Which is more important to the US?

[David Floyd]

Seriously -- can you have a democracy that does not protect invidividual rights?

Sure, by the very definition of democracy. If you want a government that may not violate individual rights, you aren't really talking about democracy.

Compared to real non-democratic nations like China, North Korea and Iraq are the democratic ones saints.

I don't care what they're compared to - that's a silly argument. That's like saying that a common murderer is a saint compared to a serial killer. Of course he isn't, one is just worse than the other.

[Wraith]

--"In 1999 Argentina according to the IMF was the model that the nations in development should follow."

Appeal to authority. Too bad this authority does not understand economics. The IMF is notorious for making extremely bad loans, and continuing to do so long beyond the point any reasonable lender would have stopped.

--"If I recall correctly the subsidies are not to inflate the prices, but to make them lower."

You are incorrect. Modern farming methods are highly efficient, and a farmer in the US can be paid not to grow things (it's that supply and demand thing, again, with the government artificially reducing supply, which raises prices).

--"People have to eat, but they can import the food from other countries who make it cheaper, better and without subsidies."

Importation of food makes sense only in certain areas. The long-distance transportaion of fresh foods is actually one of the bigger current problems. We can easily make enough food to feed everyone in the world, the problem is getting it where it needs to be. In most cases it is much more efficient to simply buy relatively local goods.

--"Of course that does not works, and only the state intervention of the Keynes welfare system took the US out of their crisis."

I don't suppose anything I could possibly say would change your mind, and I get really tired of trying to give basic econ lessons, so I shan't bother.

--"After all, Hitler came to power by his own labor."

Heh. He got voted in. Politicians are, by nature, parasitic creatures, not creative ones. This also has everything to do with political power, not economic power.
Your definitions of oppressive in regards to economics, btw, either do not square with mine or are referring to things I would place under protection of rights.

--"education is a RIGHT, not something that have to be BOUGHT or something you have to beg others for"

See, this is where the language problem comes in. Education can never be a right. It requires the active participation from someone else. It requires someone to labor to produce it for you. Rights can only demand that others do not do things to you, they can not demand that others do things for you.

And yes, government can defend rights -- actual rights -- without interferring in the economy.

--"I can safely tell that there is much less inequalities and difference between the richest and the poorest in our European countries than in US."

This entire topic is irrelevant in any case. Economic inequality is not oppression, just reality. Just like strength inequality is not oppression, just reality. Other actions have to happen before oppression can be involved, and that is where government can step in.

--"What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose."

You must have missed my earlier quote on democracy.
Don't forget that Hitler rose to power and started his Holocaust in a democracy.

Wraith
"I object to power without purpose, and to authority without restraint."
-- Mr Spock

[Akka]

--"Of course that does not works, and only the state intervention of the Keynes welfare system took the US out of their crisis."

I don't suppose anything I could possibly say would change your mind, and I get really tired of trying to give basic econ lessons, so I shan't bother.

Regardless of who's right on the issue, I would just like to say that a bit of modesty be welcome. You do not own absolute economical knowledge, and there is as much economics that support free capitalism that economists that support regulations.

--"After all, Hitler came to power by his own labor."

Heh. He got voted in. Politicians are, by nature, parasitic creatures, not creative ones. This also has everything to do with political power, not economic power.

That's biased. If someone get economic power, you say it's because of his work and he deserve it. If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite. What I see is that both had to provide the same amount of work and needed the same amount of skills. According to the "you can enjoy what you get with your skills and works", there is no difference.

Your definitions of oppressive in regards to economics, btw, either do not square with mine or are referring to things I would place under protection of rights.

I suppose it's a little of both.

--"education is a RIGHT, not something that have to be BOUGHT or something you have to beg others for"

See, this is where the language problem comes in. Education can never be a right. It requires the active participation from someone else. It requires someone to labor to produce it for you. Rights can only demand that others do not do things to you, they can not demand that others do things for you.

Right to live require other to not infringe your rights. It requires a police force to protect you, a government to set laws and enforce them, and it require that anyone finding you in a potentially lethal situation helps you if it does not put him at risks. So this natural right require others to labor for you.

And yes, government can defend rights -- actual rights -- without interferring in the economy.

Here we have completely opposed ideas.

--"I can safely tell that there is much less inequalities and difference between the richest and the poorest in our European countries than in US."

This entire topic is irrelevant in any case. Economic inequality is not oppression, just reality. Just like strength inequality is not oppression, just reality. Other actions have to happen before oppression can be involved, and that is where government can step in.

Political oppression is just reality too. I don't make the difference you do between politics and economics. It's two parallel (parallelic ? Spelling ?) forces that can have harmful or benefic effect depending on the way they are used by people or against people. Hence the need to regulate them properly.

