Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:58:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> > Either way, if not handled properly Libertopia would be a lot worse before
> > it started becoming better.
>
> Very likely, depending on implementation, and how you, as an individual
> are currently living. It will be bad for some and good for others. Mankind
> has suffered since it began, because there have always been those who acted
> irresponsibly (didn't respect other people's rights). Its gotten really out
> of hand (1) from all this responsibility being shifted around and the
> trampling of rights, and might need to "hit bottom" before it can progress.
What I'd really like to see is some sort of.. visualised plan. Like - stage 1,
remove some taxes, implement dollar for dollar tax credit charity.. this is
what we expect to happen, what has happened? If different then replan. Stage 2,
abolish some laws.. infrastructure is still stable enough to cope with
drug-barons trying to take over cities etc, etc.. when anarchy hasn't broken
out move to stage 3 etc...
Whether or not I'd agree with it, it would make me feel a lot more confident if
I could read such a document!
I suppose they have already considered something similar to this, but reading
their platform doesn't fill me with that confidence.
> A country thats been acting irresponsibly, more or less, for 200+ years
> (in a world thats been doing so for thousands of years) can make changes for
> the better or for the worse. If they choose changes for the worse, the
> unknown bottom comes closer (3), but changes for the better make the bottom
> farther away.
Hopefully we won't have to reach our bottom during any transitional phase as
that could get messy.
Not least because of its destabilising nature - an unstable bottom could
create a odoriferous problem for the Libertarian party, as it would provide the
ideal climate for another party with sweet-smelling hollow policies to appeal
to public concern and clean up.
> Its possible this country could make some good changes without having a
> terrible bottom,
must.. practice... self.. censorship... erk!
> or it could be like the fall of Czarism,
> or Communism or any other, very bad. The fact remains, that the government,
> that is the people, are being irresponsible, and they themselves may not
> have to pay for it, but eventually someone will (we all are, terribly, not
> just the poor, but I doubt you'd see that).
Why do you say that? Everyone suffers from a badly implemented system, and
sometimes some more than others.
At present being in government means lots of power, and little responsibility.
It seems to me to be completely the wrong ratio.
> Its a problem that will never go
> away until its addressed, and in my mind, the sooner it is the better. It
> could go on like this for another million years, if no one sees and does
> things to correct the visible (to how many?) flaw, instead of just adapting
> the tried and failed every once in a while.
Ah, I see.. Libertarianism certainly gives people responsibility, and they have
a financial incentive to take it.. but there are other ways to induce
responsibility, I think Jasper mentioned one - community.
A small example of which is the way that people regulate themselves here -
no one is paying them to do so.
> That got a little longwinded. My point was that if we are going to
> change over to being responsible individuals, we are going to have to suffer
> giving up the comforts we know (those of us who do know them) from being
> irresponsible individuals.
I'd say we have to be prepared to suffer sacrifices, whether it comes to that
or not depends on the details of the implementation.. another reason why I'm
interested in seeing them!
> The ultimate crux is what is each individual
> in the system responsible for? What is too much responsibility? What is
> not enough? The only answer is total responsibility for one's self. No
> more, no less.
Ah, so if school tax was rephrased as the school fees you benefitted from
dispersed throughout your life, they would be acceptable?
> > Ah, so the charities are like a mini dollar-electable government?
>
> Not quite, they'd be charities, not government. No mix up there.
I think my point was who decides what the charities spend their money on? If
Charity 1 pays 10% to A, 6% to B etc.. then all that is created is an army of
mini-governments receieving donations (tax) and doling it out as they
internally decide.
It seems logical to me to conclude that that could end up creating more
red-tape than the existing government. Ie. less efficient as they wouldn't be
opeerating any economies of scale.
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
