Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[navkat]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

This is an example of why Anarchism works, but anarcho capitalism doesn't.  If you get your toys from Bernie the toymaker, you can be pretty sure about his paint.  If your cottage cheese comes from the farmer down the lane, you can be pretty sure of it.  government or no government.

Not necessarily true. There was a REASON why meat-inspection and labor-laws came about when they did. Remember: when Teddy Roosevelt initiated those measures, things like meat were still fairly locally traded. Plant managers simply didn't care and the public had no other options-such was industry standard.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

I don't understand what the argument is here. You aren't saying anything he hasn't already covered...or did I miss something?

Hope that helps you.

[navkat]

As much as I hate to admit it; Progressives like Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR fostered in some useful and damned necessary functions.

I'm also not too obtuse to admit that on some level; I'm sure there was foot-dragging and dissent when a lot of things we take for granted as societal no-brainers were introduced. We learned to accept them, learned to appreciate them and finally: came to take them for granted as common sense. Such may indeed be the way of centralized healthcare...on the other hand: it might not.

There are aspects of every single restrictive government agency that are inconsistent, unfair and downright corrupt. There are two schools of thought on this:
1. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, just work out the kinks. It takes time.
2. The Government shouldn't be taking on anymore bullshit that the free-market can handle until it starts managing the shit it's already got that's broken. At least with free-market, you've got SOME buyer power, but once the Government takes over, you're stuck with it until the Government feels good and ready to get off its ass and make slow-as-molasses changes.

I tend to go with the latter, obviously.

Here's where I am feeling out a personal dividing line:
When: "We can't just let corporations run around like crazy, taking advantage of The People whenever they want! People are getting HURT!"

starts to become: "We can't just let The People run around like crazy doing whatever they want! People are getting HURT!"
that's where I start to have a problem.

The tricky part is where to actually DRAW that line.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the most simple line is to have a government that provides information and opinion in a least-baised fashion. No enforcement, just 'Here's all the info'.

"The company XY Toys uses lead paint. This might make your kid stupid and sterile. Just thought you'd like to know."
"The company XY Foods has unsanitary conditions in their meat processing facilities, they don't even wash the poo off the meat before they grind it into hamburger. You might want to consider that."
"The company XY Investments has no actual products and makes money based off of a Ponzi scheme, any investment you make is likely to be worth $0. Do with this information as you wish."
"Tobacco can cause the following terrible ailments. Trust us, you don't want lung cancer."
"Marijuana can cause the ... err, you will get the munchies if you smoke it."
etc etc etc

Then if people ignore the information, fuck em. If they look at the info and say "Oh but I always make my hamburgers well done and that cooks the poop out of the patty, well then good for them... err. If they continue to smoke, then they get sick and die. If they continue to invest, then they lose money. If they continue to buy lead painted toys... then they won't have grandkids and I can't say that popping them out of the gene pool is a bad idea.

In short, a government that made sure the people were fully informed and still allowed them to make their own decisions, would be pretty useful.

[Cain]

Except of course, in those cases where people didn't find out due to simple bad luck or isolation or some sort of mistake where the product was released before the safety information was, or they didn't believe it and fed/gave it to other family members anyway.  Kids aren't in a position to make rational choices or do their own shopping, being the most glaring and obvious example of where this would fail.

[navkat]

Except of course, in those cases where people didn't find out due to simple bad luck or isolation or some sort of mistake where the product was released before the safety information was, or they didn't believe it and fed/gave it to other family members anyway. 

Even more the reason to rely on yourself. That shit happens NOW.

Kids aren't in a position to make rational choices or do their own shopping, being the most glaring and obvious example of where this would fail.

Agreed. I'm all for child protectionist laws...within reason. "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?" LOL.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Except of course, in those cases where people didn't find out due to simple bad luck or isolation or some sort of mistake where the product was released before the safety information was, or they didn't believe it and fed/gave it to other family members anyway.  Kids aren't in a position to make rational choices or do their own shopping, being the most glaring and obvious example of where this would fail.

Welcome to reality.

Humans do stupid shit because they don't know better and/or don't believe 'THEM' all the time... right now. Government cannot fix stupid... and I don't think it should.

[fomenter]

See, to me, I would consider that conservative liberalism, with the emphasis on liberal side of the equation (I would call it classical liberalism, but libertarians have hijacked that term as well).  When you read guys like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Benjamin Franklin, in their entirety, not the cherry-picked quotes used by various libertarian partisans, you get a point of view which advocates markets, but only so far as they promote wealth for the majority.  I think it was Jefferson who said "legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."  He also sought to weaken copyright protection so that monopolies couldn't form.  Things like that, to me, seperate the intentions of the US founders entirely from libertarians, who hold property ownership as a sacrosanct, moral right in and of itself and regardless of the social cost.

this actually makes sense on a political ideology chart i fall in the middle of conservative libertarian,
in the definitions given by the this web page http://www.conservative-resources.com/right-wing-vs-left-wing.html the definitions and what is opposite of what changes and i would fall on the classical liberalism conservative

[Cain]

Agreed. I'm all for child protectionist laws...within reason. "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?" LOL.