[Wraith]

--" You do not own absolute economical knowledge,"

Nor do I claim to, but I have yet to see an significant amount of economic theory supporting anything other than capitalism stand up to scrutiny.

--"If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite."

Of course, because politics can be nothing but parasitic. This is in the nature of government; all government are parasitic. Period. They do not create. They can prevent, they can police, they can tax, they can spend, but they never have and never will create. That is not what the purpose of government is.

--"Right to live require other to not infringe your rights"

And that is all it requires. To have other people let you alone. It does not reqiure a police force, or a government. You can live without either of them. It most certainly does not require that anyone help you in any way, shape or form.
You have a right to self-defense, so if someone tries to deny you your right to life you can fight them for it. Doesn't mean you'll suceed, but by no means do you require a government to have a right to life. If you are alone on a desert island, you have just as much of a right to life as you do in the continental US.

You are still operating on an incorrect definition of rights. You seem to be having trouble with the fundamental concept as well. The right to life does not imply a guarantee to life, which is what you seem to be assuming.

--"Political oppression is just reality too."

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. No advantage is in and of itself opressive. If I am smarter than someone else, I am not automatically oppressing them. If I am taller than someone else, I am not automatically opressing them. By the same token, if I am richer, or better connected politically, I am still not automatically opressing anyone. I have to take action to be opressive. I have to lie, cheat, steal, bully, etc. Those are the actions government should curtail, and they have nothing at all to do with whatever strength is being used to do it.

Wraith
"It is not true that life is one damn thing after another - it is one damn thing over and over."
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay

[TCO]

blablabla

[Ecthy]

that's the most blatant, silliest and whatnot piece of yankspam I have ever seen

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--" You do not own absolute economical knowledge,"

Nor do I claim to, but I have yet to see an significant amount of economic theory supporting anything other than capitalism stand up to scrutiny.

Rectification : you have yet to understand the point of view about anything but capitalism. It's not that there is nothing about it, it's just that you disagree with the arguments.

--"If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite."

Of course, because politics can be nothing but parasitic. This is in the nature of government; all government are parasitic. Period. They do not create. They can prevent, they can police, they can tax, they can spend, but they never have and never will create. That is not what the purpose of government is.

Again, it's not because it's your opinion of government that it's a reality. I see the government as much more than parasits.

--"Right to live require other to not infringe your rights"

And that is all it requires. To have other people let you alone. It does not reqiure a police force, or a government. You can live without either of them. It most certainly does not require that anyone help you in any way, shape or form.
You have a right to self-defense, so if someone tries to deny you your right to life you can fight them for it. Doesn't mean you'll suceed, but by no means do you require a government to have a right to life. If you are alone on a desert island, you have just as much of a right to life as you do in the continental US.

That's a completely flawed argument. If nobody is ever able to infringe your rights, then you're living in a perfect world. If you're living in a perfect world, you don't need any governemnt, you don't need police, you don't need justice, as all will always work as it should.
As we don't live in such a world, you NEED police forces to protect the rights, hence you NEED people to work for the police, hence you NEED people to work for you, just as in education.

You are still operating on an incorrect definition of rights. You seem to be having trouble with the fundamental concept as well. The right to life does not imply a guarantee to life, which is what you seem to be assuming.

Again, I've not incorrect definition of rights. I've just a slightly different point of view about them than you have. It does not make me de facto wrong, as last time I checked you were not God himself, holding the Absolute Truth.
Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you. It also guarantee that if you're bleeding on the ground, dying, and someone pass by, he will HAVE to do something to save you.

--"Political oppression is just reality too."

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. No advantage is in and of itself opressive. If I am smarter than someone else, I am not automatically oppressing them. If I am taller than someone else, I am not automatically opressing them. By the same token, if I am richer, or better connected politically, I am still not automatically opressing anyone. I have to take action to be opressive. I have to lie, cheat, steal, bully, etc. Those are the actions government should curtail, and they have nothing at all to do with whatever strength is being used to do it.

Ok, I was misunderstanding your point.
To avoid further misunderstanding, I'll try to sum up this :
You agree on the fact that government should prevent oppression from any force whatever the source ; that if someone has an advantage over another one (which it be political advantage, or economical, or being physically stronger, or being smarter) and then take action to make this advantage oppressive, then the government has to prevent this action.
Is it your point ?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
that's the most blatant, silliest and whatnot piece of yankspam I have ever seen

you like it?

[David Floyd]

As we don't live in such a world, you NEED police forces to protect the rights, hence you NEED people to work for the police, hence you NEED people to work for you, just as in education.

Actually you're misunderstanding the role of government - I do not advocate a massive police force that will stop crimes before they happen. Rather, individuals are primarily responsible for initial protection through being armed in whatever manner they choose.
The role of government is to punish violations of individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force", not prevent violations from occurring through the "initiation of force".

