The question libertarians just can’t answer

[AmazonTania]

Attention nutters!

Liberals did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed and we do not like it now.

Are you sure?

You think that we are supporting it because we are not screaming for Obama's impeachment over it. Wrong.

Not at all. Policy disagreement is not grounds for impeachment, although, we do ask for consistency from time to time.

The law was, after all, passed by our Congress and signed into law by our President. It is how shit works. it is a very LIBERAL system. We did all we could to get more liberals elected who would repeal it. We will keep trying for you. Now that you are suddenly against it, that is.

Why bother doing that. You have pundits coming out to say that they trust the President to use his new illegal programs wisely, despite the fact that he is not going to be President forever.

Well, I'm sure they're working on the 'forever' part.

 

[kaz]

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

If your aunt comes over and gives you castor oil, mustard packs or some other 'home' remedy it would be different.

You really need to think this through and consider all the ramifications.

So our choices are that government has ubiquitous power to regulate commerce or none. Got it. I'm glad you've taken me under your wing to help me be more informed.

Here are reasonable things for government to regulate. Note what level of government is another matter, you referred to all matters. I am not saying the Feds have all these powers. I'm just talking about what's reasonable for "government" in general in my view. If I contract with someone and they don't honor the contract, I should have access to remedy. This would be civil courts. I should be able to get remedy if they misrepresent themselves in a material way. I'm also OK with requirements for disclosure of accurate information. For example, for things like privacy policies and discrimination policies, I oppose government forcing specific policies, but I don't have an issue with government requiring accurate disclosure of policies for people and businesses we deal with. Increasing informed choice is clearly increasing liberty, while restricting choices is clearly restricting liberty.

In the the Constitution BTW, the commerce clause was actually meant to empower the Federal government to expand trade, not restrict it. They didn't want States creating things like tariffs against other States. That the Feds use that clause for Federal dictatorial power to control and even restrict trade is a bastardization of it's intent, and that they do it for commerce within States is entirely an abomination.

 

[Bfgrn]

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies....

Harry Browne -y'know the guy you claim to admire so much?- said all those things, and much more, about SS and Medicare/Medicaid.

Now Harry Browne is a propagandist and liar?

Dude, we're going to need a GPS and Indian guide to try and follow your contorted and convoluted story line.

I guess your butler wasn't paying attention.

Bfgrn Post #84

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

 

[Bfgrn]

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

If your aunt comes over and gives you castor oil, mustard packs or some other 'home' remedy it would be different.

You really need to think this through and consider all the ramifications.

So our choices are that government has ubiquitous power to regulate commerce or none. Got it. I'm glad you've taken me under your wing to help me be more informed.

Here are reasonable things for government to regulate. Note what level of government is another matter, you referred to all matters. I am not saying the Feds have all these powers. I'm just talking about what's reasonable for "government" in general in my view. If I contract with someone and they don't honor the contract, I should have access to remedy. This would be civil courts. I should be able to get remedy if they misrepresent themselves in a material way. I'm also OK with requirements for disclosure of accurate information. For example, for things like privacy policies and discrimination policies, I oppose government forcing specific policies, but I don't have an issue with government requiring accurate disclosure of policies for people and businesses we deal with. Increasing informed choice is clearly increasing liberty, while restricting choices is clearly restricting liberty.

In the the Constitution BTW, the commerce clause was actually meant to empower the Federal government to expand trade, not restrict it. They didn't want States creating things like tariffs against other States. That the Feds use that clause for Federal dictatorial power to control and even restrict trade is a bastardization of it's intent, and that they do it for commerce within States is entirely an abomination.

This isn't about the federal government, or the commerce clause, unless your witch doctor is in another state.

This is about civics and the local and state common sense laws, regulations and rules that prevent chaos, swindling and catastrophe.

Let's replace your doctor with an electrician. You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

So you 'contract the services' of Joe Blow to rewire your house, and it burns to the ground. Bad for you, but I live next door and my house catches fire and also burns to the ground. My family is trapped inside and doesn't make it out. BAD for everyone, not just YOU.

