OK that is interesting, you are the first liberterianism I have interacted with.
I am sorry if this comes of as offensive. If it does, that is not my intension. But I am afraid discussing this would be putting an atheist and a religius person in the same discusson. No matter what the atheist says it will be percieved as a personal attack.
I must say most of my experiance with liberternoanism is two podcasts from NPR. This American Life Act 3 'Or give me death'. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/237/regime-change and a longer podcast freakanomics '10 signs you might be liberterian' http://freakonomics.com/?s=libertarianism I found the consept intriguing from a conseptual perspective. I also think that America needs some form of change as I do not think your country is operating as optimally as it did say 20 years ago. The liberterian movement sound like a change of phase. I also like the idea of having all the liberterians moving to one state and make that the liberterian state sounds like an intriguing consept.
However, my big question is stil what your end goal is? It seems to me that you are looking for the end goal of as much personal freedom as possible. I think the scandinavian countries have that one nailed down, even though we have very big state regulation. The liberterian movement keeps focusing on 'how' instead of 'why' it seems to me. Would you care to comment?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
Blinking Spirit I do not think I mistake freedom with power. In america it does not matter that you can get an edication and have a 'class journey' if you do not have posabilaty to do so.
The ability to do something is what we call "power".
If anything, what you seem to be saying is that a liberterians favoret senario would be to be stuck in an island without anything like robinson cruso.
Not the favorite scenario, but yes, archetypically, the American culture hero would prefer to be poor but independent rather than wealthy but dependent on the government or some other outside entity. Getting rich is nice, but being free is more important. Better to be Crusoe than Faust.
It seems to me that you are looking for the end goal of as much personal freedom as possible. I think the scandinavian countries have that one nailed down, even though we have very big state regulation.
These two sentences are directly contradictory. A state regulation is by definition a limitation on personal freedom.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We do have the devil i Norway. Several versions of him in fact. The Christian one, the old norse mythology one, and the 'folky version' of the christian one. I also apreciate your humor in this discussion.
I would not say state regulation is a robbery of personal freedom. I think in many cases state regulation gives mote personal freedom. Even liberterians would enjoy some form of goverment.
How about roads to drive on? Norway is a very big place with very little people in it.
Internett or regular mail service?
An army to defend your borders?
Someone to stop climate change? It is bad to own a house near the beach of somebody else then you make the sea level rise.
Someone to take care of diplomatic things, aka things that happen beyond your border but stil afects you? In norway we where affected by the chernobyl acident for instance, with nuclear fallout afecting ouer fauna. Somebody has to tell your nabour to take better care of their nuclear reactors.
I like to outsource all of those things to a central person who takes care of that, so that i do not need to spend all day organising it. In Norway that and much more is provided by the state. Also, personaly, i really enjoy free education in a world that keeps getting smaller and looking more like one global village. It gives me a leg up.
Not obly does it give me a leg up. It gives me more freedom. Imagine if nobody thought you hove to read or count, would you be more free?
I would not say state regulation is a robbery of personal freedom.
I didn't say that either. I said it was a limitation on personal freedom. Some limitations on personal freedom are justified. But that doesn't mean they're not limitations on personal freedom. When there's a government regulation saying "You have to do this thing this way", then I have to do that thing that way. I can no longer choose to do the thing some other way, or not to do the thing at all. I have less freedom of action than I did before.
If a hostile army invades your country, your soldiers are going to start shooting at them. Normally we think that shooting at people is bad, but in this case almost everybody would agree that the shooting is justified: the bad act is serving a greater good. What you're trying to say here is like saying that because it's is justified, the soldiers aren't actually "shooting" at all. This is a misuse of the word "shooting", and a potentially dangerous downplaying of the fact that what's happening is still a bad act in its own right and not to be undertaken lightly.
It's not free. Somebody's paying for it. If it's not you, it's somebody else who would otherwise be able to spend that money on themselves and their family. Again, I'm not saying public education isn't justified. Public education is a very good thing. But we shouldn't start pretending it's "free" and lose sight of what actually goes into it. It's a meaningful tradeoff, not magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
Yet again, we need only look to history to see how your idea fares in the real world. There have been numerous attempts at a minimalist, voluntarily funded government. Two with which I am most familiar are the original Icelandic Althing and the United States federal government under the Articles of Confederation. But to avoid turning this into a lecture, let's skip to the end: they don't work too well. It turns out that when people can choose whether to pay or not pay for a service, most of them choose not to pay, at least not in the amounts necessary to fund an effective court system and national defense. This isn't exactly a matter of leaving your waiter an extra $20 in the tip because you're feeling generous, here.
