Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Okay I'm confused...

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 3:46:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think I might be a libertarian cause I'm for personal liberty and freedom. Like what you put in your body, how you spend your time, etc.
But I am not against social programs, and I'm nothing like ragnar really.
I heard that means I'm not libertarian tho. So Idk what pointless meaningless label I fit under.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:01:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarians support social programs, just not government run social programs. Government social programs often treat social welfare recipients as just a number, are run by inefficient beaurecrats, and are a form of theft.

Individuals have helped Katrina victims more than government ever has.

There's strong evidence to show that giving your money away actually makes one happier:
http://www.livescience.com...

However forcing one to give away their money just creates resentment and bitterness. A person works for their money and should be allowed to spend it how they want it.

Often social welfare programs create a moral hazard where persons are discouraged to work if they are given free money.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:04:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also if you read J.Kenyon's debate it provides strong evidence why private charity is superior to welfare state, and why the government welfare program can not be justified:
http://www.debate.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:01:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Some Libertarians support social programs, just not government run social programs. The rest just tolerate such charity.

Fix'd.

And you're a modern liberal with an emphasis on civil libertarianism (different from actual libertarianism), lovelife.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:18:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:08:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:01:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Some Libertarians support social programs, just not government run social programs. The rest just tolerate such charity.

Fix'd.

And you're a modern liberal with an emphasis on civil libertarianism (different from actual libertarianism), lovelife.

You at least support the right for others to give to charity and the right for others to create these institutes. It is perfectly consistent with the libertarian philosophy.

Also social security, and medicare are ponzi schemes that are only destined to fail.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:18:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:08:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:01:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Some Libertarians support social programs, just not government run social programs. The rest just tolerate such charity.

Fix'd.

And you're a modern liberal with an emphasis on civil libertarianism (different from actual libertarianism), lovelife.

You at least support the right for others to give to charity and the right for others to create these institutes. It is perfectly consistent with the libertarian philosophy.
True (though libertarianism isn't a complete philosophy, it covers the right-bearing portions). That is, after all, what "tolerate such charity" means. :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.
However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
gothate
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.
However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.

so what your saying is that we should combine all social classes for the preservation of the people and nation?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 5:01:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.

Easy to say if you don't pay taxes. Taxes are received through coercion of force.

The necessities of life need to be paid somehow. Farmers, educators, and healthcare workers are unlkely going to work and provide a service without getting something in exchange.

However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.

Why have an income tax? It was actually unconstitutional for a long time in the US history.
So a flat tax? That's actually quite the conservative/libertarian position. (although many libertarians reject taxes in general)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 5:09:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also the problem is scarcity. Not everyone can get everything.

Using ones own money, one can make these choices. However, if a coercive monopoly uses others people's money, money gets redistributed to many of the wrong areas: particularly lobbyists. Farmers actually get paid NOT to farm.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 5:13:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 5:01:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.

Easy to say if you don't pay taxes. Taxes are received through coercion of force.

The necessities of life need to be paid somehow. Farmers, educators, and healthcare workers are unlkely going to work and provide a service without getting something in exchange.

I didn't say nothing in exchange, but teachers can't decide their going to stop teaching overnight, without some consequence, and doctors that make the money more important than treating the patient are sure to be sued. And because they can't act like any other business person they have to get their income in different ways.

However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.

Why have an income tax? It was actually unconstitutional for a long time in the US history.
So a flat tax? That's actually quite the conservative/libertarian position. (although many libertarians reject taxes in general)

well not exactly flat. If your in the poverty and receive government help, then the less you make the higher % you are taxed. like say 65% if you receive government help and make below $5,000 a year. 45% if you make $5,00-10,000, etc. and if you make higher than $30,000 then you are only taxed like 15% etc. If you have -no- job, then you get -no- government help.
I suppose above poverty would be a flat rate tho, and that ought to heat up the feet of those that receive government help so it does not punish them for being productive.
Now government jobs (like teaching) in which you make little money should be different and taxed differently since its not really being lazy.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 5:13:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 5:09:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also the problem is scarcity. Not everyone can get everything.

Using ones own money, one can make these choices. However, if a coercive monopoly uses others people's money, money gets redistributed to many of the wrong areas: particularly lobbyists. Farmers actually get paid NOT to farm.

like I said, my system would be highly reformed, and changed.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 5:35:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 5:13:03 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 4/30/2011 5:01:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.

Easy to say if you don't pay taxes. Taxes are received through coercion of force.

The necessities of life need to be paid somehow. Farmers, educators, and healthcare workers are unlkely going to work and provide a service without getting something in exchange.

