problem? If the parents use the money to buy dime bags for themselves and basketballs and Nikes for their kids, why should I have to shell out to pay for the kids' education? The money is there, it is simply being misused by the parents. And that, AS, is a parenting problem - not MY problem.

**Vesayen** · November 4, 2003, 22:34

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

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Court representation: no public defenders? well damn, let's just throw tens of thousands of poor people in jail now!

When crimes that only hurt yourself are made legal, the number of court cases will be cut drastically-wrongfull arrests will be cut as well.

**Lawrence of Arabia** · November 4, 2003, 22:35

first of all, this is based on the assumption that the parents will spend the money on said child's education. Frankly, I'm positive a good-sized minority of parents wouldn't spend this money to send their children to school. so what becomes of these children who can not go to school?

And how is that my problem that another family will spend it on something else? Don't ruin it for everyone if someone screws up.

You might be surprised to know that the two eras most people view as "laissez faire" - that is, Victorian England and 1880s era US - were in fact not laissez faire at all. Monopolies formed because, to a large extent, the government was biased in favor of business, rather than staying neutral.

Monopolies will form with government bias towards business and when there is no anti trust laws. If you dont want capitalism to collapse on itself, you will need anti trust laws.

**David Floyd** · November 4, 2003, 22:36

Monopolies will form with government bias towards business and when there is no anti trust laws. If you dont want capitalism to collapse on itself, you will need anti trust laws.

That may indeed be a possibility, however, we have never seen that happen. The point I was making was to shut down the most common "examples" of Victorian England and 1880s USA.

**St Leo** · November 4, 2003, 22:37

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

You pay to call the police? Or the arrested person pays for the privilege of being arrested?

Yes, that system will be very effective at rehabilitating criminals into productive members of society.

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

Yes, it is.

Hugh Auld, with coarse and brutal language, told his wife that slaves should never be taught beyond their station. Not only was it illegal to teach them to read, but .. A slave, “given an inch, he will take an ell.” “If you learn him how to read, he’ll want to know how to write; and this accomplished, he’ll be running away with himself.”

Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further, he said, … “Now, if you teach that ****** (speaking of Douglas) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” …

These words sank deep into my heart, stirred up sentiments within that lay slumbering, and called into existence an entirely new train of thought. It was a new and special revelation, explaining dark and mysterious things, with which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty – to wit, the white man’s power to enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly. From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom. …

Though conscious of the difficulty of learning without a teacher, I set out with high hope, and a fixed purpose, at whatever cost of trouble to learn how to read. The very decided manner with which he [Mr. Auld} spoke, and strove to impress his wife with the evil consequences of giving me instruction, served to convince me that he was deeply sensible of the truths he was uttering. It gave me the best assurance that I might rely with the utmost confidence on the results which, he said, would flow from teaching me to read. What he most dreaded, that I most desired. What he most loved, that I most hated. That which to him was a great evil, to be carefully shunned, was to me a great good, to be diligently sought; and the argument which he so warmly urged, against my learning to read, only served to inspire me with a desire and determination to learn.

Nathan Huggins, Slave and Citizen: The Life of Frederick Douglass, p. 5 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980).

**Lawrence of Arabia** · November 4, 2003, 22:39

Which candidate are you voting for in the lib primaries df?

**David Floyd** · November 4, 2003, 22:40

Yes, that system will be very effective at rehabilitating criminals into productive members of society.

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

As to education, your slavery example is, forgive the expression, idiotic. The fact that slavery exists means that someone's rights are being violated, not the fact that slaves aren't being educated.

The slaves rights are being violated by the fact that he is a slave, not by the fact that he isn't being taught how to read.

**Vesayen** · November 4, 2003, 22:40

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why should poor parenting decisions be my problem? If the parents use the money to buy dime bags for themselves and basketballs and Nikes for their kids, why should I have to shell out to pay for the kids' education? The money is there, it is simply being misused by the parents. And that, AS, is a parenting problem - not MY problem.

COULDNT of said it better myself!!!!!

BTW im a libretarian and I dont think a private police force is a good idea-or at least if there is, it would be low level with a higher level, public police force.

**David Floyd** · November 4, 2003, 22:40

Which candidate are you voting for in the lib primaries df?

Haven't even thought about it - honestly, I'll vote for whoever they nominate anyway

As a side note, I was thinking about signing up for the Free State Project...

**Lawrence of Arabia** · November 4, 2003, 22:44

We need to change to proportional representation, that way we dont have to move to another state. No more districts in the house of reps. House of Reps will have 1000 seats. For every percent your party gets, you get a bunch of seats.

**David Floyd** · November 4, 2003, 22:46

Well, the appeal of the FSP is not just in federal representation, but in state-level matters, too. Refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement WRT the War on Drugs, preventing abuses of eminent domain, etc., are all things that could only be done with everyone in one state.

**Vesayen** · November 4, 2003, 22:55

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Monopolies will form with government bias towards business and when there is no anti trust laws. If you dont want capitalism to collapse on itself, you will need anti trust laws.

Big corporations already run this country(America)-that would be different how?

Announcement

I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment