Which way do you swing... Poltically

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by ShamesFan+Aug 22 2004, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ShamesFan @ Aug 22 2004, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Aug 22 2004, 06:05 PM

This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts.

Just a friendly piece of advice:

You'll get a lot further with your arguments if you accept that everyone's opinions are based on how our gut interprets facts, not the facts themselves. It doesn't matter whether the opinions are that of Murray N. Rothbard or Martitime Q. Scout. [/b][/quote]
good point, I'm not saying that I'm 100% always right, as I have admited and changed my viewpoint on one topic in this thread already. I try and keep an open mind, and if you raise a valid point then I'll accept it, but realize that I will question it as well.

I said I like being associated with FDR (by a generic survey of 10 questions I think it was). Did I say that FDR was perfect? No, but I did say I agreed with the ideas of the "new deal" and building an interstate highway infrastructure, libraries in the cities, and a power grid, etc.

FDR is considered the best president the US ever had, will everyone agree? Nope, but does a book make the viewpoint wrong? No. On the other hand a book doesn't make it right. If you're basing your opinion on one book alone then that's scary and you really aren't thinking for yourself (not saying that anyone's doing this just in general).

Now... off to read the sections outlined.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Jaybo+Aug 22 2004, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jaybo @ Aug 22 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-flame of liberty
This thread is pointless when people base their opinions on gut feelings and not facts.

This from the guy who stated the "fact" that: "Libertarian = someone who does not believe in state/government. Period. Neither in small government, nor in big government. None."

When in actuality...

Libertarian =
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Key word is "minimizing", not eliminating.

I believe the ideology you are defining is...

Anarchy =
1. Absence of any form of political authority.

Of course, based on your answers of "none", "nope" and "never" to the role of government in various areas earlier in this thread, I just assumed you live in a country with no Internet since you don't believe in government-funded science and therefore had no way to look up these definitions! [/b][/quote]
Libertarianism is anarcho capitalism, ie no state whatsoever because libertarians believe any form of state is illegitimate. You tell me why would they accept something they think is illegitimate?

Your dictionary definition against the definition that people who say state agression is illegitimate use to call themselves. It`s your call.

And one more thing, Ancap and anarchy are two different things - anarcho capitalism does not advocate lawless society (as anarchy does), but says that law (as everything esle) should be produced by the market - not state power.

PS That there wouldn`t be no internet without gov funding is a joke, right? It`s too early for me to detect sarcasm

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 22 2004, 10:34 PM
Or, are you are proposing a system in which there are only private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware?

Yes.

But of course under this `system` you, as a free individual, can write cheques to a defense agency (ie military) that will protect everyone, not just those directly funding it (kind of like military charity). The key thought is - its up to you, if you are a pacifist, no one forces you to support things you are against.


More info:

Hoppe - Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf


Hoppe - Myth of National Defense Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production

http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 22 2004, 11:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 22 2004, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Aug 22 2004, 10:34 PM
Or, are you are proposing a system in which there are only private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware?

Yes.

But of course under this `system` you, as a free individual, can write cheques to a defense agency (ie military) that will protect everyone, not just those directly funding it (kind of like military charity). The key thought is - its up to you, if you are a pacifist, no one forces you to support things you are against.


More info:

Hoppe - Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf


Hoppe - Myth of National Defense Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production

http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf [/b][/quote]
Alright now I'm a little confused.

You gave an emphatic yes to the concept of "private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware" but when you agree you say "under this `system` you, as a free individual, can write cheques to a defense agency (ie military) that will protect everyone, not just those directly funding it (kind of like military charity).

So the private armies should serve only those that pay the bills but also protect everyone? I don't get it.

I'd love to elaborate but I'm baking a cake, and I'd like to eat it too.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 23 2004, 07:41 AM
Alright now I'm a little confused.

You gave an emphatic yes to the concept of "private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware" but when you agree you say "under this `system` you, as a free individual, can write cheques to a defense agency (ie military) that will protect everyone, not just those directly funding it (kind of like military charity).

So the private armies should serve only those that pay the bills but also protect everyone? I don't get it.

I'd love to elaborate but I'm baking a cake, and I'd like to eat it too.

