J m HofMarNSo basically the poor will have to sacrifice all dignity and beg in the streets? Hey, wait, there's a way to keep your dignity and still live on the streets. Basically anyone who's poor and doesnt feel like asking for donations will just take their donations.
CobnatI will only repeat myself one more time. There will no doubt be a philanthropist like there is now. Since charities gain most of their money from people who do not donate because of tax brakes (like civ2 thinks) then there wouldn’t be much of a change.
J m HofMarNWithout a maximum number of hours they can be told to work, how will people have time to train for a militia unless for a higher goal. Are these militias to become police forces or defense apparati of the community or a company? It sounds like you're going into anarcho-syndicalist commune-ism without noting that large corporations have no place in such a system.
CobnatIf the people want to break away from the government and form their own society with their own system of government, regardless of what the government is, I would support their right to. If people in their newly society do not wish to stay with them then they can come back to the original society or create their own.
J m HofMarNSometimes, my parents told me not to write on the walls or to go to bed on time, and if I disobeyed they taxed my allowance. If my parents were gone I wouldnt get my allowance taxed and would, by virtue of not being taxed, no longer want to write on the walls or stay up late. I would however decide that it was time to play with those nifty dials on the oven and check out my dad's gun.
CobnatYou are comparing a child with an adult? A child only has one source of income, their parents. An adult has many sources of income since they have more economic, social and psychological freedom then a child.
J m HofMarNThis makes perfect sense. I used to pick on this kid until his arms fell off and he couldnt fight back anymore. After that there was less of him to abuse so I stopped picking on him seeing as how he couldnt fight back. Yes.
CobnatThe people would be armed… bloody hell, read my previous posts, I would just be repeating myself.
J m HofMarNHey, Civ, your sister is dying of epilepsy and my father just went into diabetic shock since he cant afford his medication. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That's right, it's time to BUY US A PARK, BIATCH!
CobnatDoesn’t your father have a job/pension? I am sure that without heavy handed taxes he would be able to afford medication and as for the park, if there is 100 square metres of park land and there are over 100 people willing to buy the park (since you, Civ, Slade and Jordan all want to preserve parks regardless of your different political beliefs then I am coming to the conclusion that there are many people who want to preserve parks) then I am sure there would be no problem with buying the park.
J m HofMarNAlso the idea that in order for libertarianism to work people will have to band together and form communes or soviets is pretty much what already happened:
Industrial Europe, 1800s:
Ruling class: Woohoo! No regulation. Let's open an orphanage/factory and have the orphans make neat stuff we can sell, then take up donations for said orphans, and feed them on the table scraps bought with the sale of their manufactured goods and the donations that we dont decide to keep.
Proletariat: Hey, could you, like, ya know... Pay us more than a penny a day?
Orphans: Hey, maybe someone should regulate these people, like, say, a strong central government?
Orphans and Proletariat: Hey, what if we formed groups called communes and regulate them ourselves?
Communists: We'll regulate them. Regulate them with a GUN!
Government: Holy fuck, if we don't start regulating these jackasses and form a strong central government, the communists might regulate us next. Let's become a welfare state so they dont shoot us!
J m HofMarNSo basically Cobnat you're assuming that, rather than this affect which was observed, I dunno... Everywhere? What will happen is that the corporations will have the good sense to regulate themselves in response to the threat of the rising labor movement? That by eliminating the only possible mediator (the national government) the two sides will, by virtue of your magical ten percent tax rate, come to a sensible and peaceable understanding?
CobnatWithout workers, businesses are nothing. Without businesses, workers are nothing. Yes, I do believe that those who serve the economy are not idiots, regardless of where they are on the economic ladder.
Also, Europe in the 1800s were different times, with different systems. Monarchy, illiteracy and the Caste system are dead, now we have free speech, industrial philosophy and many more things to guide us if we are to fall on hard times, our forefathers had nothing, they were abused by the system but they soon learnt. Again I mention that there wasn’t a lack of regulations in the past, there was only a certain system and that system soon fell after the corporates realised that the people wouldn’t stand anymore.