Now, by law, you CAN 'contract the services' of Joe Blow the electrician, but you will have to either break the law or lie. You can to have a government agency 'inspect' work that you do as a homeowner for safety and code compliance. But you have to lie.

 

[dblack]

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

Nah. I'm just asking: who is harmed?

Is this, perhaps, the question non-libertarians can't answer?

 

[kaz]

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

If your aunt comes over and gives you castor oil, mustard packs or some other 'home' remedy it would be different.

You really need to think this through and consider all the ramifications.

So our choices are that government has ubiquitous power to regulate commerce or none. Got it. I'm glad you've taken me under your wing to help me be more informed.

Here are reasonable things for government to regulate. Note what level of government is another matter, you referred to all matters. I am not saying the Feds have all these powers. I'm just talking about what's reasonable for "government" in general in my view. If I contract with someone and they don't honor the contract, I should have access to remedy. This would be civil courts. I should be able to get remedy if they misrepresent themselves in a material way. I'm also OK with requirements for disclosure of accurate information. For example, for things like privacy policies and discrimination policies, I oppose government forcing specific policies, but I don't have an issue with government requiring accurate disclosure of policies for people and businesses we deal with. Increasing informed choice is clearly increasing liberty, while restricting choices is clearly restricting liberty.

In the the Constitution BTW, the commerce clause was actually meant to empower the Federal government to expand trade, not restrict it. They didn't want States creating things like tariffs against other States. That the Feds use that clause for Federal dictatorial power to control and even restrict trade is a bastardization of it's intent, and that they do it for commerce within States is entirely an abomination.

This isn't about the federal government, or the commerce clause, unless your witch doctor is in another state.

This is about civics and the local and state common sense laws, regulations and rules that prevent chaos, swindling and catastrophe.

Let's replace your doctor with an electrician. You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

So you 'contract the services' of Joe Blow to rewire your house, and it burns to the ground. Bad for you, but I live next door and my house catches fire and also burns to the ground. My family is trapped inside and doesn't make it out. BAD for everyone, not just YOU.

Now, by law, you CAN 'contract the services' of Joe Blow the electrician, but you will have to either break the law or lie. You can to have a government agency 'inspect' work that you do as a homeowner for safety and code compliance. But you have to lie.

I have yet to hear a Democrat use the phrase "common sense" followed by any sense at all. I still haven't. Remember his first election when Barry's giant brain had a "common sense" solution for problem we are facing? In over four years, we haven't seen the first one implemented yet.

Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials? What makes government so wise as to know what credentials are enough? The logical fallacy you are doing is called "begging the question." You assume your view that government is qualified to make such determinations is true. We don't. Then you just state with the assumption of your own view as fact that since they are the only ones qualified to make that determination, they should use government force to block anyone from making their own choice.

A legitimate argument (like the phrase?) would include your supporting your position, not assuming it. Of course you can't because government sucks at doing that. But at least you'd be trying to make an actual argument unlike now.

 

[kaz]

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

Nah. I'm just asking who is harmed?

What Borg's saying is that people aren't smart enough to decide things for ourselves. So government, which is made up of people, should do it for us. Because government can do that, even though people can't. So he's trying to help you out by having a person working for government make your choices for you since you can't do it right because you're a person and people can't do that right. Got it now?

 

[Bfgrn]

So our choices are that government has ubiquitous power to regulate commerce or none. Got it. I'm glad you've taken me under your wing to help me be more informed.

Here are reasonable things for government to regulate. Note what level of government is another matter, you referred to all matters. I am not saying the Feds have all these powers. I'm just talking about what's reasonable for "government" in general in my view. If I contract with someone and they don't honor the contract, I should have access to remedy. This would be civil courts. I should be able to get remedy if they misrepresent themselves in a material way. I'm also OK with requirements for disclosure of accurate information. For example, for things like privacy policies and discrimination policies, I oppose government forcing specific policies, but I don't have an issue with government requiring accurate disclosure of policies for people and businesses we deal with. Increasing informed choice is clearly increasing liberty, while restricting choices is clearly restricting liberty.

