Lanval wrote:
The problem with this is that you're picking and choosing which regulatory/gov't agencies you like/dislike on an irrational basis: The ones you think we need. It doesn't work that way. Fire code, building code, food code, restaurant code ~ it's all gov't agencies. You don't get to pick ones you like, while telling other people to go jump in a lake. It's a democracy; if the majority agree it's a good idea, we do it.
Way off Mike, sorry. This is a major twist of things.
First of all, you call his method irrational, I actually think most of your post is irrational. What is wrong with him picking what agencies he wants to contribute to? Did you ever hear of freedom? And, let's step out of doublethink, every agency in place and every action they are doing IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE MAJORITY. You yourself said in another post that when guys like Obama get in they find out others know more. Please don't try to build and back your case with lies. I am going to call you out on it.
Lanval wrote:
FWIW, there's a recent news story about a guy who had to watch his house burn while the FD protected his neighbor's house. That's because they have a Libertarian type system in some areas. You pay for fire protection; you don't want to pay, you don't have to; BUT the FD won't stop your house from burning down. Guess what? Mr. Libertarian "I don't want to pay for services I don't use" got to watch his house burn because he forgot to pay. Guess that whole "responsibility thing doesn't work so well.
How on earth is that an example of the "responsibility thing not working". And, remember, we aren't promising a tooth fairy or Santa, we never said everything would be 100% perfect. What will it take for you to stop attempting to knock Libertarianism by finding any little thing that didn't come out perfect in your mind?
Lanval wrote:
Excerpt: "In April, the FDA cracked down on an Amish raw milk producer for selling its product across state lines without proper labeling, both of which are in violation of federal law. This predictably led to cries of "big government" telling people what they can and cannot eat. But given the effects of the deadly microbe that has been creeping across Europe's food supply, the FDA's decision is looking very responsible."
There are times when people have gotten harmed by the FDA's decision. Just because some people somewhere may actually be helped by it, is no justification to remove freedoms from people and to subjugated us back to a gov. So the people don't get to play god with there life, the government does instead? Where on earth do you get this stuff from?
Lanval wrote:
And finally, another discussion about this sort of problem via BoingBoing.net. A restaurant in SF was selling cricket tacos (blech!) which they were importing from Mexico. They weren't approved or checked, and some people thought that's another example of gov't getting in the way of business. Since, however, we routinely find high levels of lead in Mexican produced candy (i.e. stuff we're supposed to be able to eat), I don't exactly trust the crickets to be pesticide free. Your suggestion is to let them sell it, and caveat emptor. OK ~ are you going to be the one telling some guy in the ER that we're not going to let his kid die because he chose to feed the kid dangerous foods in spite of clear warnings that it was dangerous? I don't want to do that. I suspect you don't either.
Again, same thing. Hey, some kids have gotten sick from mercury in shots the FDA approves of. Not 100% perfect, everyone in the gov must be arrested?? Why do you use things like that as basis for freedom being taking away just because there was A instance of imperfection? Sorry dude, the world ain't perfect, try again for the reason I can't be in charge of my life?
Lanval wrote:
Almost my entire critique of Libertarian ideology and practice could be boiled down that point: Libertarians believe that people will operate ethically and take personal responsibility for what they do? When has that ever happened, in the history of the US? Of the world? Never. Some people do, maybe more than half; but the other half? Man, they are cheating, planning scheming, stealing and abusing like it's their job. Which in a sense it is, because if you can steal from others, that's how you get money.
Libertarians are idealists, not pragmatists. It's beautiful, but it's not real, and won't work, unless you can change how people function.
Mike
Practically the opposite, your view thinks gov will always know best, and will always act best, yet you also tells us the gov is made up of us people, people you say do not do the right thing. But you want to give the monopoly of power to people? Instead of us being in charge of things like what food we eat, you want to turn it over to people who have power? Have you thought about that much?
When has people taken personal responsibility? Each and everyday, it is all around us. It happens over, over, and over again. All day long people do this when there is no law enforcement in site, people take personal responsibility for there actions and act ethnically. Now I see alot of corruption in government? Oh, that's right, government is people too.
If you would have addressed the question I brought up the last time you tried a similar argument maybe it would have saved some typing.
Your belief's why it is better, in fact your basis for what is better, seems to bring up questions. I asked them before, you never replied. Here is an example. There are plenty of birds outside, and, you know what, I don't intervene with them much at all, and my neighbor doesn't either, except for the variety called chickens. He has built a coup, and he is constantly making decisions for them, how to keep them healthy, etc, etc. Why is it he feels he needs to intervene? Is there a goal? In other words, he wants eggs from them, he considers them his, he is making all these decisions for them because he wants to gain from them, he has a plan, a vision, a mission. When you speak and attempt to explain things, it would make sense, if we were considered someones property, or if someone had an endgame, a desired outcome. So I ask you, What is plan? What is the vision? Why is it someone must take away our freedoms to reach something? What are we trying to reach? Whose set the goal?
You constantly compare systems based upon which one has achieved better. Well, better in whose vision of the world?