As for your idea of a lottery, two problems. The first is just a revisitation of the problem from last paragraph: it can offset the cost of some small government programs, but you're not going to make enough selling lottery tickets to pay for stuff like $4.5 billion aircraft carriers. The second is that a lottery is an exploitation of public ignorance and addictive behavior. It's almost like you're saying, "Taxes are bad, so let's get everybody hooked on cocaine instead." And where are public ignorance and addictive behavior most acute? That's right, in the lower socioeconomic classes. Not only do these people not have as much money to give you for their fix (getting back to problem one), but what they do give is going to be a larger proportion of their income and therefore do more damage to their lives and prospects.
One way to explain it is that libertarians are opposed to the government being above the law in the following ways: taxation- if a business or an individual were to partake in the forceful redistribution of money to the cause the he thought was worthy of it, he would be considered a thief
Taxation isn't theft. If an individual or business utilized the goods and services of another individual or business the former is entitled to compensation from the latter. You utilize the goods and services of the government, the government demands compensation in the form of taxes. If you were born inside a Walmart, you'd still have to pay for products inside it, no?
Somebody has to pay for that army defending your goverment. Are you gonne support it by bake sales? I know i would not want to be drafted in that army. You are also cherry picking your defense instead of replying to my senarioes. You have not thought this through.
The more i think about this liberterianism the more it sounds like a bad idea. You need some form of regulation.
In universaty (300 democratic culture) we learned that usualy the elite in one country will try to work together with the elite in another country to benefit the two smaller groups, usualy at the cost of the once not in the elite. This often would be private firms running infrastructure. If they can corner a monopoly you have no way to get past paying high prices.
With no goverment you will have no way to protect yourself from cheap competetive labour from the outside. Every itemn will be imported leaving many jobs absolete.
Also a lot of tech companies are working on robots who can replace most menial tasks all the way from taxi, uber self driving card, up to doctor diagnostocian, watson who can diagnose cancer better then humans. Cilicon valey are also learning robots to copy regular body movement meaning all labour like making food, cleaning, doing services can all be gone as jobs in 10 to 100 years. This is a problem even with a state, and a big one without it.
If you remove education people will start getting dumn real fast after some generations. This will make it harder to aford, making a self increasing trend (we already see this in usa today). Over time this will severly limit your countries abilaty to compete in a global enviorment.
With no free press (that needs finacial backing) it is hard to get information that is true. False news, or newss badly reported would be everywhere. The elites in the country would start regulating the news, shaping the public narative like in dictatorships run countries.
Also with no state none will care for the sick. What about abandoned children with no money? They will not survive in an enviorment that is only privatised. And there is no money in privatising orpheneges.
We in Norway based our constetution on the French ideas (same as you) and also on the American constetution. But we have kept updating it as time goes by. Americans seem so star struck by their cinstetution. I will grant you the founding fathers where ahead of their time, but they are getting more and more dates as time goes by. If the founding fathers where alive today, nobody would care what they thought in todays political climate. Their ideas are outdated. Philosephy and ethics have moved on, standing on the shoulders of their ideas. Technology has shaped the world in ways they could not predict. The world has changed.
I am sorry if this comes of as harsh. If so it is not my itension. But this whole liberterian movement seems ill concieved. It has not followed its ideas to completenes, they just dable with some unrealistic utopia. You focus to much on how, instead of the end goal. It seems like a bitter philosefy where you want to go down with the drowning ship as long as it is on your own terms.
This is where you counter with a snappy one liner to feel superior in the debate. Something like 'Freedom is not free'. This is true. That is why all of the social democratic scandinavian countries are paying as much taxed as we can. Because freedom is not free.
My dad owns a Trucking Company. When he and his partner first started, they had a few basic rules, pretty lax place to work, but as the months and years eventually went on, more rules had to be added on either because issues came up, or some of the employees took advantage of freedoms that were given so there had to be restrictions put in place (for instance, lunch was pretty flexible between 11am-1pm, but when everyone took lunch at once, it made responding to customers much, much trickier). It was not corruption, it was not to make the employees have less freedom, it was because the past of pure freedom did not work for the best of the company.