I said `Perfect military is military that protects people who are directly financing it, while honoring the principle of nonagression, ie acting only under attack or a threat of an attack.`

I didn`t say `only.`

You can pay a private defense that agrees to protect people who for example cannot affort to contribute financially themselves. Such `extra service for poor` may be a point of differentiaton between various defense agencies offering service that can appeal to socially conscious people.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by ShamesFan@Aug 23 2004, 01:12 AM
Just a friendly piece of advice:

You'll get a lot further with your arguments if you accept that everyone's opinions are based on how our gut interprets facts, not the facts themselves. It doesn't matter whether the opinions are that of Murray N. Rothbard or Martitime Q. Scout.

It`s not whether I accept it or not, all I am doing is offering a point of view from the other side of the fence. Argue logically that this point of view is mistaken, inconsistent, incoherent, illogical and I will gladly accept it.

Trust me, I`ve read about arguments from the left a lot. But IMO the debate cannot progress if debaters aren`t even willing to get info about arguments other side has to offer.

As for gut feelings...if I told you I have a gut feeling the Earth is flat, what would you think?

Having an opionion is a great thing. But don`t you agree that sticking with an opinion that was proved (a priori, logically, argumentatively, empirically, anyway you like) wrong makes discussion impossible?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 22 2004, 07:02 PM
granted I didn't read the .pdf (yet) I do have other things on the go (I'm killing time right now but won't have time to finish reading the section)

but what I'm saying is, I like being associated with the new deal, thinking outside the box, and putting mroe people to work, building towards the future when the economy is in a downturn to level out the business cycle. I think gov't interferance is a good thing.

Mind you, it was different back then (I've always said that) and they didn't understand macro-economics (as no one discovered it as of yet, or Keynes was just coming onto the scene I forget the exact years he came onto the scene).

So if you think I want to be like a very popular president who didn't understand how current economics works, then no. If you think I want to be like a popular president who believes in trying to turn around and level out the business cycle then yes.

I don't think those few pages will make me beileve that the building of the interstate highway systems, and public libraries, etc was a bad thing, but then again I keep an open mind when reading so you never know. I'll let you know what I think when I get the chance. It shall be bookmarked so I don't forget (if I do forget remind me every so often either here or in a PM as I DO want to read it)

Here`s a short article (for those who can`t be bothered to read a book):

Robert Higgs - How FDR Made the Depression Worse

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...rder=authorlast


`In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it's hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work.

Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Like most New Deal legislation, this resulted from a compromise of special interests: businessmen seeking higher prices and barriers to competition, labor unionists seeking governmental sponsorship and protection, social workers wanting to control working conditions and forbid child labor, and the proponents of massive spending on public works.`

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I started the long reading last night, then my cousin came over so I didn't get to finish it. I read the short one just now as I have to head out to work in 15.

My comments on the short artice:

doesn't mention the interstate highway system, which I think the US is benifiting from slightly right now .

There's no doubt that Roosevelt changed the character of the American government--for the worse. Many of the reforms of the 1930s remain embedded in policy today: acreage allotments, price supports and marketing controls in agriculture, extensive regulation of private securities, federal intrusion into union-management relations, government lending and insurance activities, the minimum wage, national unemployment insurance, Social Security and welfare payments, production and sale of electrical power by the federal government, fiat money--the list goes on.

I'd just like to make an apology and admit a flaw in my own logic. Flame of Liberty, you're arguing father right than I thought.

against things such as social security, minimum wage, abritration in union standstills, and providing electric power?

Yep, you're right, if you want a 100% pure laissez-faire economy then the depression would have been over sooner (in theory, as again they didn't know then what we know now, the short article implies they did).

But some of those things listed are very good things, things I would say every government needs: minimum wages for it's citizens, social security to help ensure people aren't living and dying on the streets, in Canada a healthcare system that doesn't look at money first - problem second.

In theory you are right, government intervention isn't a good thing, but in reality is provides alot of good, and good I'd say we need. Government does ALOT of good in the economy, and it does balance out the business cycle, helping to prevent high-highs, and low-lows.

Did I say everything FDR did was right? Nope, they were in a depression for HOW long? But I did like the make work projects, which is what I was basically referring to in the "new deal" as well I kept citing the make work projects, again I wasn't 100% clear on that, and I do apologize.

In theory, Flame of Liberty is right, but in reality a 100% lassiez-faire economy is a scary thing, IMO.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Issues

Employment: Minor. I think this should go under social assistance, but government job training to help the less fortunate people out seems like a good idea to me (Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish...). Other than that, let the market sort itself out.

Education: Standardized curriculum with emphasis on diversities that come with each province. However, I do like the idea of a private system as well.

