News:

"At the teaparties they only dunked bags into cups of water...because they didn't want to break the law. And that just about sums up America's revolutionary spirit."

Main Menu

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

Started by navkat, July 01, 2009, 02:01:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 07:27:31 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:26:25 PM
That bears no resemblance to what I just said. But whatever.


But it is the result of what you said.

No, its the result of your interpretation and reduction of what I said... What I said had to do with where people lived in relation to other people, not how much money they made. Ass.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:30:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:26:25 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:06:08 PM
One more thing Rat:

You said "I think people should pay for what they use, or choose."

If that was the setup, you do realize a lot of people would choose to opt out of what they in fact use, right?  

Well if the setup were that single sentence, sure. One would think however, that the actual implementation would include more than a single sentence from a internet forum, which might actually address the details of fair use and paying for what you use.

Or we would just use a single sentence and draw all of our conclusions from that.  :fnord:

Look, you're the one who said "use or choose".  My point is that there is a significant difference and that it would have to be one or the other.  If you give someone the option to opt out based upon what they use or to opt out based upon what they choose.  A lot of people will pick the latter, and a lot of them will choose to opt out of services they indeed use.  

In other words, why don't you clarify, do you want it based upon what they use or what they choose?  Which one is it?  

It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.

Again, you get into the area of someone choosing not to support something that they aren't using at the time, but, eventually end up using.  How do you address that?  The government sends everyone a bill? 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
No, its the result of your interpretation and reduction of what I said... What I said had to do with where people lived in relation to other people, not how much money they made. Ass.

Yes, because only rich people "choose" to live off the grid.

And the government would care why something wasn't paid, right?  Instead of just, you know, not giving a shit.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.

Again, you get into the area of someone choosing not to support something that they aren't using at the time, but, eventually end up using.  How do you address that?  The government sends everyone a bill? 

Like they end up using money for green research, that they didn't pay into? Or they end up taking money from the ecology fund? Or.... your worried about someone addicted to drugs not paying into your job fund?

If its the first two, I'm at a loss as to what they'd be doing there. If its more like the last one, there are many ways that it could be covered, my personal preference would be that it gets covered in health insurance, either health insurance your employer has on you, or national health insurance that the government offers. If you have no health insurance at all, because you elected not to pay into it... well you're a dumb ass and I don't really give a shit if you're on PCP and need help... maybe some private group will give you a grant to go get help.

There is a huge difference between having shared social responsibility and thinking that every last breathing bag of water must get everything they could possibly want or need. People should be responsible for their decisions. If a spag has the option for Private or National health care and his self-preservation is non-existent, then his heart transplant and drug treatment program should also be non-existent. Helping a fellow human out is, in my opinion, a duty for me... helping every human out with every problem they get themselves into... is not. At some point they have to be responsible for their choices... not based on income as Roger hallucinates I think... but based on the choices available to them.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 07:48:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
No, its the result of your interpretation and reduction of what I said... What I said had to do with where people lived in relation to other people, not how much money they made. Ass.

Yes, because only rich people "choose" to live off the grid.

And the government would care why something wasn't paid, right?  Instead of just, you know, not giving a shit.


Well, I was particularly thinking of my family. My grandmother who still uses her outhouse and thunderbucket because they have no indoor plumbing. My great aunt who sleeps on cornshuck, and has a dirt floor.... and most of the people in the area I grew up in. They're not rich, they fucking poor, seriously, seriously, poor. And they tend to do damn well on their own. Not every 'off grid' individual is rich. Hell, most of the people I've corresponded with about off grid living (earthships etc) aren't rich either. In many cases they simply wanted to live alone and off grid saves lots of $$$.

But, feel free to interpret this as you wish, cause you will anyway.  :wink:

- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 08:01:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.

Again, you get into the area of someone choosing not to support something that they aren't using at the time, but, eventually end up using.  How do you address that?  The government sends everyone a bill? 

Like they end up using money for green research, that they didn't pay into? Or they end up taking money from the ecology fund? Or.... your worried about someone addicted to drugs not paying into your job fund?

Thank you for assuming my question is selfishly motivated.  I think I'm done with this conversation. 

Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

navkat

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 06:12:27 PM


Well I think there are several opportunities to improve the current system. One idea, as I stated earlier is to let citizens have some self-determination in how their taxes are spent.

This while tantalizing, would unfortunately never work for the same reason we have a democratic republic and not just a flat-out democracy: It's mob-rule. It's three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. We'd get a lot of "trendy" spending and legislative impulse buying. You think MSNBC and Fox News are like huge political commercials NOW? Heh.

Quote
Another option, now that its possible, is to have some sort of interactive solution between the representative and the constituents, where the representative can see in real time (as can the constituents) how the people being represented feel about the issue being voted on and then people could see if their representative was really listening to his people, doing whatever he wanted or maybe voting in line with some back room deal rather than in line with the people he represents.

Any system which provides more input from the populace, more accountability to the representative etc. would be fantastic.

I'm all for this ANYWAY. If they're going to lay the whole "times have changed, advances in technology means unchartered territory for legislation" nonsense on us re: net neutrality, spying, medical records, REAL ID, et al, then they need to get onboard with some sort of technology-based accountability system.


Quote
I think a republican system could work, if most of the issues were dealt with at a state level and the Republic only dealt with serious issues of national impact... rather than Terri Schivo's feeding tube, marijuana usage by cancer patients etc. IF the republic tried to govern as little as possible, mostly acting to step in when a State couldn't find a solution, or when someone's civil/human rights are being violated... then I think it would be great.

Well put.

QuoteHowever, thats not what we have today. What we have today is a House/Senate that would love to have their fingers in every pie and do so at any opportunity.

If MOST issues were handled at a State level, if MOST taxes were paid at a State level  then I think individuals would have a lot more say in how money gets spent, in how issues get settled and overall more control of their own government.

If we had this, we wouldn't NEED to have say in how the money gets spent. The republic would work how it's supposed to work. The representatives would be have no leg to stand on if their consensus reports said "The people want x, y, and z" and they went off like a loose cannon doing whatever they pleased.

However, here's a little poo-ball of thought for the day: How the fuck are We The People supposed to give a shit when technically, by law the electoral college can vote however the fuck they damned well regardless of how the popular vote turns out?

There ARE hypocrisies in the system. I'm afraid we might just be indelibly fucked.

LMNO


Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 08:01:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.

Again, you get into the area of someone choosing not to support something that they aren't using at the time, but, eventually end up using.  How do you address that?  The government sends everyone a bill? 

Like they end up using money for green research, that they didn't pay into? Or they end up taking money from the ecology fund? Or.... your worried about someone addicted to drugs not paying into your job fund?

Thank you for assuming my question is selfishly motivated.  I think I'm done with this conversation. 



That is not how I meant that to be stated. Please accept my apology, it was a very poor choice of words.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Cain

Only when The State starves you.  If its inherent in the (market) system, its OK.

navkat


Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 08:14:55 PM
Is, "I'm fucking starving to death" a civil liberty issue?

It's a civil rights issue.

Correct. One must have food if they are to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO


AFK

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 08:01:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 10, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
It's both.
Some things we USE like roads, fire depts, EMS, etc everyone can pay in because everyone uses them
Some things we could CHOOSE to support, like green energy research, some people choose to pay because they think its a good idea, some people choose not to, because they think its a waste of money.

Again, you get into the area of someone choosing not to support something that they aren't using at the time, but, eventually end up using.  How do you address that?  The government sends everyone a bill? 

Like they end up using money for green research, that they didn't pay into? Or they end up taking money from the ecology fund? Or.... your worried about someone addicted to drugs not paying into your job fund?

Thank you for assuming my question is selfishly motivated.  I think I'm done with this conversation. 



That is not how I meant that to be stated. Please accept my apology, it was a very poor choice of words.

it's cool. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

navkat

Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
So, should the State provide food to starving citizens?

No. But this is where I agree with Roger that the rules of the game should not be so slanted that all the food ends up in the lap of those who have a majority of the food already.

navkat

In other words: you can't just take it away from the haves and give it to the have-nots, you have to set up a system where ALL persons have the opportunity to go get some and the odds are not so stacked against them that it's damned-near impossible to succeed on hard work and basic ability.