Yeah.  I would think there is a significant difference between making sure a child isn't in a position where they can be poisoned by their food and, say, rewriting how the internet works on the off chance little Timmy is going to see a bit of softcore by mistake.

Humans do stupid shit because they don't know better and/or don't believe 'THEM' all the time... right now. Government cannot fix stupid... and I don't think it should.

But it can fix patently dangerous foodstuffs being given to a kid because a company wanted to cut corners.  You know, by actually banning it.  That doesn't fix stupid, but it also makes sure people don't end up dead because of the stupidity of others.

But you know, whats a few dead kids when we can have a more morally perfect political system, right?

[Cain]

Or indeed dead mentally ill, paranoids, illiterates, people who don't own TVs or watch the news or listen to the radio enough...everyone should have the right to be given potentially dangerous foodstuffs because "people are stupid and we can't cure stupidty."  Sure, we could yank the products, but then we'd be hurting freedom.

[BabylonHoruv]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

This is an example of why Anarchism works, but anarcho capitalism doesn't.  If you get your toys from Bernie the toymaker, you can be pretty sure about his paint.  If your cottage cheese comes from the farmer down the lane, you can be pretty sure of it.  government or no government.

Not necessarily true. There was a REASON why meat-inspection and labor-laws came about when they did. Remember: when Teddy Roosevelt initiated those measures, things like meat were still fairly locally traded. Plant managers simply didn't care and the public had no other options-such was industry standard.

yeah, greedy capitalists.  there's a big difference between the farmer down the lane, or your local, worker owned meat cooperative, and a meat packing plant that is owned by one man, run by many others, and serves the greater Chicago area.

[LMNO]

Navkat, I think one aspect that needs to be looked at is the reality of the current political situation.

It's one thing to hold onto an ideology, but if that ideology starts with a complete change of game rules, a grand total of fuck all will get done.

So, you have to look at the current state and manner of government, and start there.  

For example, coal and energy companies are dumping tons of shit into the air, water, and ground.  Global warming arguments aside, there are visible and horrible consequences to that.  So, you might say it would be a good idea for them to cut it out.  But how?  

The conservative position seems to say that cleaner plants would make more money in the long run, and killing the consumer is counter-productive, so eventually the invisible hand will make the companies fall in line.  This isn't happening.

The progressive position seems to say that we should regulate the living fuck out of the companies, forcing them to reduce their emissions or face fines or closure.  This would force many smaller energy companies out of business, causing prices to skyrocket... Not to mention that the lobbyists would never allow it.

So, the solution that sucks the least for everyone seems to be cap-and-trade.  The conservatives are pissed because the companies regulated and it will cost them money if they go over the limit, and the progressives are pissed because it means the more powerful companies will just buy more credits and keep fucking up the environment.  But at least there is a limit, and at least there are economic incentives to cut down emissions.

Government is fucked up in general; but human greed is just as fucked up.  In today's society, it seems like the two are in some sort of death match... But we can't let either one win.

The problem is: it's not going to cost the corporations a goddamned thing. WE are the ones who will start seeing $30 "emissions license acquisition" fees on our energy bills and it will be business as usual for the corporate world. And that's best case scenario (I believe). All this does is FURTHER the separation of US society into a two-class system.

Because it seemed germain to the issue here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/edward-markey/claims-cbo-predicts-cap-and-trade-will-cost-about-/

Responding to Republicans who have said a cap-and-trade bill could cost thousands of dollars a year for the average family, the Democratic sponsors of the bill are citing a new study from the Congressional Budget Office that they say shows their plan will be affordable.

"For the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean-energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas," Rep. Edward Markey said in a June 22, 2009, news release jointly issued with the co-sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman.

Indeed, the report cited by Markey and Waxman predicts the bill would have a net annual economywide cost of $22 billion — or about $175 per household — in 2020. Divide that number by 365 days, and you get about 48 cents. A first-class stamp costs 44 cents, so Waxman is close.

The CBO's estimate includes several assumptions about important decisions that still must be made by Congress, such as how much energy companies will pay to buy and trade polluting credits. But it's worth reading the fine print on this one, because CBO notes that the actual cost per family will vary depending on income. For example, low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while wealthy people will see a net increase for energy costs of $235 to $340 every year. And the analysis does not include the costs or benefits of other parts of the bill, such as government efforts to quickly develop new technology, wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in a June 20 blog post.

