In America Them that got gets, the rest pay taxes

[TheStinger]

DF where do you satnd on the public provison of firre and rescue services.

Also such things as public health organisations who identify outbreaks of contagius diseases.

Or the provison of burial/cremation services for the poor- would you allow the bodies to plie upin the street.

I presume you want a police force to enforce your property laws.

[Velociryx]

An excellent point, Stinger, and one of the main failings of the "charity & family solves everything" problem.

Is it DF's fault that there are infectuous diseases? Nope....but he sure as h*ll has a vested interest in seeing that none of them break out into epidemics where he lives.

Will he ever see a tangible benefit from funding (voluntarily or not) such research? Hard to say....the proof will be in a life lived without epidemics, but who's to say that wouldn't have happened anyway?

Does that mean there's no value to the service? Try to imagine what *might* occur if the CDC wasn't out there.....scary thought.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Our newly created, truly VAST society has spawned problems that our time-honored solutions are not equipped to deal with. Until we find our footing where that's concerned, we NEED government mandated fixes. They should be seen as stopgaps (tho it's clear that the folks who run various government agencies see their positions as permanant, but that's another problem,and their own short-sightedness at work).

Nonetheless, if the structure is to maintain its integrity, it cannot do it without help. Presently, the only organization qualified (even remotely qualified) to provide it, is the government, and our modern government runs off of taxes.

Not charitible donations.

-=Vel=-

[blackice]

can make as much or more money off of welfare programs.

This tells me clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I would suggest you do some research into what and how much these "lazy bums" your words and completely offensive to anyone with any decency make.

I would also ask you for a link to prove your diatribe but I will not waste your time you will find none.

BTW in Canada it is against the law to promote hate against a class of person this combined with your utter ignorance on the subject matter shows more public education is needed.

One sure way to fix the problem is education and treating people as an investment not a handout.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,

Of course not, you go to prison for life or get executed.

Suppose I get away with the murder. I'm not dumb enough to leave evidence pointing to me, and I'll never volunteer for a polygraph (since they can't be used in a court of law). A rather large percentage of murders go unsolved, you know.

So, according to you, if I get away with the murder any decendents or claims on your property may be ignored by me, since you are the person who was actually robbed. They have no rightful claim of inheritence because I was a successful murderer and theif.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Jeez, Chegitz, this can be said of any economic system. Kind of ironic that you mention it, since communist governments have made a living off of expropriating capital and then running it into the ground by not investing. No wonder their economies eventually tank. But then again, since communists don't believe in religion, they must have no concept of original sin.

You rather missed the point, my good fellow. Libertarianism contains a fatal flaw of assuming a tabla rossa on legitimate property rights. Since all hitherto existing property is based on theft, libertarians have no moral claim against being the targets of theft (taxes, expropriation, etc.) themselves.

Because libertarianism demands a strict moral code, undermining the legitimacy of all hitherto existing property rights undermines the possiblity of every successfully creating a libertarian society. Without restoring all of the stolen property to the legitimate decendents of the agreived, libertarian society cannot claim to be morally founded. Which knocks their moral argument against governments and socialism, etc. out of the water.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


Er, no.

Nice counterargument. How can a libertarian system survive once any individual starts to break the agreements? under sucha circumastnce, any group that pools its resources together for common support will overpower any individualists. In short, collectivism would win.

I haven't noticed this at all, rather it's opposite. Libertarian ideals flourish in fact in rural areas which are the poorest in general. You may be a bit misled in that you only run into the philosophical types who tend to be more highly educated / suburban / netizens, but I guarantee you that there are a lot of Libertarians in the rural south and especially the west. [/QUOTE]

As Krugman has said, it is the blue, democrat, liberal parts of the nation, the richest ones, that subsidize the conservative libertarians. many rural counties in this country could not survive without the liberal subsidies from the federal government- so its us rich liberal paying for the self- relience of those rugged libertarians out in the Midwest and west. How much i would love it if rich state like NY and California kept all their money and the libertarian conservatives were forced to pay their own upkeep of their vast, and very expensive to build and maintain infrastructure, both of roads and damns.

Only government can amass the huge resources needed to complete mass infrastcuture projects. The Feds built the west, libertarians just went there to mooch off the dole of us rich liberals.

[Wraith]

--"Is there a better alternative?"

I think my lump-sum tax payment plan is a step in the right direction.

I disagree with you about the main source of the problems, obviously.

I've also seen alternatives to the forced tax programs, like contract insurance. At present, of course, no government employee is about to even consider such a thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives, just that there are a large number of people who have a vested interest in those alternatives not being considered.

--"I would suggest you do some research into what and how much these "lazy bums""

Well, just so you know, you can make the equivalent of about $15 an hour off welfare in Hawaii. The number differs from state to state, obviously, but on the whole you can make quite a decent living without actually working.
Welfare reform calls were made for a reason.

--" Libertarianism contains a fatal flaw of assuming a tabla rossa on legitimate property rights."

It's not a fatal flaw, it's a dose of pragmatism. It is quite simply impossible to trace back every property right to the dawn of time. We can't guarantee perfection. Oh well, nothing can. What we can do is make a best-effort to get things right, and then keep them right. As soon as you invent that time machine, though, we can get things all sorted out properly.

--" How can a libertarian system survive once any individual starts to break the agreements?"

What kind of libertarian system are we arguing about here, exactly? It sounds like you're talking about a pure anarcho-capitalist system. Not sure about David, but I usually advocate a minarcho-capitalist system.

--" that subsidize the conservative libertarians."

Don't you just love consistency in arguments? It's kind of hard to have it both ways. Are the Libertarians the already-rich-fat-cat-pig-dogs-trying-to-keep-the-poor-folk-down or are they the poor-as-dirt-wouldn't-be-nothing-without-the-kindly-liberals?

--"Only government can amass the huge resources needed to complete mass infrastcuture projects"

I'm sure companies like Boeing and Sony will be distressed to learn they are incapable of undertaking large projects.

Wraith
"The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients."
-– Edmund Burke