In the the Constitution BTW, the commerce clause was actually meant to empower the Federal government to expand trade, not restrict it. They didn't want States creating things like tariffs against other States. That the Feds use that clause for Federal dictatorial power to control and even restrict trade is a bastardization of it's intent, and that they do it for commerce within States is entirely an abomination.

This isn't about the federal government, or the commerce clause, unless your witch doctor is in another state.

This is about civics and the local and state common sense laws, regulations and rules that prevent chaos, swindling and catastrophe.

Let's replace your doctor with an electrician. You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

So you 'contract the services' of Joe Blow to rewire your house, and it burns to the ground. Bad for you, but I live next door and my house catches fire and also burns to the ground. My family is trapped inside and doesn't make it out. BAD for everyone, not just YOU.

Now, by law, you CAN 'contract the services' of Joe Blow the electrician, but you will have to either break the law or lie. You can to have a government agency 'inspect' work that you do as a homeowner for safety and code compliance. But you have to lie.

I have yet to hear a Democrat use the phrase "common sense" followed by any sense at all. I still haven't. Remember his first election when Barry's giant brain had a "common sense" solution for problem we are facing? In over four years, we haven't seen the first one implemented yet.

Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials? What makes government so wise as to know what credentials are enough? The logical fallacy you are doing is called "begging the question." You assume your view that government is qualified to make such determinations is true. We don't. Then you just state with the assumption of your own view as fact that since they are the only ones qualified to make that determination, they should use government force to block anyone from making their own choice.

A legitimate argument (like the phrase?) would include your supporting your position, not assuming it. Of course you can't because government sucks at doing that. But at least you'd be trying to make an actual argument unlike now.

kaz: Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials?

You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

Are you saying that government codes (almost always local) for electrical, plumbing and other trades are just arbitrary rules to make your chronic victimhood valid?

 

[kaz]

kaz: Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials?

You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

Are you saying that government codes (almost always local) for electrical, plumbing and other trades are just arbitrary rules to make your chronic victimhood valid?

Be honest, you aren't actually reading any of the posts you're responding to are you because I answered that question. Actually, I have multiple answers as to Joe.

And you're still begging the question regarding government making the choice.

 

[Bfgrn]

kaz: Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials?

You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

Are you saying that government codes (almost always local) for electrical, plumbing and other trades are just arbitrary rules to make your chronic victimhood valid?

Be honest, you aren't actually reading any of the posts you're responding to are you because I answered that question. Actually, I have multiple answers as to Joe.

And you're still begging the question regarding government making the choice.

kaz: "What makes government so wise as to know what credentials are enough?"

Holy ****, you are really throwing tough ones at me...Gee, HOW would government know someone has the credentials to become a licensed electrician? Is it possible they would have to pass a test that would prove they have a sound understanding of electrical theory, an ability to properly and safely interpret and apply the electrical codes for new install or repair???

 

[kaz]

kaz: Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials?

You 'contract the services' of Joe Blow. He says he is an electrician and can rewire your house for 5 cents. No license, no credentials, no insurance.

Are you saying that government codes (almost always local) for electrical, plumbing and other trades are just arbitrary rules to make your chronic victimhood valid?

Be honest, you aren't actually reading any of the posts you're responding to are you because I answered that question. Actually, I have multiple answers as to Joe.

And you're still begging the question regarding government making the choice.

kaz: "What makes government so wise as to know what credentials are enough?"

Holy ****, you are really throwing tough ones at me...Gee, HOW would government know someone has the credentials to become a licensed electrician? Is it possible they would have to pass a test that would prove they have a sound understanding of electrical theory, an ability to properly and safely interpret and apply the electrical codes for new install or repair???

Government knows because they took a government test, got licensed by the government and know government codes. Therefore, government knows and you're not begging the question. Honestly, if I tried to write posts as stupid as yours I couldn't do it.