The concept of the "greater good" will always be a point in debate, and could probably use it's own debate thread if someone wants to chat about it, but bringing this back to the actual topic, the problem is that most of your average Libertarians don't care why the government has so many regulations, and while some can probably loosened or amended, the reason they exist is because buisness has proven time, time, and time again that Freedom does have to be restrained, because a perfect Capitalist/Free Market will never exist in this world, as long as humans are a part of it.
One way to explain it is that libertarians are opposed to the government being above the law in the following ways: taxation- if a business or an individual were to partake in the forceful redistribution of money to the cause the he thought was worthy of it, he would be considered a thief, war- war is mass murder and conscription is slavery, why do we tolerate the government doing this and are fine with the government being above the law? I don't know.
Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
What’s circular here is that there is no “law” without “government”. So if you start saying that the government should never be above the law, then you will unfailingly run into contradictions.
Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. All governments, everywhere, in every age. Either the government coerces its people to consent, or it gains that consent as a matter of free will. So “law” then, is a matter of policy enacted by the government. Either it is policy that coerces you into your consent, or it’s a policy that provides benefits to you to the extent that you consent to it over your free will. But government the group association you consent to, and law is what the government does.
But if you do not consent to it, you no longer make up the polity of “the governed”. And finding yourself outside that group of people, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of that group. If there is a law against murder (homicide), and you break that law, you will find yourself in jail under the power of that group. If there is a law in support of murder (war, as you say it), then you might be drafted, and if you refuse that order you will again find yourself at the mercy of the “governed”, with whatever they see fit in the form of law to punish you with.
On the topic of whether “free education” is free, the same concept actually extends to money. Money is the sign of something, it’s not the thing itself. The strength of the sign is related to the government that mints it, both to its overall strength and its policy that either strengthens or weakens a currency. So if you say that nothing a government ever does is “free”, at least by monetary terms, you will run into the same contradiction.
That is a very long-established principle of economics. The only thing that is not subject to government monetary policy are those things not subject to valuation in that currency. You raise beets on your property, they are worth to you what they are worth in your belly. You sell those beets on an exchange denominated in a governments currency, the value of your beets is now tied somewhat to the medium of currency that you use to value it.
That’s where all this Lockean stuff comes from. There was an era, particularly strong in the US, where labor of that nature was worth something intrinsically. There was a lot of undeveloped land that offered benefits to those who labored to develop it. Their labor was theirs by nature, and the fruit of their labor was theirs as of natural right. Now, try applying that same concept to how a government administers wages and other expenses within its educational system, and you’ll find that the monetary expression of value is not nearly as closely tied to anything of natural value.
In universaty (300 democratic culture) we learned that usualy the elite in one country will try to work together with the elite in another country to benefit the two smaller groups, usualy at the cost of the once not in the elite. This often would be private firms running infrastructure. If they can corner a monopoly you have no way to get past paying high prices.
Can you give a historical example of this happening?
With no goverment you will have no way to protect yourself from cheap competetive labour from the outside. Every itemn will be imported leaving many jobs absolete.
It's called comparative advantage. If someone overseas can do my job more efficiently than I can, that frees me up to to another job. More work gets done overall, the economy grows, and everyone benefits. With or without a government, this is a good thing. Failing to recognize that fact is why protectionist policies can hamstring economies. You will note that the biggest protectionist voice in the world right now is that of notorious ignoramus Donald J. Trump.
Also a lot of tech companies are working on robots who can replace most menial tasks all the way from taxi, uber self driving card, up to doctor diagnostocian, watson who can diagnose cancer better then humans. Cilicon valey are also learning robots to copy regular body movement meaning all labour like making food, cleaning, doing services can all be gone as jobs in 10 to 100 years. This is a problem even with a state, and a big one without it.
Wait, are you saying that you think an advantage of a state is that it can impede technological progress? (a) No, it can't; and (b) why would we want it to?
With no free press (that needs finacial backing) it is hard to get information that is true. False news, or newss badly reported would be everywhere. The elites in the country would start regulating the news, shaping the public narative like in dictatorships run countries.
Do you think the state runs the free press? Do you not know how the free press works?
Actually, again, private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. They were horrible, but if your argument is that they didn't exist, you're still wrong.
We in Norway based our constetution on the French ideas (same as you) and also on the American constetution. But we have kept updating it as time goes by. Americans seem so star struck by their cinstetution. I will grant you the founding fathers where ahead of their time, but they are getting more and more dates as time goes by.
See, now it seems like you're just not paying attention, because you're directly contradicting two basic historical facts that have already been pointed out in this thread:
(1) The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by over a decade.