[navkat]

From the same article:

Putting a price tag on such a complex plan is tricky and controversial, as we note in our article Your Guide to the Cap-and-Trade Estimates . The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says that cap-and-trade could raise the average family's annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans have said that cap-and-trade could cost consumers up to $3,100, a figure they say came from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. But the writers of that report admonished the GOP for incorrectly interpreting their work; intially, the authors predicted it would cost consumers about $340 annually, and have since updated that estimate to $800.

and:

It's also important to note that the costs will vary year to year. As the bill stands, polluting allowances will initially be given away for free. But by 2035, about 70 percent of those allocations will be sold by the government. Supporters of the bill say federal revenue from the program would be used to pay for tax credits and rebates for the middle class.

CBO chose 2020 as a milestone for its analysis because it's a point at which the program would have been in effect for eight years, giving the economy and polluters time to adjust. But had CBO chosen a later date, the cost per family may have been higher because the government would gradually be charging polluters more.

Waxman and Markey are clear about these variables and omissions in their press statement. They note that the poorest people will gain from the bill, and point out that the study does not include every element that could contribute to cap-and-trade's cost.

But critics are more skeptical of the report. By not including all variables, the CBO report "grossly underestimates costs of cap-and-trade," said a memo from the Heritage Foundation, which has published many articles opposing the proposal. Among other things, Heritage says the study is flawed because it doesn't address economic changes resulting from restricted energy use and potential job losses.

For this Truth-O-Meter item, we are not addressing which study is best, but focusing on whether Markey correctly described the CBO's findings. He was close — off by just 4 cents — and he indicated it was an approximation because he said "about a postage stamp a day." So we find the statement True.

But the real thing I have a problem with is the concept of a Government arbitrarily deciding that something can be treated as a commodity and rationing in this manner. I admit and understand that this is a task-oriented bill whose purpose is to address a specific issue, but I think it crosses an important/dangerous line with regards to the powers of Government regardless of purpose.

Does this mean that Government has the authority to treat usage-blocks of other services as commodities and allocate/tax/ration them in addition to their organic usage-costs? What about internet use? What about waste volume? Radio/television airwave usage? Can they add a tax for new home-builders based on the amount of healthy vegetation that's removed from the planet for driveways and structure area? I mean, if we can be talked into this, how long and how much passage of time until we can be persuaded into granting the Federal Government domain over and authority to restrict/monitor all the minutiae of our lives?

I know that all sounds terribly paranoid to some but I wonder about it. I hope you can see at least an iota of validity to the "mission creep" aspects of Government power and I don't trust the human nature of fallible men (even with the best of intentions) granted these kinds of powers to NOT keep moving that line with our "best interests" at heart. It's certainly tempting to solve a lot of their debt/budget problems with the revenue, no?

[Requia ☣]

Does this mean that Government has the authority to treat usage-blocks of other services as commodities and allocate/tax/ration them in addition to their organic usage-costs? What about internet use? What about waste volume? Radio/television airwave usage? Can they add a tax for new home-builders based on the amount of healthy vegetation that's removed from the planet for driveways and structure area? I mean, if we can be talked into this, how long and how much passage of time until we can be persuaded into granting the Federal Government domain over and authority to restrict/monitor all the minutiae of our lives?

lesse here:

Internet usage they don't tax, but they passed a bill stating they have the right to do so.  Radio and TV is heavily taxed on the broadcaster side for over the air, and on the user side for cable/satellite.  The Satellite's are taxed for airwave usage as well.  Phone's are taxed so heavily that the tax is twice the expense of a phone line for me.  The city charges homeowners here according to the amount of garbage they need to dump (with discounts if you separate out your recyclables), homebuilders would have to pay the same tax (if lower since a builder would probably haul the crap to the dump themselves).

I think its too late to worry about what they might do later.

[navkat]

Does this mean that Government has the authority to treat usage-blocks of other services as commodities and allocate/tax/ration them in addition to their organic usage-costs? What about internet use? What about waste volume? Radio/television airwave usage? Can they add a tax for new home-builders based on the amount of healthy vegetation that's removed from the planet for driveways and structure area? I mean, if we can be talked into this, how long and how much passage of time until we can be persuaded into granting the Federal Government domain over and authority to restrict/monitor all the minutiae of our lives?

lesse here:

Internet usage they don't tax, but they passed a bill stating they have the right to do so.  Radio and TV is heavily taxed on the broadcaster side for over the air, and on the user side for cable/satellite.  The Satellite's are taxed for airwave usage as well.  Phone's are taxed so heavily that the tax is twice the expense of a phone line for me.  The city charges homeowners here according to the amount of garbage they need to dump (with discounts if you separate out your recyclables), homebuilders would have to pay the same tax (if lower since a builder would probably haul the crap to the dump themselves).

I think its too late to worry about what they might do later.

ya got me there.