10 ms·

There is nothing more intellectually childish than saying "x isn't working in this case, therefore x never works and should be totally abandoned." I agree 100%

by chez17 13y ago

There is nothing more intellectually childish than saying "x isn't working in this case, therefore x never works and should be totally abandoned." I agree 100% that 99% of people don't care about politics enough and vote blindly. Look at the turn out rate for primaries and years where people aren't voting for president. Libertarians like you are all talk. There plenty of places in this world with no government but you would never go there because they are 3rd world shit holes. Ask yourself, "why aren't there any first world countries that are prosperous that have libertarian governments?" You love government. You love roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, you take things like electricity, water, and internet for granted, you bathe in government funded projects that have made your life better in every way. The answer isn't no government, it's better government. In some areas that means drastically reducing it's power and I think even the left most progressive could agree with the right most libertarian on many things. However it's just childish to say "no government". It's been tried before in the past, and it's being tried now, it never works. We do better when we work together.

talmand 13y ago
He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.
- d23 13y ago
  > Ultra limited government. Pretty damn close.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government. "Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government". I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government. Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  He said, "Ultra limited government." Does ultra-limited government include government-provided roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, electricity, water, internet?
  - jaekwon 13y ago
    No reason it couldn't. It's not the size of a government that determines its efficacy, esp with the right kind of private-sector support.
    - VikingCoder 13y ago
      Then it's a MEANINGLESS PHRASE.
      - talmand 13y ago
        Just because you don't like it or don't agree doesn't make it meaningless. It means exactly what it says. There is nothing to show that an ultra-limited government cannot perform the needed tasks for society such as you provide. But I say there's a big difference between a government that provides what's needed for society and the monstrosity that's currently in place in Washington D.C. When I say something along the lines of ultra-limited I mean I want most of the political decisions that affect my life to be decided on the local or state level before it becomes a federal issue. That's exactly how the US was designed, but that's not the way it is being run now. The federal government actually has a list of things it is to do, by the way Post Offices and Roads are covered so I have no problem with that, but a great deal of what it does goes way beyond that list. My definition of a ultra-limited federal government? Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is.
        VikingCoder 13y ago
        > Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is. Every single thing the government does today has been because of laws written by Congress, signed and enacted by the head of the Executive, and upheld by the Judiciary. How can you even BEGIN to make the claim that it's unconstitutional? That's the DEFINITION of Constitutional.
Dirlewanger 13y ago
Nice job busting out a rant that no one provoked.
robomartin 13y ago
No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government that remains out of our lives in nearly every imaginable way. Every human being on this planet is born free. We created these monstrous governmental systems that, effectively, enslave us in one way or another. I can't go for a swim in my local lake. My government will not allow it. I can easily swim 1500 meters or more. Swim every day. Yet, if I so much as stick my FOOT in the lake they'll warn me that this is not allowed. Los Angeles County has a "no water contact" policy. I've had a lifeguard in a power boat rush over to me while walking with my children along the shore in six inches of water to tell us we could not get our feet wet. If I did try to go for a swim I could be arrested and fined. Really? Yes, really. And this is just one example.
- d23 13y ago
  > No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government. No, no, no. Stop backpedaling. You said this before: > Ultra limited government. That's pretty close to "no" government, so his points still stand. The problem isn't government in general, any more than it is people in general. It's things that are broken or aren't working well. It can just as easily be said about the private sector. Yesterday my UPS person claimed he tried to deliver a package but I didn't answer the door. Bullshit. I was home the entire time and he never came. Did I go on a rant about the evils of the private sector and how everything needs to be socialized? No. I recognized that for every annoying experience I have with a private corporation I have 3 other good ones that make my life better.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    No, ultra-limited government means a government with significantly reduced power, reach and size with respect to what we have today. It does not mean "no government". Considering how massive and all encompassing our governments are now, even after severely reducing it at all levels we'd still have quite a few people running our cities, states and country. You can twist it any way you want but nobody is calling for no government, that would be insane.
    - 13y ago

by chez17 13y ago

talmand 13y ago

He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.

d23 13y ago
> Ultra limited government. Pretty damn close.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government. "Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government". I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government. Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.
VikingCoder 13y ago
He said, "Ultra limited government." Does ultra-limited government include government-provided roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, electricity, water, internet?
- jaekwon 13y ago
  No reason it couldn't. It's not the size of a government that determines its efficacy, esp with the right kind of private-sector support.
  - VikingCoder 13y ago
    Then it's a MEANINGLESS PHRASE.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Just because you don't like it or don't agree doesn't make it meaningless. It means exactly what it says. There is nothing to show that an ultra-limited government cannot perform the needed tasks for society such as you provide. But I say there's a big difference between a government that provides what's needed for society and the monstrosity that's currently in place in Washington D.C. When I say something along the lines of ultra-limited I mean I want most of the political decisions that affect my life to be decided on the local or state level before it becomes a federal issue. That's exactly how the US was designed, but that's not the way it is being run now. The federal government actually has a list of things it is to do, by the way Post Offices and Roads are covered so I have no problem with that, but a great deal of what it does goes way beyond that list. My definition of a ultra-limited federal government? Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is.
      - VikingCoder 13y ago
        > Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is. Every single thing the government does today has been because of laws written by Congress, signed and enacted by the head of the Executive, and upheld by the Judiciary. How can you even BEGIN to make the claim that it's unconstitutional? That's the DEFINITION of Constitutional.

Dirlewanger 13y ago

Nice job busting out a rant that no one provoked.

robomartin 13y ago

No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government that remains out of our lives in nearly every imaginable way. Every human being on this planet is born free. We created these monstrous governmental systems that, effectively, enslave us in one way or another. I can't go for a swim in my local lake. My government will not allow it. I can easily swim 1500 meters or more. Swim every day. Yet, if I so much as stick my FOOT in the lake they'll warn me that this is not allowed. Los Angeles County has a "no water contact" policy. I've had a lifeguard in a power boat rush over to me while walking with my children along the shore in six inches of water to tell us we could not get our feet wet. If I did try to go for a swim I could be arrested and fined. Really? Yes, really. And this is just one example.

d23 13y ago
> No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government. No, no, no. Stop backpedaling. You said this before: > Ultra limited government. That's pretty close to "no" government, so his points still stand. The problem isn't government in general, any more than it is people in general. It's things that are broken or aren't working well. It can just as easily be said about the private sector. Yesterday my UPS person claimed he tried to deliver a package but I didn't answer the door. Bullshit. I was home the entire time and he never came. Did I go on a rant about the evils of the private sector and how everything needs to be socialized? No. I recognized that for every annoying experience I have with a private corporation I have 3 other good ones that make my life better.
- robomartin 13y ago
  No, ultra-limited government means a government with significantly reduced power, reach and size with respect to what we have today. It does not mean "no government". Considering how massive and all encompassing our governments are now, even after severely reducing it at all levels we'd still have quite a few people running our cities, states and country. You can twist it any way you want but nobody is calling for no government, that would be insane.
  - 13y ago