I didn't say nothing in exchange, but teachers can't decide their going to stop teaching overnight, without some consequence, and doctors that make the money more important than treating the patient are sure to be sued. And because they can't act like any other business person they have to get their income in different ways.


Wrong. Doctors often try to avoid getting sued at the cost of the patient. I know, sounds crazy but it's how it works. Operations and unnecessary procedures are done so a doctor can avoid a lawsuit. Lawsuits are not designed to help the patients. It's about money.

Are you saying that a teacher shouldn't have the right to quit their job?

However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.

Why have an income tax? It was actually unconstitutional for a long time in the US history.
So a flat tax? That's actually quite the conservative/libertarian position. (although many libertarians reject taxes in general)

well not exactly flat. If your in the poverty and receive government help, then the less you make the higher % you are taxed. like say 65% if you receive government help and make below $5,000 a year. 45% if you make $5,00-10,000, etc. and if you make higher than $30,000 then you are only taxed like 15% etc. If you have -no- job, then you get -no- government help.
I suppose above poverty would be a flat rate tho, and that ought to heat up the feet of those that receive government help so it does not punish them for being productive.

So that would still discourage work. It's just an optimization problem. How to minimize work and maximize benefits. You just work enough to get government benefits.

Also many people can't find employment, not cause they're lazy but can't find a job.
Now government jobs (like teaching) in which you make little money should be different and taxed differently since its not really being lazy.

Government jobs make more then their private counterparts. They are also more likely to be lazy since many of them are unionize and since people have no choice but to use their services, it usually ends up being shitty.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 6:27:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 6:09:36 PM, badger wrote:
ragnar's evil so you're good.

thank you...I guess
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 6:38:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kermit, like I said, reform it.

No teachers should not be allowed to quit or get fired in the middle of a school year (/semester), due to the nature of their jobs. They can't just not go to work, and not call in etc, and have the worst damage done that they need to be replaced and others have to work to fill the gap. Other teachers would need to take the kids in, find out what their teacher did with them, how far they went, what learning styles they used, and re-do all the progress the old teacher did, since more often than not teachers do far different things and do not do the same as others. Lesson plan notes aren't accurate because I know from having teachers, and my mom, that teachers are just as guilty about cheating as students. And by that I mean on monday (/whatever day lesson plans for the week are due) they ask other teachers "did you write your plans?" "Can I see/copy them" etc, just as middle schoolers going to school would do.
Just like a surgeon can't quit halfway through operating.

Now I find it curious that forcing kids to go to school, stay with parents, abide by state curfew etc, has not been said to be unconstitutional yet.

" Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [1]

Parents forcing you to do chores, having cops get you if you run away, etc is recognized by the constitution as just as unconstitutional as slavery.
Just found that interesting and idk why I posted it. maybe I feel like acting upon it ;)

[1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 6:49:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So what would you actually have us do about teachers quitting?

Moreover, in a free market, you could still sue someone for not honoring a contract (such as not showing up for work when you're under contract for the whole academic year or whatever).
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:03:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 6:38:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Kermit, like I said, reform it.

No teachers should not be allowed to quit or get fired in the middle of a school year (/semester), due to the nature of their jobs. They can't just not go to work, and not call in etc, and have the worst damage done that they need to be replaced and others have to work to fill the gap. Other teachers would need to take the kids in, find out what their teacher did with them, how far they went, what learning styles they used, and re-do all the progress the old teacher did, since more often than not teachers do far different things and do not do the same as others. Lesson plan notes aren't accurate because I know from having teachers, and my mom, that teachers are just as guilty about cheating as students. And by that I mean on monday (/whatever day lesson plans for the week are due) they ask other teachers "did you write your plans?" "Can I see/copy them" etc, just as middle schoolers going to school would do.
Just like a surgeon can't quit halfway through operating.

Now I find it curious that forcing kids to go to school, stay with parents, abide by state curfew etc, has not been said to be unconstitutional yet.

" Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [1]

Parents forcing you to do chores, having cops get you if you run away, etc is recognized by the constitution as just as unconstitutional as slavery.
Just found that interesting and idk why I posted it. maybe I feel like acting upon it ;)

[1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
That's because you aren't fully considered a person, you don't have all of your rights because you aren't yet in the age of majority.
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:05:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 7:03:06 PM, meowmixxx wrote:
At 4/30/2011 6:38:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Kermit, like I said, reform it.