Drugs: Decriminalize or legalize small amounts of marijuanna. Then you can focus more on the important stuff instead of wasting time and resources fighting pot.

Health Care: Public and private healthcare. People should have the option to fork over more dough to get better service of they so choose. It'd free up lines in the public system as well. However, what to do about the many people that head to the doctor's office with a hangnail? Waste of resources and time and a big turnoff for me for the public system as it is an abuse of the system...

Lifestyle Choices: None.

Social Assistance: Those that can work and choose not to get nothing. Other people, such as those that are disabled or with families and having to work to jobs, etc, should recieve some assistance. Some people have no control under the conditions in which they find themselves. I don't know how many people would actually donate money to charities if Social Assistance were removed, or else i'd probably be in favour of that.

Support of Business: Close to none. Maybe a tax break for the first half year of the business opening, just to give it a chance to get off it's feet, but nothing after that. Minor taxes after that.

Freedom of Speech: Tough one as pretty much anything said will offend someone else. I'm in favour of freedom of speech, by all means, but not blatant attempts at spreading hate and propoganda towards another group of people based on race, religion, etc.

Taxation: Less taxes! Let people spend their money the way they want too. First $40 000 - $50 000 should be pretty much tax free. A little more for those making more than that, and even a little more for those making upwards near $500 000/yr. +. But most of the wealthy people work hard to earn their money and their reward for their hard work is more taxes. But I also believe in helping the less fortunate as well, so long as they aren't sitting on their asses waiting for their welfare cheque. As I said above, some people have no control over the conditions they find themselves in...

Foreign Policy: Forgive all debts. However, simply giving money to the governments of these poor countries does not work either. Any aid money should be sent directly to programs and charities that we know for sure will reach those in need.

Military: Where to start. Up to date equipment, for one? Larger fighting force? Basically, I want Canada's military to be able to respond to pretty much anything without the help of the USA, or any other country. This means having our own methods of deployment, vehicles for urban warfare, etc. No one's going to invade us, but it's time we started pulling a bit more of our own weight when it comes to conflicts overseas.

[Bingo]

This has likely been said already (don't have time to read the whole string) but ... I just took that first poll (Polotopia).

- stupid questions ... it doesn't have an answer that fits in many cases. I'd like to see lower taxes but I don't think a flat tax rate makes sense. It basically forced me to answer status quo.

- I always get a kick out of how close say Bush and Kerry are on the answer map yet the debate in the US would suggest it's Hitler versus Marx.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 23 2004, 01:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 23 2004, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Aug 23 2004, 07:41 AM
Alright now I'm a little confused.

You gave an emphatic yes to the concept of "private armies that protect only the guys who write the paycheques and buy the hardware" but when you agree you say "under this `system` you, as a free individual, can write cheques to a defense agency (ie military) that will protect everyone, not just those directly funding it (kind of like military charity).

So the private armies should serve only those that pay the bills but also protect everyone? I don't get it.

I'd love to elaborate but I'm baking a cake, and I'd like to eat it too.

I said `Perfect military is military that protects people who are directly financing it, while honoring the principle of nonagression, ie acting only under attack or a threat of an attack.`

I didn`t say `only.`

You can pay a private defense that agrees to protect people who for example cannot affort to contribute financially themselves. Such `extra service for poor` may be a point of differentiaton between various defense agencies offering service that can appeal to socially conscious people. [/b][/quote]
Who is going to pay for this extra service for the poor? You?

I suppose someone could come up with an organization that represents the rich and the poor alike, and then they could charge everyone a fee (perhaps based on income) and then that money could be used to pay for the military.

The whole argument "it's against human nature" when discussing communism is one that I agree with. I think it could also be applied to your "private armies" solution.

[Hockey_Rules_22]

I'm not going to answer all, but I do wanted to say that we get enough taxes taken out in the US. Where I am, it's around 22 % of our salary. I don't know how much taxes you guys in Canada pay out of your salary, but we pay that much or at lease I do where I am.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 23 2004, 04:40 PM
I'd just like to make an apology and admit a flaw in my own logic. Flame of Liberty, you're arguing father right than I thought.

against things such as social security, minimum wage, abritration in union standstills, and providing electric power?

Yep, you're right, if you want a 100% pure laissez-faire economy then the depression would have been over sooner (in theory, as again they didn't know then what we know now, the short article implies they did).

