5 ms·

> Nature is unfair. [...] The only thing society should do is ensure everyone has the same rights in regard to the Law no matter how rich, how poor, how differe

> Nature is unfair. [...] The only thing society should do is ensure everyone has the same rights in regard to the Law no matter how rich, how poor, how different you may be. Since you are so readily dismissing egalitarianism on the basis of being unnatural, I'm sure you have a great natural explanation for things like property rights and law. For all I care, you can have libertarian or egalitarian ideals, but make no mistake in thinking that either of them are natural. If the point of a government or rule of law was to keep the natural order of things, we wouldn't need it at all. Not that I think that being unnatural is inherently bad, but don't try to put yourself on some sort of high ground by saying that your economical philosophy adheres to some sort of natural fact if it doesn't.

ekianjo 13y ago
I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. There will be always be a point if you follow that line of thought where the power in place will crush your individual interests just for the sake of making your condition the same as everyone else (even on the basis of good intentions...). That, in itself, is against Human nature, where humans strive to build advantage for ourselves to improve our conditions and our odds to survival and to lead a better life. And don't tell me Humans don't do that, everyone wants their kids to be in good school and to get a better job than themselves. It's universal no matter from which culture you come from. With Egalitarianism, you end up with policies where education is strictly controlled by one governmental body, and where Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved. You end up with public health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment, because you want to treat everyone the same way while running on limited resources. And this has already happened in many countries in Europe where such policies were driven to the core of the governmental actions. In the end you create more inequalities because people who really have money have the possibility to leave the country and get better services elsewhere, while the middle-class and the poor are forever restrained to a diminished quality of life. My point is that libertarian ideals are more respectful of individuals, because they allow for the flexibility of choosing your own course of action, maximizing your responsibility. In that sense they are closer to the natural order where one individual can create an advantage for themselves based on their action while living as part of a social group. I won't elaborate here on the principles and the philosophy behind it, it's a different subject altogether.
- Crake 13y ago
  >Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved >health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment >the middle-class and the poor are forever restrained to a diminished quality of life Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America? All of these things have become widespread here as a result of income inequality--something you've said you support.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America I'm just talking about the world I know. I don't live in America. I can't say whether it's better or worse.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Most of Europe at least is doing far better than the US on most of these metrics, through socialized systems.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Most of Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy as well. That shows how sustainable that is.
        Crake 13y ago
        Yeah, Germany is doing really awful these days. /s
- vidarh 13y ago
  > I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. Only if you define an individuals freedom as "freedom to deprive others of access to shared natural resources through violence" (I use the term violence since libertarians seems overly fond of referring to government interference as "violence"; except when it comes to enforcing private property). Hence Proudhon's "property is theft". > With Egalitarianism, you end up with policies where education is strictly controlled by one governmental body Why? Most egalitarian ideologies want to dismantle the state and introduce some form or other of direct democracy which would preclude strict government control of education or pretty much everything else. Marx, for example, considered the only political purpose of the state to be the oppression of one class by another, and the goal of socialism to remove the class struggle by enacting policies that would remove the capitalist class, by turning them into workers. And the natural end-point, according to Marx, would be the "withering away of the state", as in a class-less society it would have no political purpose. Anarchists argue for a more direct approach: Destroy the state outright. > and where Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved. Why? The original form of socialism was the idea of a meritocracy where a central goal would be to ensure people were given the opportunity to develop personally and promoted according to skill (read up on Saint Simon). > You end up with public health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment This is contrary to real world experiences, where the universal healthcare systems for the most part are cheaper and better than mostly privatized systems like the US. > And this has already happened in many countries in Europe where such policies were driven to the core of the governmental actions. So this is why most European healthcare systems consistently rank better than the US system? > My point is that libertarian ideals are more respectful of individuals No, it is respectful of property owners. Libertarianism is what you get when you take anarchism or communism but don't follow the thinking through to its logical extension, but single out private property for special treatment. Somehow, according to the libertarian, we need government enforcement of one persons "right" to deprive others of access to certain resources, while we don't need governments for pretty much everything else. The hypocrisy of this doesn't seem to phase anyone.

ekianjo 13y ago

I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. There will be always be a point if you follow that line of thought where the power in place will crush your individual interests just for the sake of making your condition the same as everyone else (even on the basis of good intentions...). That, in itself, is against Human nature, where humans strive to build advantage for ourselves to improve our conditions and our odds to survival and to lead a better life. And don't tell me Humans don't do that, everyone wants their kids to be in good school and to get a better job than themselves. It's universal no matter from which culture you come from. With Egalitarianism, you end up with policies where education is strictly controlled by one governmental body, and where Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved. You end up with public health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment, because you want to treat everyone the same way while running on limited resources. And this has already happened in many countries in Europe where such policies were driven to the core of the governmental actions. In the end you create more inequalities because people who really have money have the possibility to leave the country and get better services elsewhere, while the middle-class and the poor are forever restrained to a diminished quality of life. My point is that libertarian ideals are more respectful of individuals, because they allow for the flexibility of choosing your own course of action, maximizing your responsibility. In that sense they are closer to the natural order where one individual can create an advantage for themselves based on their action while living as part of a social group. I won't elaborate here on the principles and the philosophy behind it, it's a different subject altogether.

Crake 13y ago
>Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved >health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment >the middle-class and the poor are forever restrained to a diminished quality of life Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America? All of these things have become widespread here as a result of income inequality--something you've said you support.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > Are you sure you aren't talking about present day America I'm just talking about the world I know. I don't live in America. I can't say whether it's better or worse.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Most of Europe at least is doing far better than the US on most of these metrics, through socialized systems.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Most of Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy as well. That shows how sustainable that is.
      - Crake 13y ago
        Yeah, Germany is doing really awful these days. /s
vidarh 13y ago
> I'm not just dismissive of Egalitarinism only because it's unnatural, but also because it goes against the individual's freedom in the end. Only if you define an individuals freedom as "freedom to deprive others of access to shared natural resources through violence" (I use the term violence since libertarians seems overly fond of referring to government interference as "violence"; except when it comes to enforcing private property). Hence Proudhon's "property is theft". > With Egalitarianism, you end up with policies where education is strictly controlled by one governmental body Why? Most egalitarian ideologies want to dismantle the state and introduce some form or other of direct democracy which would preclude strict government control of education or pretty much everything else. Marx, for example, considered the only political purpose of the state to be the oppression of one class by another, and the goal of socialism to remove the class struggle by enacting policies that would remove the capitalist class, by turning them into workers. And the natural end-point, according to Marx, would be the "withering away of the state", as in a class-less society it would have no political purpose. Anarchists argue for a more direct approach: Destroy the state outright. > and where Education goes to the lowest common denominator and becomes basically crap for everyone involved. Why? The original form of socialism was the idea of a meritocracy where a central goal would be to ensure people were given the opportunity to develop personally and promoted according to skill (read up on Saint Simon). > You end up with public health services which are subpar, with waiting lines and mediocre equipment This is contrary to real world experiences, where the universal healthcare systems for the most part are cheaper and better than mostly privatized systems like the US. > And this has already happened in many countries in Europe where such policies were driven to the core of the governmental actions. So this is why most European healthcare systems consistently rank better than the US system? > My point is that libertarian ideals are more respectful of individuals No, it is respectful of property owners. Libertarianism is what you get when you take anarchism or communism but don't follow the thinking through to its logical extension, but single out private property for special treatment. Somehow, according to the libertarian, we need government enforcement of one persons "right" to deprive others of access to certain resources, while we don't need governments for pretty much everything else. The hypocrisy of this doesn't seem to phase anyone.