4 ms·

Hopefully in the future, people will be more free. They will look back and wonder why it was once acceptable for governments to: * confiscate huge percentages

by dpatru 16y ago

Hopefully in the future, people will be more free. They will look back and wonder why it was once acceptable for governments to: * confiscate huge percentages of a person's work, thus effectively making working people serfs of the government * conscript people for war * conduct wars * require licensing to practice certain occupations * restrict freedom to trade and tax commerce * tolerate public unions * monopolize the education of children * force working people to provide pensions and healthcare for non-working people * imprison people for using drugs in their homes

Retric 16y ago
Much of that could apply just as easily to Rome circua 750 BC as it does to the USA.
- rubinelli 16y ago
  I wonder if bread and circus won't come back in vogue. As long as consumer goods keep getting cheaper, and the unemployed are content with a standard of living that doesn't put too much of a strain on us, why should we care? Is it really worse to let them watch Two and a Half Men reruns than send them to some "dig a hole then fill it with dirt again" Keynesian job? Or worse, wait for them to commit a crime and then pay to keep them jailed?
pessimizer 16y ago
I hope that I'm long dead before the time comes when society is wondering why it was once acceptable to tolerate free association between employees and to not let people starve who aren't working. I at least hope I have enough kids to support me once society has horribly failed in that way.
- zargon 16y ago
  Violence does not solve social problems. Forcing people to feed unemployed people is violent. A future without forced "charity" does not mean people are left to starve.
  - pessimizer 16y ago
    >Violence does not solve social problems. This is a straw man. Violence can help with social problems sometimes, which is why we have policemen. >Forcing people to feed unemployed people is violent. Agreed. >A future without forced "charity" does not mean people are left to starve. Completely false. In a future _with_ forced charity, there will exist people left to starve because of difficulties in execution, distribution, public will, or a general lack of resources. Leaving this entirely to the discretion of individuals will destroy equality of protection, creating a patchwork (which will likely largely exclude historically discriminated against groups), and will tend to work against economies of scale.
lukifer 16y ago
All of these things are evidence that democracy is not inherently adequate to create a free, just, and sane society. These systemic flaws are within our power to change, and yet we do not; many are in fact fought for tooth and nail by the populace. Ultimately, cultural values are the root of any particular society, and the institutions of that society will grow to reflect those values. Hence: "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Waywocket 16y ago
It seems rather more likely that in many of those cases, they will wonder why it was ever acceptable for governments not to do those things. For millenia, human societies have drifted slowly but surely towards the left, with a constant increase in the quality of life for the entire population. Your personal brand of Libertarianism - which advocates, at its heart, a return to feudalism - is uniquely peculiar to a current aspect of the US social situation. It has relatively little traction elsewhere, despite the relentless spread of corporatism in the last few decades, and will be seen as incomprehensibly barbaric within probably as few as 100 years.
- dpatru 16y ago
  > human societies have drifted slowly but surely towards the left, with a constant increase in the quality of life for the entire population. This is like saying that caged mice have a better quality of life than wild mice because they have more free time, a reliable source of food, and no predators: it completely discounts the value of freedom.
  - Waywocket 16y ago
    >This is like saying that caged mice have a better quality of life than wild mice because they have more free time, a reliable source of food, and no predators: it completely discounts the value of freedom. You have that backwards. It's the only way to get anything resembling freedom for more than the top 20% of the population.
loewenskind 16y ago
Personally, I think the future will be shocked to see that the American Libertarian was every considered a legitimate political stance. I do wish we could create some kind of virtual sand-box where Libertarians could go try out their ideas and see exactly why they wont work.

by dpatru 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

Much of that could apply just as easily to Rome circua 750 BC as it does to the USA.

rubinelli 16y ago
I wonder if bread and circus won't come back in vogue. As long as consumer goods keep getting cheaper, and the unemployed are content with a standard of living that doesn't put too much of a strain on us, why should we care? Is it really worse to let them watch Two and a Half Men reruns than send them to some "dig a hole then fill it with dirt again" Keynesian job? Or worse, wait for them to commit a crime and then pay to keep them jailed?

pessimizer 16y ago

I hope that I'm long dead before the time comes when society is wondering why it was once acceptable to tolerate free association between employees and to not let people starve who aren't working. I at least hope I have enough kids to support me once society has horribly failed in that way.

zargon 16y ago
Violence does not solve social problems. Forcing people to feed unemployed people is violent. A future without forced "charity" does not mean people are left to starve.
- pessimizer 16y ago
  >Violence does not solve social problems. This is a straw man. Violence can help with social problems sometimes, which is why we have policemen. >Forcing people to feed unemployed people is violent. Agreed. >A future without forced "charity" does not mean people are left to starve. Completely false. In a future _with_ forced charity, there will exist people left to starve because of difficulties in execution, distribution, public will, or a general lack of resources. Leaving this entirely to the discretion of individuals will destroy equality of protection, creating a patchwork (which will likely largely exclude historically discriminated against groups), and will tend to work against economies of scale.

lukifer 16y ago

All of these things are evidence that democracy is not inherently adequate to create a free, just, and sane society. These systemic flaws are within our power to change, and yet we do not; many are in fact fought for tooth and nail by the populace. Ultimately, cultural values are the root of any particular society, and the institutions of that society will grow to reflect those values. Hence: "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Waywocket 16y ago

It seems rather more likely that in many of those cases, they will wonder why it was ever acceptable for governments not to do those things. For millenia, human societies have drifted slowly but surely towards the left, with a constant increase in the quality of life for the entire population. Your personal brand of Libertarianism - which advocates, at its heart, a return to feudalism - is uniquely peculiar to a current aspect of the US social situation. It has relatively little traction elsewhere, despite the relentless spread of corporatism in the last few decades, and will be seen as incomprehensibly barbaric within probably as few as 100 years.

dpatru 16y ago
> human societies have drifted slowly but surely towards the left, with a constant increase in the quality of life for the entire population. This is like saying that caged mice have a better quality of life than wild mice because they have more free time, a reliable source of food, and no predators: it completely discounts the value of freedom.
- Waywocket 16y ago
  >This is like saying that caged mice have a better quality of life than wild mice because they have more free time, a reliable source of food, and no predators: it completely discounts the value of freedom. You have that backwards. It's the only way to get anything resembling freedom for more than the top 20% of the population.

loewenskind 16y ago

Personally, I think the future will be shocked to see that the American Libertarian was every considered a legitimate political stance. I do wish we could create some kind of virtual sand-box where Libertarians could go try out their ideas and see exactly why they wont work.