But some of those things listed are very good things, things I would say every government needs: minimum wages for it's citizens, social security to help ensure people aren't living and dying on the streets, in Canada a healthcare system that doesn't look at money first - problem second.

In theory you are right, government intervention isn't a good thing, but in reality is provides alot of good, and good I'd say we need. Government does ALOT of good in the economy, and it does balance out the business cycle, helping to prevent high-highs, and low-lows.

Did I say everything FDR did was right? Nope, they were in a depression for HOW long? But I did like the make work projects, which is what I was basically referring to in the "new deal" as well I kept citing the make work projects, again I wasn't 100% clear on that, and I do apologize.

In theory, Flame of Liberty is right, but in reality a 100% lassiez-faire economy is a scary thing, IMO.

Yes I am against welfare state, yes I am against minimum wage (which causes unemployment by the way, one thing left is very worried about I wonder why do you think minimum wage is a good idea? Who`s gonna employ people whose productivity is below minimum wage?)

But come on where did I say I`m against providing electric power? I am against state owned electrical (or any other) companies. I`ve argued zillion times on this board why. You tell me why should gov own electric plants? And why not bakeries, newstands, factories too? Why not everything else?

You tell me why do you think any goods and services should be provided by the government?

And as for the business cycle and the gov balancing it - I really suggest reading the book, it is explained in depth that government (or central banking) cannot do and does not do no such thing, in fact government and central banks are responsible for creating business cycle (by issuing fiat money thus causing inflation, balooning depth, messing with interest rates and otherwise interfering with the market).

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 23 2004, 05:24 PM
Who is going to pay for this extra service for the poor? You?

I suppose someone could come up with an organization that represents the rich and the poor alike, and then they could charge everyone a fee (perhaps based on income) and then that money could be used to pay for the military.

The whole argument "it's against human nature" when discussing communism is one that I agree with. I think it could also be applied to your "private armies" solution.

People who today declare they have social feelings. And god knows there are plenty of people who beat their chest how they care about the poor and needy. They can put their money where their mouth is so to speak. You know, thats real social consciousness, helping people with your own money/time and not hide behind the government and `help` using other people`s money (taxes).

Private `armies` are based on a voluntary, free agreement between two parties - ie. a trade, a deal between two parties that willingly cooperate. How is that against human nature? I`m not sure I follow. Or do you suggest no one would pay this extra service when it won`t be compulsory? So now not helping your fellow man is against human nature?

[Thunderball]

Issues

Employment: A strong economy creates jobs, so the government should do everything it can to maintain a strong economy by keeping taxes competitive, proper incentives for employment and keeping inflation and the dollar at an acceptable rate.

Education: Is mandatory for all people K-12 at least, and the government needs to ensure that this is available for everyone. That being said, private schools should be allowed, as they provide more space in the public system.

Drugs: Are a very regrettable part of our society. Legalizing and government sale and taxation of marijuana is something that should be closely examined. All other drugs should remain illegal and stiff penalties and detoxification should be mandatory. Said detoxification should come at the persons's expense after they have been cleaned up.

Health and Public Safety: Taxation should look at a person's health status, a non-smoker who has a gym membership or is in a sports league should pay less taxes than a smoker who does nothing because of their perceived health care costs. Police need to be reigned in... catching people speeding 10 over the limit and sending police helicopters after teen drinkers is NOT effective use of resources. Taxes on alcohol should decrease. Beer and wine are not staples of alcoholism like hard liquor is, and in many cases have cultural value and average people should not have to pay through the nose for them. Taxes of cigarettes should also go up.

Health Care: P3 Partnership is something to look at for non-essential services. Small user fees (say $2) should be in place for doctor's visits to ensure only people who need to see the doctor see them. Hospitals need to be built and properly funded. Unions and Administration need to be addressed as those costs are too high at this time.

Lifestyle Choices: Tolerated, but a government should not bend over backwards to accomodate them. People are free to live, but not free to impose their beliefs on society.

Social Assistance: Welfare should be temporary and subsistence level only, except for those like single mothers.

Support of Business: Business environment must be strong and vibrant at all times. Tax breaks for businesses should be based on job creation and prospect of success.

Freedom of Speech: I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Taxation: Flat tax rate at a fair amount. Tax breaks granted for working poor and elderly.

Immigration: Legal immigration only under a strict guideline to ensure the best and brightest get in, and the criminals and outcasts do not. Revamp refugee program to ensure less abuse of the system.

