221–230 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the way, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same.
To me, I agree, but I've heard some of them draw a distinction I don't fully understand and I try to be respectful of identifying people in the way they choose to be identified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is indeed exactly what I meant. That said, I think the difficulty found in the amendment process is an indicator that the founders intended the government to move far more slowly than it does, which leads one to believe they wanted less laws than more. Just an opinion there, but it is (I think) a fairly well supported one.
> an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas." > they wanted less laws than more This works for you because you want less laws than more. I think that the amendm…
Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it.
Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter?
> This works for you because you want less laws than more.
Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization.
> They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them
This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.
Very good speech and an important national dialog to spark. I'd like to call attention to one thing though: "I don't believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth." This demonstrates a basic confusion that we Americans have about ourselves, even most "lefties" and "libertarians": The false belief that we live in a free market economy. The truth is, the state plays a m…
Why don't we go back to funding moonshot projects instead, then? Let's see Apollo Program/Human Genome Project-level spending on Next-generation sequencing (protein and RNA included), novel propulsion engines for deep space probes, battery research, materials, etc. If we spent the same money on pressing problems, we could support the science and tech sectors all the while doing incredible societal good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm torn here. If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices. For example: If I want to buy ethical foods, I'd rather shop at a place where all these criteria are enforced. It would be mind-numbingly draining to have to make all these choices myself. Frankly, I would tune out. In a libertarian society, every person would need to be educated on fo…
>> I'm torn here That's good. You're sensing that something is wrong. >> If you insist everyone make every moral choice for themselves, then we will be unable to maximize the "right" choices Why would "we" need to "maximize" the right choices? Who's we anyway? Aren't we all just individuals, with our own goals and desires that are constantly changing anyway? Who's anyone to "maximize" the "rightness" of your choices,…
What happens when someone realises your house is on top of a nice mineral deposit but can't give you sufficient value to vacate your property and decides to burn it down in the middle of the night?
What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right?
"...because you know when people get to the end there's always the brick." Chilling.
Can you imagine someone saying that about immigration? They would almost certainly be locked up in the UK.
There is a double standard where saying "X will lead to violence, but I am just warning you, I don't want to see it happen" is allowed for some, but not others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2012 US GDP was 15.68 trillion. The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6% of the economic activity in the country. Depending on how you measure, you can quibble with this exact choice of numbers, but no matter how you fiddle you're not getting out of the Federal government being a huge part of the economy directly. State and local gov…
I agree with your views regarding less government being a good thing. Just in case some take pride in the number you provided I want to take a moment to put it into some context. > The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6% We thankfully have a canonical example that exposes just how bad government can be: Obamacare. Government is the only…
Well, I don't know.
The private sectors seems willing to pay 3 BILLION DOLLARS for a BS message/photo sharing app (Snapchat) that one could have built in 6 months with 2-3 man years of effort.
Compared to the trivialness of that, the healthcare website is rocket science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas." > they wanted less laws than more This works for you because you want less laws than more. I think that the amendm…
> "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid . Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it. Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing th…
Are you the person I previously had a discussion about originalism with on here? I linked Posner for someone a month or two ago; might have been you.
/does search
Yeah. We didn't come to any agreement. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the thing you don't understand: Yes, conservatives do want the poor to suffer, because they think the poor are poor because they're too lazy to work hard and overcome their poverty. Making them suffer is the only way to make them contribute to society, in their view. Also, yes, as a liberal, I do want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. That is exactly what I want to do. Wha…
One of the most honest comments in the entire thread. The problem is, both sides don't want to admit this. The conservatives because it makes them out to be assholes (and they'd never win another election again). The liberals because they think they'll lose the argument if they say they want income redistribution--everyone will jump on them and call them (unfairly) socialists or communists (yes, I know they're differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student. The system is a disaster, with a lot of for profit schools slashing costs to maximize profits regardless of what the consequences are for the students. And that's just one of the many failures of the system. Basically, th…
>You have to some how get the markets to stop chasing profits There is another solution. You could set up the markets so that the way to maximize profits is to create the best solution. For example, imagine if we had a perfect measure of student outcome. You could make the school's pay dependent on their outcome, then the market will find a way to maximize the f(outcome)/cost.
The obvious solution: more tests, and more bureaucracy. By the time you've got enough tests you might as well have a state-run school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To defend the free market position though I don't agree with it, an evil party can be elected in those countries who could purposely mismanage the welfare state and destroy it. Then they point to the ruins and say look this doesn't work adopt our new evil system. Canada and UK try to do this whenever an ultra conservative local or national gov is elected. They can purposely fuck it all up with a wave of the hand whic…
Huh? When was the last film or book banned in a Nordic country?