 

[Oddball]

I have yet to hear a Democrat use the phrase "common sense" followed by any sense at all. I still haven't. Remember his first election when Barry's giant brain had a "common sense" solution for problem we are facing? In over four years, we haven't seen the first one implemented yet.

Why would you hire an electrician with no credentials? What makes government so wise as to know what credentials are enough? The logical fallacy you are doing is called "begging the question." You assume your view that government is qualified to make such determinations is true. We don't. Then you just state with the assumption of your own view as fact that since they are the only ones qualified to make that determination, they should use government force to block anyone from making their own choice.

A legitimate argument (like the phrase?) would include your supporting your position, not assuming it. Of course you can't because government sucks at doing that. But at least you'd be trying to make an actual argument unlike now.

Begging the question and circular reasoning.....Borg has pretty much taken the entire roster of logical fallacies and used is as a sort of cookbook for his posts.

 

[Oddball]

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies....

Harry Browne -y'know the guy you claim to admire so much?- said all those things, and much more, about SS and Medicare/Medicaid.

Now Harry Browne is a propagandist and liar?

Dude, we're going to need a GPS and Indian guide to try and follow your contorted and convoluted story line.

I guess your butler wasn't paying attention.

Bfgrn Post #84

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

No, you're not big on liberty...You're big on authoritarian central control and coercion....Two things that are antithetical to the very foundations of libertarian philosophy.

You part with libertarians on just about every front....Your only agreements are nothing more than a blind squirrel finding a nut from time to time.

 

[Bfgrn]

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

Nah. I'm just asking: who is harmed?

Is this, perhaps, the question non-libertarians can't answer?

In your specific example where you decide to 'contract the services' of an unlicensed 'doctor', you are the one taking most, but not all the risk. If things go badly and you decide to sue, then other people are involved. And if any insurance claim is paid out, it does affect everyone because rates are based on actuarial risk.

My problem is not with you seeking medical treatment from someone other than a doctor. My problem is with this unlicensed 'doctor' soliciting business and claiming he is a 'doctor'.

 

[Bfgrn]

Harry Browne -y'know the guy you claim to admire so much?- said all those things, and much more, about SS and Medicare/Medicaid.

Now Harry Browne is a propagandist and liar?

Dude, we're going to need a GPS and Indian guide to try and follow your contorted and convoluted story line.

I guess your butler wasn't paying attention.

Bfgrn Post #84

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

No, you're not big on liberty...You're big on authoritarian central control and coercion....Two things that are antithetical to the very foundations of libertarian philosophy.

You part with libertarians on just about every front....Your only agreements are nothing more than a blind squirrel finding a nut from time to time.

Well, I guess that is why 'libertarians' of your full blown absolutist doctrinaire ilk are viewed as immature, a cult, anarchists, social Darwinists Stalin-class and in your case a RETARD.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Free-Market-Kenneth-Friedman/dp/0875862233"]Libertarianism[/ame] does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

 

[Oddball]

Wow....Back to the false dichotomies, ad hominem attacks and plain old garden variety bigotry!

What do I man "back to"?...You never stopped.

 

[Pogo]

WTF?...Wisconsin has been annexed by Canada and I didn't get the memo?

Who knew we even shared a common border?

Saskatchewan has been annexed by Wisconsin now?

I can't keep up. Gimme the days of Upper Volta, Burma and Tanganyika.

 

[Oddball]

WTF?...Wisconsin has been annexed by Canada and I didn't get the memo?

Who knew we even shared a common border?

Saskatchewan has been annexed by Wisconsin now?

I can't keep up. Gimme the days of Upper Volta, Burma and Tanganyika.

Dude...Google is your friend.....YouTube too.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

 

[Oddball]

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Denying cooperation would be coercive...Denying your coercion upon my life and property as an affect of the mythical and cynically dubbed "social contract" is merely meeting force with force.

You speak of using coercion at the local level for the porpose of education...But what of those who are single, couples who have no children or those who cannot have them?

What makes the rights of those who choose to have children superior to those who do not, to the point that they need to be coerced into supporting those children?