tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post5505509622351013994..comments2023-10-29T00:22:43.196-07:00Comments on Kinetic Reaction: Why Libertarianism is a Superior Political SystemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-73582164513990966122011-12-12T00:02:49.532-08:002011-12-12T00:02:49.532-08:00"For example: if you're over 60, regardle..."For example: if you're over 60, regardless of your health, no medical insurance provider will offer you a policy. Period. It's not profitable to provide a medical insurance policy to someone that age. So what's your answer?"<br /><br />There is no answer. There is such a thing as poverty in a free country, and plundering the well-off is neither a moral, or in the long run, effective way of dealing with it.<br /><br />Socialism does NOT work on the chalkboard. It's short-sighted, in that it only looks at the immediate case of someone in need, and not the long term consequences of forcing others to take care of them, and it ignored morality, by rationalizing the threat of violent force that must be used to force one party to pay for the needs of another.KineticReactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225737840018552204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-76882303788651938172011-11-16T14:10:58.488-08:002011-11-16T14:10:58.488-08:00Your argument only makes sense in a conceptual way...Your argument only makes sense in a conceptual way. Socialism actually makes sense on a chalkboard. But if you start talking about details your ideas fall apart. This is always the case with conservatives and libertarians alike. It's easy to say government has no place doing XYZ but you cannot come up with a better idea.<br />For example: if you're over 60, regardless of your health, no medical insurance provider will offer you a policy. Period. It's not profitable to provide a medical insurance policy to someone that age. So what's your answer? If you're over 60 and you're not rich and you get sick: die. This is why government came up with something called MediCare. The government does what private industry refuses to do. This of course becomes a target for politics. Rich people have to share a few pennies so the working poor can have medical care when they grow old. Socialism. <br />There are many things the free market has no place doing. These include the military, criminal justice system etc. I believe your model allows for these. There are things the free market cannot do and will not do such as the space program and most infrastructure. The big problem with your model is that it does not account for these nor does it account for the monopolization of resources and the means to create wealth - you know - the problem we have today. The truth is if we set your poetry aside, there are almost no things the government does today that it has no reason doing. I challenge you to list those things the government does today that we would be better off not having the government do. When I say "we" i'm not talking about "me and my rich rich buddies." I'm an ordinary person. I'm talking about real people who work for a living and have families and dreams. I think it's a great idea that government focuses on keeping the world we live in functioning so we don't have to. We can enjoy our families and friends and our lives. In your model I fear we would all have to focus on raising armies to fight for our rights. <br />I love capitalism. The only problems it has is that "it takes money to make money" and "money is power." The result of this is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Opportunity favors the wealthy. I do not see how making the ultra-wealthy pay a higher tax rate equates to wealth redistribution or how taking that away makes a society more productive. Taking away the working poor's access to education and health care makes a society more productive? Sorry. It's total nonsense. Libertarianism is narrow-minded and doomed to fail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-39053447685740883452010-12-05T01:40:13.141-08:002010-12-05T01:40:13.141-08:00The government needs to prevent pollution, but thr...The government needs to prevent pollution, but through deterrence, the way it prevents crimes in general, not through requiring all businesses to license their operations which requires massive regulatory compliance work for any one who wants to engage in economic activity.KineticReactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225737840018552204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-85735466730173020872010-12-04T18:34:12.179-08:002010-12-04T18:34:12.179-08:00What about the environment?
Do you remember the U...What about the environment?<br /><br />Do you remember the Union Cardibe disaster? How could more events like this be prevented in a Libertarian society?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-23601417895156762902007-12-02T21:27:00.000-08:002007-12-02T21:27:00.000-08:00anonymous, you're absolutely wrong.---------Libert...anonymous, you're absolutely wrong.<BR/><BR/>---------<BR/>Libertarianism (laissez faire) governance = no regulations against exploitation of workers, or pollution, or monopolies, or special interest money in politics, or consumer rights.<BR/>----------<BR/><BR/>Libertarianism protects workers from exploitation and citizens from pollution by protecting individual liberty, which includes property rights.<BR/><BR/>There is no special interest money in libertarian politics since there is a very small public treasury. Socialist states meanwhile collect a large amount of money and put it in the public treasury which can then be exploited by those who are politically connected.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>It = no universal health care, no funding of important scientific research or education.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A libertarian society could very well have things like universal health care, but it simply would not be provided through coercion = the government would not provide it. It would have to be provided by a charity.<BR/><BR/>---But it is really great for corporate profit.---<BR/><BR/>And corporate profits allow for companies like Google and all the great technologies it creates.KineticReactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225737840018552204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-24171882731947638192007-12-02T20:23:00.000-08:002007-12-02T20:23:00.000-08:00Libertarianism (laissez faire) governance = no reg...Libertarianism (laissez faire) governance = no regulations against exploitation of workers, or pollution, or monopolies, or special interest money in politics, or consumer rights. It = no universal health care, no funding of important scientific research or education. <BR/><BR/>But it is really great for corporate profit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-38540458052371733882007-10-27T22:28:00.000-07:002007-10-27T22:28:00.000-07:00I define efficiency as the productivity of society...I define efficiency as the productivity of society.<BR/><BR/>With regards to "fairness, equality", I don't think force (government) should be used to create equality.<BR/><BR/>There are a couple fundamental problems with forced wealth distribution to create financial equality:<BR/><BR/>* It is extremely unfair to those who create more wealth than others. People should have equal rights under the law, and the government can provide that, but how much property (wealth) they acquire should be determined by their own individual luck and hardwork.<BR/><BR/>* The mechanism used to redistribute wealth by force (taxation) can be easily misused by those in power to take the population's wealth for themselves. Once wealth is collected by government agents and put into the public treasury, the powerful raid the public treasury and in this way exploit those with less political power/connections. Indeed that is what you see in nearly all nations with a lot of socialist policies, like the US.KineticReactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225737840018552204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-2379653896857224372007-10-27T15:25:00.000-07:002007-10-27T15:25:00.000-07:00Troublesome argument. Depends on your definition o...Troublesome argument. Depends on your definition of efficiency. Other things could also be more important than efficiency thus making it inferior. Like fairness, equality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com