6 ms·

Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob

by sdurkin 18y ago

Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority." The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes. "The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider." Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified? "They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage." This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system. You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year. Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.

xlnt 18y ago
fuck man, you advocate violence, then tell the victims they consented and should thank the government for its constitutional protections that prevent anyone from being a victim.
- sdurkin 18y ago
  First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped. > Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal. > Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft. Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work. SDurkin suggests a social contract. In every other contract, you can refuse the deal. You can also get out of the contract if the other side doesn't live up to its obligations. The "social contract" in reality is neither social nor a contract.
    - sdurkin 18y ago
      "Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped." Yes, really. Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action. Its an unfortunate consequence of a poorly managed correctional system. One that would see far fewer prisoners if there were more poverty assistance programs. "If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal." See above for a full explanation of how constitutional democracies prevent tyranny of the majority. "Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work." This is a problem with certain specific programs, not with taxes in general. "SDurkin suggests a social contract." Yes, I do suggest a social contract, because social contract theory is part of the foundation of our and every other modern democracy. Sure, it isn't perfect, but its certainly better than the alternatives.
ivankirigin 18y ago
"The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes." You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction. What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? Why doesn't the government start controlling or "guaranteeing" super markets, car dealerships, or house construction? You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny. "For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses" That is complete unvalidated. Where is the evidence? Keep in mind, the comparison is to health with government management and with individual decision making (and not government coverage vs. none). One huge fallacy specific to health care is that health does not equal medical treatment. So you can't equate a dollar paid for medical treatment and a dollar improved in value of health. "Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity. Corporations that accumulate government power usually do so because of unprincipled approaches to what the government should and shouldn't be doing. Look up the history of railroads in the US, and specifically the rise of the Interstate Commerce Commission. A government entity went out of it's bounds to "protect" the people, and the new power was taken over by the rail companies. It's exactly what I mentioned before: What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? And then who do you think is going to control it? Our benevolent senators? Or the people with a $$$ interest? For health coverage, lots of policy decisions make much more sense if you just consider the AMA the largest and most powerful union in the US. They act for the benefit of themselves, and not their patients, often doing so with government force. One example, two words: drug war.
- sdurkin 18y ago
  "You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction." This is the basis of constitutional government. Just holding a minority opinion doesn't necessarily mean the majority can't constrain your behavior with force. For example, if I hold the minority opinion that "killing people for no reason is fine," then it isn't a violation of my freedom for the non-homicidal majority to arrest me. Constitutional government includes a series of guarantees about what can't be done to minorities, and also usually includes checks and balances on the majority's power to prevent rash action. "What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning?" The answer is that all governmental programs are justified as long as they improve the public welfare. Those you have listed would not. The fundamental difference is that in the progressive model the market is not the be-all-end-all of politics, it is just a means used to accomplish an end. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around. ""Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity." Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent. Communist orators used to draw crowds of tens of thousands before the New Deal. "You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny." Your pure libertarianism scales to a far more direct form of tyranny, and doesn't come with the niceties of constitutional protections. What's the market rate on a police force? An army? A life?

by sdurkin 18y ago

xlnt 18y ago

fuck man, you advocate violence, then tell the victims they consented and should thank the government for its constitutional protections that prevent anyone from being a victim.

sdurkin 18y ago
First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.
- anamax 18y ago
  > First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped. > Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal. > Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft. Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work. SDurkin suggests a social contract. In every other contract, you can refuse the deal. You can also get out of the contract if the other side doesn't live up to its obligations. The "social contract" in reality is neither social nor a contract.
  - sdurkin 18y ago
    "Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped." Yes, really. Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action. Its an unfortunate consequence of a poorly managed correctional system. One that would see far fewer prisoners if there were more poverty assistance programs. "If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal." See above for a full explanation of how constitutional democracies prevent tyranny of the majority. "Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work." This is a problem with certain specific programs, not with taxes in general. "SDurkin suggests a social contract." Yes, I do suggest a social contract, because social contract theory is part of the foundation of our and every other modern democracy. Sure, it isn't perfect, but its certainly better than the alternatives.

ivankirigin 18y ago

"The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes." You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction. What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? Why doesn't the government start controlling or "guaranteeing" super markets, car dealerships, or house construction? You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny. "For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses" That is complete unvalidated. Where is the evidence? Keep in mind, the comparison is to health with government management and with individual decision making (and not government coverage vs. none). One huge fallacy specific to health care is that health does not equal medical treatment. So you can't equate a dollar paid for medical treatment and a dollar improved in value of health. "Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity. Corporations that accumulate government power usually do so because of unprincipled approaches to what the government should and shouldn't be doing. Look up the history of railroads in the US, and specifically the rise of the Interstate Commerce Commission. A government entity went out of it's bounds to "protect" the people, and the new power was taken over by the rail companies. It's exactly what I mentioned before: What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning? And then who do you think is going to control it? Our benevolent senators? Or the people with a $$$ interest? For health coverage, lots of policy decisions make much more sense if you just consider the AMA the largest and most powerful union in the US. They act for the benefit of themselves, and not their patients, often doing so with government force. One example, two words: drug war.

sdurkin 18y ago
"You just said: 'the minorities are protected, and that means force can be used on them.' It's a clear contradiction." This is the basis of constitutional government. Just holding a minority opinion doesn't necessarily mean the majority can't constrain your behavior with force. For example, if I hold the minority opinion that "killing people for no reason is fine," then it isn't a violation of my freedom for the non-homicidal majority to arrest me. Constitutional government includes a series of guarantees about what can't be done to minorities, and also usually includes checks and balances on the majority's power to prevent rash action. "What kind of government program isn't justified by that reasoning?" The answer is that all governmental programs are justified as long as they improve the public welfare. Those you have listed would not. The fundamental difference is that in the progressive model the market is not the be-all-end-all of politics, it is just a means used to accomplish an end. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around. ""Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism." And some sex is necessary to keep your virginity." Pretty much everyone on either side of the left-ride divide agrees about the need for the modern welfare state, even if they disagree about the extent. Communist orators used to draw crowds of tens of thousands before the New Deal. "You take an unprincipled approach that scales to tyranny." Your pure libertarianism scales to a far more direct form of tyranny, and doesn't come with the niceties of constitutional protections. What's the market rate on a police force? An army? A life?