No teachers should not be allowed to quit or get fired in the middle of a school year (/semester), due to the nature of their jobs. They can't just not go to work, and not call in etc, and have the worst damage done that they need to be replaced and others have to work to fill the gap. Other teachers would need to take the kids in, find out what their teacher did with them, how far they went, what learning styles they used, and re-do all the progress the old teacher did, since more often than not teachers do far different things and do not do the same as others. Lesson plan notes aren't accurate because I know from having teachers, and my mom, that teachers are just as guilty about cheating as students. And by that I mean on monday (/whatever day lesson plans for the week are due) they ask other teachers "did you write your plans?" "Can I see/copy them" etc, just as middle schoolers going to school would do.
Just like a surgeon can't quit halfway through operating.

Now I find it curious that forcing kids to go to school, stay with parents, abide by state curfew etc, has not been said to be unconstitutional yet.

" Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [1]

Parents forcing you to do chores, having cops get you if you run away, etc is recognized by the constitution as just as unconstitutional as slavery.
Just found that interesting and idk why I posted it. maybe I feel like acting upon it ;)

[1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
That's because you aren't fully considered a person, you don't have all of your rights because you aren't yet in the age of majority.

The pro-lifers would disagree.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:23:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My best guess for lovelife is Minarcho-Socialism. It is Libertarian but different from most others due to using a different property theory.

All things individually used(your home, etc) are individually owned, everything publicly used(businesses, etc) are publicly owned, and no one may initiate force against another. That is Minarcho-Socialism. It is able to uphold a state and social programs without taxation and is economically democratic.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 7:23:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
My best guess for lovelife is Minarcho-Socialism. It is Libertarian but different from most others due to using a different property theory.

All things individually used(your home, etc) are individually owned, everything publicly used(businesses, etc) are publicly owned, and no one may initiate force against another. That is Minarcho-Socialism. It is able to uphold a state and social programs without taxation and is economically democratic.

What is to separates individual from public use?

Bodies are self-owned. Natural resources should go to those who can get the most utility from them and compensate all who wanted to use them. See Coase's theorm.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:13:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do,

Even if you are a minarchist who tolerates minimal taxation, you have to hate taxes to be a libertarian. The word itself should make your blood boil.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 11:17:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 7:03:06 PM, meowmixxx wrote:
At 4/30/2011 6:38:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Kermit, like I said, reform it.

No teachers should not be allowed to quit or get fired in the middle of a school year (/semester), due to the nature of their jobs. They can't just not go to work, and not call in etc, and have the worst damage done that they need to be replaced and others have to work to fill the gap. Other teachers would need to take the kids in, find out what their teacher did with them, how far they went, what learning styles they used, and re-do all the progress the old teacher did, since more often than not teachers do far different things and do not do the same as others. Lesson plan notes aren't accurate because I know from having teachers, and my mom, that teachers are just as guilty about cheating as students. And by that I mean on monday (/whatever day lesson plans for the week are due) they ask other teachers "did you write your plans?" "Can I see/copy them" etc, just as middle schoolers going to school would do.
Just like a surgeon can't quit halfway through operating.

Now I find it curious that forcing kids to go to school, stay with parents, abide by state curfew etc, has not been said to be unconstitutional yet.

" Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [1]

Parents forcing you to do chores, having cops get you if you run away, etc is recognized by the constitution as just as unconstitutional as slavery.
Just found that interesting and idk why I posted it. maybe I feel like acting upon it ;)

[1] http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
That's because you aren't fully considered a person, you don't have all of your rights because you aren't yet in the age of majority.

"all men are created equal" not grow up and become equal.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 11:32:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:31:52 PM, lovelife wrote:
I don't hate taxes like most people here do, because I want people t be able to consistently get an education, health, food, and the things they -need-.
However I do not think you should be forced into things, such as social security, but I don't think it would really kill anyone to socialize the things people -need- to live. Like sure fund the poor to have what they need to live, but have it set up different so it doesn't 'punish' them as much for working more. Like if they work, take more of their money until they make a certain amount and then back off and take a smaller percent. And if they don't work -then- to hell with them they should find ways to support themselves. stuff like that.

so do you think all people should be forced into social programs or not? Socialized programs only work if everyone is coerced into them.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lovelife, You are a stereotypical modern liberal. You believe people should have nearly unlimited personal freedom, but no economic freedom. A ruling elite will decide who gets money and what they can do with it. If you have a little left over after the government has redistributed nearly all the wealth, then you are allowed to go buy a popsickle, but that's about it.

The problem with the theory is that equality is only achieved with universal poverty. No matter how you hope it will turn out, you end up with the economy of North Korea.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:23:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 4:08:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/30/2011 4:01:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Some Libertarians support social programs, just not government run social programs. The rest just tolerate such charity.

Fix'd.

And you're a modern liberal with an emphasis on civil libertarianism (different from actual libertarianism), lovelife.

Lovelife, this.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"