On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:14:34 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sounds like me :P I like the broad concept of libertarians but I don't actually think it would be a great overall system. We should limit governments powers but libertarians can go a little too far at times. I also could be talking total crap right now.
The purpose of a democracy is to limit the government to doing things that meet the general approval of the citizens.
Governments don't give a rats about what the people want. They pretend to, then break all their promises .... and then blame other major party. Happens regularly. They are self interested and destroyed by lobbying big business and other organizations that can give enough money to the party for expected favours and benefits.
Democracy doesn't achieve it's goals as well as it should. But that's a lot better than libertarianism achieving any of it's goals.
We have a consititution that can't be easily changed to limit the powers of the government in terms of significant changes to the legal or judicial system. Laws have to be interpreted by the courts and bad laws can by nullified by a jury.
People power, is not near as strong as it should be. For the people by the people ... our constitution makes it clear that the government is to act in our interests. And of course I don't want clueless people dictating to the government either, but there is a place for people to rally for good causes and the government to listen to the will of the people.
It happens too. Remember that we are now in the "good government" stage of Tony Abbot's term as PM - he has implicitely admitted that his previous time in office was one of "bad government".
Prior to the development of modern democratic governments people's lives were run by wealthy and powerful people. The Irish Potato Famine is an example of what happens when the wealthy get most of the things that the Libertarians want. Government was limited and the middlemen who acted on behalf of absentee landlords literally had the power of life and death over the population.
What's changed? If Westfield shopping centres don't have 10 - 12 % turn over of tennants, they haven't put the rent up enough. Rich getting richer, poor shop tennants give up everything they might have left to pay more to the rich owners in lease fees or close shop.
There's a big difference between a shop owner closing up shop and people starving to death in the Irish Potato Famine. That said we need more government controls over such things not less.
Libertarianism was never about allowing middle-class people to do what they want. It was always about facilitating the rich and sociopathic who want to treat everyone else badly. I'm not going to provide links, but a quick google search will turn up self-diagnosed sociopaths expressing admiration for Ayn Rand for her psychopathic personality traits. The fact that people who boast about their desire to hurt other people and admit to acting in a way that is widely regarded as evil admire Ayn so much says a lot about her and the political movement she inspired.
I have no interest in harming anybody, but at the same time, I would like to be more free to do as I please generally, rather than for everything or at least too many things being regulated to a ridiculous level.
You are generally free to do as you please without harming anyone. Of course if you want to use recreational chemicals as you please then you would be better off in Amsterdam. When you find yourself agreeing with the self-diagnosed sociopaths of the Internet then your political ideas probably aren't well described as "no interest in harming anybody".
Now if you want a government that doesn't mess with their citizens much then The Netherlands is a good example. In .nl you can use any drug you like as long as you don't cause problems, marriage equality happened earlier than most countries, and generally there aren't many laws stopping you from doing anything that doesn't hurt other people. Gun ownership is restricted because that DOES hurt other people.
Interesting, but I prefer no drugs and that includes big pharma as well.
You don't HAVE to take drugs in .nl. It's just one aspect of a free society that people have the option to do such things.
I'll make more enemies now, vaccination is a great big industry to support big pharma, I think it is less about helping eradicate disease even if it actually does, that is not the point. The big pharma industry is supported for good or bad and we all pay more for what is needed in this area.
That's because you are very gullible. You believe any conspiracy theory that goes around.
Murray Rothbard (the founder of modern "libertarianism") believes that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death.
I most certainly do not believe that. Perhaps libertarianism is far too strong for my views. But I would like to see the government be there to protect people, but not to persecute them or drive them in to other problems just because they have the power. Laws may need adjustment from time to time, but we don't need new laws being created time and time again -- it can get far too complicated and whilst ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law, a bad law or too many ... and you would need everyone to spend a lifetime just learning the laws.
I agree that the laws are too complex. A large part of that is due to lack of logic when designing laws, often due to bad attempts to impose morality via the legal system. For example the idea of a Basic Income is opposed on moral grounds because people who are less fortunate are regarded as unworthy of assistance. But the research has shown that when people get a Basic Income they usually spend it on education and improve their situation. Keeping people stuck in poverty because of a moral objection to helping them is bad morals and bad economics. Better to help them improve their situation and become taxpayers! If a Basic Income replaced most social security and most tax deductions then the tax laws would be greatly simplified. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/