4 ms·

Well bane let me, a libertarian, explain to you why I worked for the government while I was a libertarian. Sometimes the solutions that are government mandated

Well bane let me, a libertarian, explain to you why I worked for the government while I was a libertarian. Sometimes the solutions that are government mandated or subsidized would appear in a different form if the government didn't run them. So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Just because the government decides that they should be the ones that run the subways and I disagree with that, doesn't mean that I should be exempt from working for the TTC's construction engineering department. These are two different things. When you live in a system that coerces you into giving up half of your income it doesn't mean that you are in the wrong for working for it or even taking things like subsidies.

bane 13y ago
> When you live in a system that coerces you into giving up half of your income it doesn't mean that you are in the wrong for working for it or even taking things like subsidies. I'm positing that it does. In fact, there's only one case where I can find working for the government while thinking it shouldn't exist is workable, and that's working for the government in a capacity where you can dismantle the government. Which is often what happens right? Privatization of previously government run programs is one of the example methods for doing that. I'm not interested in discussing the politics of this method, or if it is good or bad. I'm interested in cases where somebody specifically holds a viewpoint, then does everything in their power to work against that very viewpoint. You were perfectly capable of finding a job that wasn't with the government, yet you specifically chose to apply, interview, get hired and maintain employment with an entity that you didn't agree with. I bet you signed paperwork and everything and happily collected your taxpayer provided paycheck. It's actually the very definition of hypocrisy to the letter. In fact you put effort into ensuring that you behaved as a hypocrite. It sucks, and sometimes people do hypocritical things. I'm not condemning you for it. But I do think it's more useful to call a thing what it is and proceed from there. If you say "I'm a hyprocrite, it sucks and I know it but...meh." I'm actually fine with that. But saying you aren't when you explicitly, textbook definition, are, is silliness and no amount of explanation or word bending can change that. It's this exact behavior, this lack of meta-cognition and self-awareness that I find explicitly curious. You haven't explained why you engaged in hypocritical activities at all. You simply said that you did it and that what you did isn't hypocritical and you should be free and clear from behavior inconsistent with your beliefs because...?
- arh68 13y ago
  >sometimes people do hypocritical things. I'm not condemning you for it. Thank you for understanding. >I do think it's more useful to call a thing what it is and proceed from there. It's welfare, okay? It's all a giant welfare program. Gravy train. Uncle Sugar. Call it what you will. It's all very contradicting on paper, but it's not so bad when you're in it. What's curious to me is the meta-cognition and self-awareness that goes on as a change-the-world startup like Google metamorphoses into Big Evil. It's usually a very gradual decline, like a glacier slide. Is it like the frog-in-water, where nobody notices? Does everybody know, and rationalize it? Or are people honest?
- baddox 13y ago
  > In fact, there's only one case where I can find working for the government while thinking it shouldn't exist is workable, and that's working for the government in a capacity where you can dismantle the government. Which is often what happens right? Where do you draw the line? What about using tax-funded roads, or regulated industries like air travel?
  - bane 13y ago
    It doesn't mean I agree with that method. But it's at least internally consistent and I can respect the ideology and politics from it. I happily think that my taxes help buy the civilization I enjoy. I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". When the IRS makes a mistake and gives me a hard time I don't think "GODDAMN IMPERSONAL IRS SCREW THE GOVERNMENT", I think "some poor schlep looking at tax returns all day screwed up." I think this might come from the area I grew up and live in, where practically every 4th or 5th person I know is employed in some capacity by the Federal government. So I personalize what it is and understand that it's not a mechanized black box.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". In my view, that is either an untestable (and therefore essentially meaningless) hypothesis, or it's a testable hypothesis that fails nearly every test.
anigbrowl 13y ago
So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Given the dearth of private subway companies, I question this claim. There are lots of places where a subway would be highly desirable but doesn't exist, why hasn't some entrepreneurial soul built one already?
- gress 13y ago
  False. The London Underground, the earliest subway system, was initially built as a patchwork of private railway systems that were later brought under government control. Most of the subsequent systems (e.g. Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg) used the London system as a reference. So, mass transit did in fact arise as a result of private entrepreneurship. The reason subways don't exist in places where it would be 'desirable' is because of government interference, or simply poor economics. And I'm not even a libertarian.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Not true. The Corporation of the City of London put up most of the money with the goal of alleviating congestion. The chief visionary, charles Pierson, was the solicitor (a sort of lawyer) for the City. http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-london-tube http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-lond... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishm... Same deal with new York's subway - therre were private companies involved but they were set up within the frameworks of a public works project and were basically financial vehicles designed to limit financial liability and attract some matching capital from the private sector for an initial large public sector investment or monopoly grant. I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but this notion that all this stuff would happen by itself if it weren't for evil government interference is just bollocks, it's just as stupid as communists claiming that all private capital is wicked.
    - nwp90 13y ago
      Are you aware of the history of the City of London Corporation? And its voting structure? If so, to try to equate it with any other government anywhere, seems rather disingenuous. If not, I suggest you have a look on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