Foreign Policy: Strong free trade attitude and friendly relations with all countries that accept us. However, we should not be afraid of anyone. If a country acts in provocative and belligerent manner, we should not be afraid to defend our interests, politically, economically or militarily if needed.

Military: Voluntary, well-paid and well-armed. Military provides jobs for many sectors and a strong, well equipped military with strong defense industry based in country that builds military equipment for other countries is a must.

Scientific Research: Scientific research should be encouraged by the government and focused on key areas.

This should put me around the center-right of Canadian politics, and right in between Democrats and Republicans in the US.

[CaptainCrunch]

Shockingly I came out at right of center right by GWB. My throughts on the specific issue

Issues

Employment: What role the government should have in job creation.

The government shouldn't have any role in job creation outside of creating a succesful business environment. Tax breaks for corporate expansion, or job subsidies paid directly to the companies whould be helpful. Encouraging economic growth in areas outside of our main strengths would be a smart thing to do.

Education: What role government should take in educating the population.

Subsidize it and regulate the snot out of it. Generalized exams, and making teachers accountable for the failings of thier students would be smart. Also angle education towards career choices would be a good thing. On University level education, I'm of the firm belief that not everybody is suitable for university, higher education should be something earned and not given. Also we can't keep throwing money into tuition and book handouts if we can't afford it as a country. Moving colleges towards self reliance would be a start.

Drugs: What policy the government shoulod have on drug use and the war on drugs.

Here's where I go weird. On soft Dugs like weed, package it, market it, and tax it, ensure quality control and put dealers and growers out of work. for the harder stuff, just shoot the bas**rds.

Health and Public Safety: What the government should be doing in regards to social risks and encouraging a lifestyle.

I think that should be a provincial juristiction (sp?). The government shouldn't have to be involved in teaching us about healthy eating and exercise, that should be up to the parents and to a lesser extent the schools. A big waste of money here.

Health Care: What role should the government have in people's access to health care.

Go to a triage system where essential care is paid and taken care of and non essential or minor care is billable. We have a system here that just screams to be overhauled, its inefficient and wasteful.

Lifestyle Choices: What role should the government have in people's lives in regards to what is done in their home or behind closed doors.

Nothing unless its a criminal activity (pedophilia, poligamy ect)

Social Assistance: What role the government should have in supporting those that cannopt support themselves.

Make it harder for people to stay on any social assistance package outside of disability for severe injuries. Welfare and EU should only be available for 6 months max, more money into job training

Support of Business: What role government should have in business.

Directly none, but they should create a environment that encourages businesses to grow and stay in Canada ie tax breaks

Freedom of Speech: What is the government's role in protecting freedom of speech.

As long as a speech dosen't include the term kill whitey or kill the jew its all fine with me, let people speak, if we don't like what they say we can simply ignore them. Shoot the guy who invented political correctness on PPV

Taxation: What is fair?

Flat Tax everyone pays the same, put more money into the peoples pockets, especially the people that are going to spend it.

Immigration: What the government standard should be.

I think we need to put the breaks on for now, take a serious look at what we're letting in. People with criminal convictions, or disease, or terrorist leanings are not welcome. People who want to get in and work hard and pay taxes are always welcome. Also all the bozo's who commit crimes in Canada should be on the first plane out no matter what thier status (ie refugee)

Foreign Policy: What the government should be doing in support of other nations.

No more cash handouts, send over advisors that can help these countries learn to stand on their two feet, give them loans with generous terms and make them pay it back. Countries that are shown to be wasteful with our aid become persona non grata, and we shut our doors to them. Governments led by brutal dictators should no longer receive funding from us.


Military: What is the perfect military?

I know that we can no longer have a large military, but we need a extremely modern military with a high force multiplier. We also need to have our own global transportation system. Increase the size (employment) and trim the officer corp. use the marine motto that everyone fights including the priests and the cooks.

Base the military around a combined arms approach combined with first rate reconnaisance and intelligence.

Rebuild our infrantry around the modern city battlefield, heavily armed transport and no wheeled tanks.

Our Airforce CF-18 are obsolete and need to be replaced as do our helicopters (check).

Provide nato with a navy well versed in anti-submarine, anti-air defenses.





Scientific Research: What is the government's role in Scientific Research or preventing Scientific Research.

Contract basis based on results. No more funding of research about air conditions in a grow factory.

Base everything on merit, funding comes in stages based on results.