Again, I've not incorrect definition of rights.

Yes you do. Get a dictionary and look up the difference between "rights" and "entitlements".

Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you.

Nor for me. Right to life simply guarantees that it is wrong for someone to kill me, not that it won't necessarily happen.

It also guarantee that if you're bleeding on the ground, dying, and someone pass by, he will HAVE to do something to save you.

OK, what if someone is being violently assaulted, and on the verge of being beaten or stabbed to death - does his right to life trump your right to life, by forcing you to place your life in danger?

Further, you're also missing the other two critical rights - liberty and property. The right to life is pretty meaningless if you don't have the right to act freely in your interest and own property. Forcing one to act in another's interest violates their right to liberty, and one natural right cannot be said to trump another natural right.

[OzzyKP]

I'm amazed at how many threads develop into libertarian vs. communist arguments. The two camps are everywhere. After many years of Marxist ideas existing in the world the Libertarians are starting to build and it seems there will be a major shift in political philosophy in the next century. The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

It is very interesting thinking of the future of history. I'm glad to know I'm on the right side though

Libertarian Hordes! Charge!

[David Floyd]

The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

Libertarianism would easily win in the US, no question - and I don't care about the rest of the world!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Libertarianism would easily win in the US, no question - and I don't care about the rest of the world!

Ah, see this is the problem I forsee. Lets say the world does indeed become communist and the US becomes Libertarian. First of all it would be very difficult for us to survive in this system because our ability to trade with foreign nations would be choked. And at the core of Marxist thought is a world revolution, so if the US is the sole resister one could imagine the world wanting to invade and stop our "immoral, corrupt capitolist oppression"

This is the situation that Reagan faced whether imaginary or real. Arguably if the entire world is our enemy even the powerful US military couldn't stand up to them. So someone like Reagan would argue that it would be in our future interest to try and stymy the spread of Communism around the world.

Obviously doing this is directly contrary to the peaceful, non-interventionist ideology of Libertarianism. So it is a troubling conundrum.

I think however the only solution is to truly give a damn about countries around the world, and encouraging Libertarian progress elsewhere. In truth, some places may have more success than we do, look at Costa Rica, their Movmiento Libertario is incredibly successful.

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually you're misunderstanding the role of government - I do not advocate a massive police force that will stop crimes before they happen. Rather, individuals are primarily responsible for initial protection through being armed in whatever manner they choose.
The role of government is to punish violations of individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force", not prevent violations from occurring through the "initiation of force".

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I'm just having a different opinion. Again, you free market-fanboys should learn that it's not because you advocate something that this thing is true.

Yes you do. Get a dictionary and look up the difference between "rights" and "entitlements".

Get a dictionnary and look up the word "open-minded". If you can understand the definition, that is.

Nor for me. Right to life simply guarantees that it is wrong for someone to kill me, not that it won't necessarily happen.

Good, it's wrong to kill you. I hope that it will be much of a comfort when you'll be killed. You'll know that your murderer was wrong.

OK, what if someone is being violently assaulted, and on the verge of being beaten or stabbed to death - does his right to life trump your right to life, by forcing you to place your life in danger?

Mine takes precedence. Still, I HAVE to do anything to help this guy without endangering my life - like calling the cops and the hospital.

Further, you're also missing the other two critical rights - liberty and property. The right to life is pretty meaningless if you don't have the right to act freely in your interest and own property. Forcing one to act in another's interest violates their right to liberty, and one natural right cannot be said to trump another natural right.

Doh, it's precisely because I advocate the right of free will that have my ideas. Regulations ensure that everyone can act without interfering too much with the rights of others. Absence of regulation lead to a situation where some got most of the power and can restrain the free will of others.
You disagree on this point. Well, fine, but it does not make me wrong.

[David Floyd]

Ozzy,

This is the situation that Reagan faced whether imaginary or real. Arguably if the entire world is our enemy even the powerful US military couldn't stand up to them.

3 words - Mutual Assured Destruction. Our nuclear shield, along with a possible ABM system, and the rest of the world couldn't do much.

[Akka]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'm amazed at how many threads develop into libertarian vs. communist arguments. The two camps are everywhere. After many years of Marxist ideas existing in the world the Libertarians are starting to build and it seems there will be a major shift in political philosophy in the next century. The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

It is very interesting thinking of the future of history. I'm glad to know I'm on the right side though

Libertarian Hordes! Charge!

Ozzy... You proved in another thread that you were a complete ignorant about things outside the US...
Still, you DO KNOW that there is something in-between communism and free capitalism ?
You know that world is not black and white and that there is some grey areas ?

Do you ?