J m HofMarNThe corporations win out and assrape the working class without any lubricant. Then the working class finally has enough and kills fawking everybody (Russian revolution)
CobnatThe reason of the Russian revolution was because of the short-sightedness of the Czarists during the 1860s when they introduced emancipation without forth thought and in effect made millions of peasant homeless because the landlords were not willing to pay the serfs anymore. If libertarian (or any other government) is introduced tomorrow, it will be economic anarchy, I am against that, I believe in moderation, if you had bothered to read my previous posts you would know that.
J m HofMarNThe weak government can't manage the country in any way, the proletariat become disaffected with the wealthy and the government, and someone pops up and points out that, hey, maybe if there was a really, really strong government things would be just nifty. (Guess.)
CobnatI believe in week national government, I believe in a decentralized government, I believe that people should be in charge of their own fates.
J m HofMarNThe business interests pretty much openly take over the government and the people are left to starve horribly. (Cuba from 1890-11950s)
CobnatPoor people in Cuba didn’t own their own land back then, they still don’t but for different reasons now.
People in Cuba have healthcare and free schools. Do they have food? Do they have money to buy food? Is there not an increasing black market in Cuba? What is the point of free hospitals and schools when you are and your family is slowly starving?
J m HofMarNAs you can see all of these scenarios led in some way to a form of socialism with a strong government. When it comes to government the meek shall not inherit the earth.
CobnatNo one believes it until it is done. Before Beethoven, no one believed that a deaf person could write a symphony, I am sure that no one even thought about it, until it happened.
J m HofMarNThe examples of the Western economies such as the US should be noted. They were very much laissez faire, but look what happened:
J m HofMarNThe US was forced into legalizing unions. Then anarchists and communists started to get pissed because more wasnt being done. The pressure by anarchists, communists and unionists would have overthrown a weak, decentralized (libertarian) government, but the US government was fairly strong and willing to enact reforms. So now we have a moderate welfare state, but only because the government was capable of at least making a token attempt at regulation.
CobnatThe will of the people was done. Look, I am not for enforcing a libertarian government on people. I believe that when the people are ready then they themselves will enact libertarian reforms.
J m HofMarNPure laissez faire economics is unsustainable. The only way I can see it surviving, and this is a hellish scenario, is as an oligarchy wherein a strong central government is wholly devoted to the idea of laissez faire economics for their rich patrons who help said government with "donations". This pretty much describes a lot of the old monarchies that did indeed last for quite some time, but made life hell for the poor and crushed any opposition.
CobnatI believe in government control, that is to say that I believe in local government control. The people would come together and create their own economic systems.
civilian_number_twoOh but don't worry JM. The army may have tanks, rockets, advanced training, and most imoportantly communication and a chain of command, but the average citizen can buy a rifle, so the entire military machine is shaving in fear of civilian militias. So, uh, tyrrany is no longer possible, don't you know.
J m HofMarNOh of course. The militias can beat the military because they pay low taxes.
Seriously, I don't care how little funding you give your army. Unless you purposely buy them defective weapons and vehicles they're still going to have a pretty big advantage over disorganized civilian militias.
I'm not sure just how far Cobnat is talking about deregulating arms sales. Maybe he means that every person should be able to just buy a howitzer. That might pose some degree of deterrent to the military....... as well as to, ya know, anyone who happens to be walking within a mile of the crazy howitzer owning person's house.
And something tells me that if I'm a military general and I feel like having some tyranny, a strong central government that can hold me responsible is going to be more of a worry than some rednecks with guns and camo overalls.
But again I forget to factor in the low taxes, which will solve that whole problem.
CobnatOh bloody hell. Have you two looked at the war in Sierra Leone? It was possible for a poorly armed militia to fight against a standing army with mercenary backing. The war lasted 10 years and only ended because both sides agreed to settle their disputes in government.
This post has been edited by Cobnat: 13 October 2007 - 03:58 AM