bane 13y ago

> When you live in a system that coerces you into giving up half of your income it doesn't mean that you are in the wrong for working for it or even taking things like subsidies. I'm positing that it does. In fact, there's only one case where I can find working for the government while thinking it shouldn't exist is workable, and that's working for the government in a capacity where you can dismantle the government. Which is often what happens right? Privatization of previously government run programs is one of the example methods for doing that. I'm not interested in discussing the politics of this method, or if it is good or bad. I'm interested in cases where somebody specifically holds a viewpoint, then does everything in their power to work against that very viewpoint. You were perfectly capable of finding a job that wasn't with the government, yet you specifically chose to apply, interview, get hired and maintain employment with an entity that you didn't agree with. I bet you signed paperwork and everything and happily collected your taxpayer provided paycheck. It's actually the very definition of hypocrisy to the letter. In fact you put effort into ensuring that you behaved as a hypocrite. It sucks, and sometimes people do hypocritical things. I'm not condemning you for it. But I do think it's more useful to call a thing what it is and proceed from there. If you say "I'm a hyprocrite, it sucks and I know it but...meh." I'm actually fine with that. But saying you aren't when you explicitly, textbook definition, are, is silliness and no amount of explanation or word bending can change that. It's this exact behavior, this lack of meta-cognition and self-awareness that I find explicitly curious. You haven't explained why you engaged in hypocritical activities at all. You simply said that you did it and that what you did isn't hypocritical and you should be free and clear from behavior inconsistent with your beliefs because...?

arh68 13y ago
>sometimes people do hypocritical things. I'm not condemning you for it. Thank you for understanding. >I do think it's more useful to call a thing what it is and proceed from there. It's welfare, okay? It's all a giant welfare program. Gravy train. Uncle Sugar. Call it what you will. It's all very contradicting on paper, but it's not so bad when you're in it. What's curious to me is the meta-cognition and self-awareness that goes on as a change-the-world startup like Google metamorphoses into Big Evil. It's usually a very gradual decline, like a glacier slide. Is it like the frog-in-water, where nobody notices? Does everybody know, and rationalize it? Or are people honest?
baddox 13y ago
> In fact, there's only one case where I can find working for the government while thinking it shouldn't exist is workable, and that's working for the government in a capacity where you can dismantle the government. Which is often what happens right? Where do you draw the line? What about using tax-funded roads, or regulated industries like air travel?
- bane 13y ago
  It doesn't mean I agree with that method. But it's at least internally consistent and I can respect the ideology and politics from it. I happily think that my taxes help buy the civilization I enjoy. I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". When the IRS makes a mistake and gives me a hard time I don't think "GODDAMN IMPERSONAL IRS SCREW THE GOVERNMENT", I think "some poor schlep looking at tax returns all day screwed up." I think this might come from the area I grew up and live in, where practically every 4th or 5th person I know is employed in some capacity by the Federal government. So I personalize what it is and understand that it's not a mechanized black box.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". In my view, that is either an untestable (and therefore essentially meaningless) hypothesis, or it's a testable hypothesis that fails nearly every test.

anigbrowl 13y ago

So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Given the dearth of private subway companies, I question this claim. There are lots of places where a subway would be highly desirable but doesn't exist, why hasn't some entrepreneurial soul built one already?

gress 13y ago
False. The London Underground, the earliest subway system, was initially built as a patchwork of private railway systems that were later brought under government control. Most of the subsequent systems (e.g. Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg) used the London system as a reference. So, mass transit did in fact arise as a result of private entrepreneurship. The reason subways don't exist in places where it would be 'desirable' is because of government interference, or simply poor economics. And I'm not even a libertarian.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Not true. The Corporation of the City of London put up most of the money with the goal of alleviating congestion. The chief visionary, charles Pierson, was the solicitor (a sort of lawyer) for the City. http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-london-tube http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-lond... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishm... Same deal with new York's subway - therre were private companies involved but they were set up within the frameworks of a public works project and were basically financial vehicles designed to limit financial liability and attract some matching capital from the private sector for an initial large public sector investment or monopoly grant. I'm sympathetic to libertarianism but this notion that all this stuff would happen by itself if it weren't for evil government interference is just bollocks, it's just as stupid as communists claiming that all private capital is wicked.
  - nwp90 13y ago
    Are you aware of the history of the City of London Corporation? And its voting structure? If so, to try to equate it with any other government anywhere, seems rather disingenuous. If not, I suggest you have a look on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation