[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Mr Jones]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/5/10 Mr Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com>:
> > Particularly interesting to me were these few sentences...
> >>
> >> Yes, I believe that coercion
> >> is a prima facie bad.  But I also believe that it is prima facie bad
> >> for people to fail to get what they deserve, or for their basic needs
> >> to be unmet.  These moral beliefs, to my mind, have just as firm a
> >> standing as my opposition to coercion.  I see no reason to believe
> >> that in a conflict between them, the opposition to coercion should
> >> always trump.
> >
> > I agree the govt doesn't get to dig into your pocket for any lil' ole
> thing
> > they want/need/desire.  But until people have their basic needs met,
> society
> > deserves the burden, as a whole.
>
> I agree with this, except for the "as a whole" part. I think there are
> enough generous people, at least in a country like America, to care
> for the truly indigent.


I would love to think that's true.  And if I knew it to be true, I'd be all
for govt being shrunk beyond belief.  But that'd require more than just
meals/shelter for the indigent.  We'd still need roads, water, etc.


> The problem with government is you end up with
> a program like Food Stamps that now serves 35 million people (12% of
> the population). These are not all indigent. I know, I was on Food
> Stamps myself for a while and I was by no means indigent at the time.
> I just qualified for the program. I'm pretty sure I would qualify now.
> I am not indigent, but I could steal money from all of you (at least
> the Americans who pay taxes) by going down and applying.
>

In order to qualify for foodstamps, you've got to have a fairly minimal
income.  A 4 person family (2 adults/2kids) has to have an income under
something like $36k/yr to qualify (not certain, but I'm fairly close I
believe).  That's a pretty low income.  Unless you're living in some crime
ridden inner-city, with horribly performing school systems, you'd have a
hard time getting by.  Is this really how we should expect our families to
live?


>
> > Amass as much capital as your greedy heart
> > desires, once children aren't starving to death because some company like
> > Glencore has found a way to game the system.
> > "Stability is to be prized," said Oxfam's David Green. And that is the
> last
> > thing Glencore wants, as it's instability which is most profitable - for
> > those who have the inside knowledge to exploit it.
>
> I'm not familiar with Glencore, but I probably would not like what
> they are doing. If you have an article to read or something, I'd be
> glad to comment further.
>

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115723149852120.html


>
> > Govt provides a kind of balancing against the power of capital (at least
> > it's supposed to, when working properly).  What we've witnessed the past
> > few'ish decades, is what happens when capital rules the roost
> > semi-unchecked.  De-regulation hands the keys to the inmates.  On the
> other
> > hand, micro-managed regulation mucks things up too; as always there's a
> > balance to be found.
>
> Of course, there is balance. But to say that there are only two
> players, government and corporations, in the game is disingenuous.
>

Fair enough, there are other players.  To think that churches, and lobbyists
(who lobbies for the poor, honestly, who can they afford?), non-profits etc
can take care of the massive amount of underprivileged out there
is disingenuous.  Even WITH the MILLIONS if not BILLIONS the govt throws
towards the poor....they're still poor.  You mean to tell me, that if Uncle
Sam didn't take a few bucks out of each check...all of a sudden these NGOs,
and non-profits would miraculously be able to take care of everyone in need?
 I don't buy it.  Granted I'm a cynic.


> There are a lot more players than that, including lobbyists, churches,
> NGOs, non-profits, charities, professional organizations, unions, etc.
>

It's funny you mention unions.  Seeing as big $$$'d interests are trying to
tear apart any union they can across the land.  Unions lead to a strong
middle class.  Something which I'm fully in support of; as the middle class
goes, so goes the country.  $$$'d interests however, would have us cut off
our nose, to spite our face (starve out the middle class, to increase q1, 2,
3, and 4 profits).  Currently in Ohio, there's rumor that the major
contractors in town (Few big boys, lil' guys starved out by big guys as of
past decade or so) are going to try and get $8/hr back from the Union
Carpenters.  $16k/yr they want to take from these guys.  They're living in
25k sq/ft homes, driving 150k porsches....and they want 16k/yr from the
pockets of the guys who broke their backs to get them that porsche/mansion.

Again, I'm not a hater of the rich, I'm a hater of the poor (hate they even
exist in this day and age).  I don't mind someone with $$$ making much more
off of a group of individuals he pays well.  But pigs get fat, hogs get
slaughtered.  When is enough truly enough?  Does one need enough to support
100 families to feel satisfied?  1000?  1 million?


> All of these play a part, and I argue that some of them should play a
> much bigger part than they do today.


If the part they play, is up to the challenge at hand, by all means.  I
don't care who's putting food in the mouthes, or clothes on the back...


> And government should play a
> smaller part, for sure.


Govt as of late (past few+ decades) has been a joke, I agree.  They don't
need to be in every aspect of our life.  I'm no govt fan-boy I assure you.
 But less than I trust govt...I trust big $$$.  I'd love to think my fellow
humans were empathic and forward-thinking enough to take care of one
another...but that just isn't the case.

And while I don't think we're all created equal, I do believe we all deserve
an equal chance to do something with our life.  Until we provide that equal
opportunity, I'll be unhappy with the way things are.  I realize this means
zero, but can't shake the fact that we're all standing on the shoulder of
giants, and as such, should offer everyone else the opportunity to check out
the view.  </idealistic rant>   ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110511/d93dde87/attachment.html>