41–50 of 54 posts
The road trips are always about the heroic actions of people like Ken Kesey and Neal Cassady and their amazing automobiles, right? Never, never did it get told that those road trips were only made possible by Eisenhower’s completion of the highway system. That's interesting. Because Cassady and Kerouac's road trips in "On the Road" happened in 1947, 1949, and 1950 [0]. Construction of the Interstate Highway System di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an odd argument to make against libertarians when libertarians support defense spending as a key role of government. The Highway Interstate system was driven mainly by defense needs. It's also known as the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Where does a libertarian draw a clear line between defense and non-defense spending? Couldn't food stamps be considered a defense policy if it ensures an able bodied population of potential conscripts? Where is the philosophical line?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
And that was a mistake? I don't see the principle that can stand against any regulation no matter how ill-advised when the counter argument is "you must hate highways and the internet". It's a great argument against someone who demands no regulations or laws, sure.
No, not really. Playing Devil's advocate, if a thief robs a lot of money along the years, and the donates part to charity, must you hate charity to oppose the thief?
That argument is only valid if we assume that ends justify the means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is government activity labeled 'intervention' and private sector activity not labeled as such?
Because government activity is generally mandated (both in the sense that they can compel people to change their behavior or that people can't refuse to contribute money towards government endeavours), while private sector activity is generally optional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because government activity is generally mandated (both in the sense that they can compel people to change their behavior or that people can't refuse to contribute money towards government endeavours), while private sector activity is generally optional.
You are by no means forced to participate in any government activity (at least since the draft ended).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of libertarian rhetoric, but are actual libertarians really widespread in the Valley? To me it comes across as a loud but very small minority— albeit perhaps also one that's disproportionately represented among those at the very top (perhaps part of why it's so loud). Someone like Peter Thiel might be a libertarian-conservative politically, but the average middle-class techie seems more like a middle-of…
There's a lot of liberal-tarian people, like myself, they are skeptical of many East Coast Liberal ideas, while still wanting the government (perhaps city, not fed/state gov't) help the poor, provide free education / healthcare, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a few individuals own all the land other individuals have to choose between selling themselves short for others' gain, or starving. The whole anti-authoritarian thing goes out the window when property laws need enforcement.
this is truly the essence of the entire debate, I wish it was discussed more
But most right-wingers consider property something like a god-given right (usually called "natural rights"), which makes discussion as impossible as trying to convince an young-earth creationist of evolution.
(Though to be fair, not everyone in that side of the field believes the same. Mises is particular wrote that property is just an human device, "it is not sacred". Which makes for a good laughs when you point it out, along with the fact that Ron Paul is a supporter of the Von Mises Institute, in one of those right-wing discussion forums).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does a libertarian draw a clear line between defense and non-defense spending? Couldn't food stamps be considered a defense policy if it ensures an able bodied population of potential conscripts? Where is the philosophical line?
Why do you believe there must be a line? Eve right-wing libertarians have widely different opinions about the proper role of the State, or even its existence. In any case, I'd say most are not in favor of conscription itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are by no means forced to participate in any government activity (at least since the draft ended).
People in the US are now forced to buy health insurance (or pay a fine/tax).
Then you're not forced into one course of action.