(2) The American Revolution predates the libertarian movement by over a century.
You're also ignoring the fact, not yet stated on this thread but nevertheless well known and easily verified, that the U.S. Constitution is updated with some regularity.
And of course, you provide precisely zero concrete examples of ways in which the Constitution is outdated. It's four pages of plain English. If you know what you're talking about, it shouldn't be hard for you to quote a few choice passages which you think illustrate your point.
This is where you counter with a snappy one liner to feel superior in the debate. Something like 'Freedom is not free'. This is true. That is why all of the social democratic scandinavian countries are paying as much taxed as we can. Because freedom is not free.
"Freedom isn't free" is a reference to the necessity of a military to protect the country and its institutions from hostile forces. As a NATO member, Norway's freedom is overwhelmingly subsidized by American defense spending. Even as a percentage of GDP, Norway (like twenty-two other NATO states out of twenty-eight) is spending less than its treaty obligation requires. In short: you're not paying for your freedom; I'm paying for your freedom. You're welcome, by the way.
So come on, man. If you're going to do snappy, first do your homework.
Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's. That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry. And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's. That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry. And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
Why is it obvious that this hypothetical government could outcompete private gambling?
Would you rather buy a lottery ticket that supports your national defense or a lottery ticket from a private business who uses the profit in a way that he/she wants?
Would you rather buy a lottery ticket that supports your national defense or a lottery ticket from a private business who uses the profit in a way that he/she wants?
That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry.
So the government is more efficient than a private industry now?
And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
The military is not an area in which you want to spend just a bit more than potential rivals. If the best boxer in the world is only a bit stronger than the second-best boxer in the world, then the second-best boxer in the world wants to challenge him for the title. And even if the best boxer in the world wins that fight, he still leaves the ring bloodied. If he doesn't want to have to fight, he needs to invest in overwhelming superiority.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade.
"Isolationist" and "universal free trade" are oxymoronic. Either you've got foreign entanglements through free trade agreements, or you don't.
I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead. Also I meant Non-Interventionism instead of isolationism. Non-Interventionism and neutrality, that means no alliances, no foreign aid, national Defense instead of national Offense(so purely defensive military), no trade restrictions e.t.c. I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Isn't the Nash equilibrium of that game for the lottery to collect a vanishingly small rake? If the government is running a lottery with enough profit to fund a military, there's plenty of room for private lotteries to undercut them. If the government is running a lottery which cannot be profitably undercut, it can't possibly fund a military with its measly earnings.
I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead.
If you don't want to pay for it then by all means move. If you don't move then you're stealing the service provided by the military without paying for it. And no, you don't get to claim you didn't consent to the service. The United States and its military were here long before you were. If you buy property in America you do so knowing full well what American residency entails.
I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
And that's kind of the problem. Even before we go into the specific ways this policy might anger other countries, you're resting the security of your country on the assumption that it definitely won't, that everything will always go right. Your planning is based on a best-case scenario, not a worst-case scenario. You're making an investment while ignoring the risk. You're engaging in wishful thinking.
Now, as for those specific ways other countries might find reason to wage war against you, the first and most obvious is that if everything does go right for you and you get rich off of trade, then you're rich. Attacking rich lands and taking their wealth is one of the oldest reasons for warfare there is. Your invader might just want to plunder you and leave, they might make you a tributary, or they might try to conquer you so they can control and tax this wonderful trade hub directly. That's one reason. Reason two is that your invader is another trading power and wants to shut down your trade, rendering theirs more valuable. States can engage in monopolistic practices just as easily as companies can. Reason three is that in your neutrality you're trading with both sides in a war, and one side decides that your trade is benefiting the other side too much to be allowed to continue unabated. Reason four is that your land is strategically valuable. Reason five is that you're just plain the wrong religion. Reason six... reason seven... I can go on and on. Human beings don't exactly need a lot of excuse to go to war.
And before you dismiss these scenarios as not likely, remember that, between the two of us, I'm the one drawing his arguments from the historical record, and you're the one repeatedly face-planting into that same record. Not only can I provide examples of all these things actually happening, I can provide examples of all these things actually happening without leaving the freaking Netherlands.
I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will.
Washing your hands of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions is not a good way to convince us that libertarianism is the morally superior system.
If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead. Also I meant Non-Interventionism instead of isolationism. Non-Interventionism and neutrality, that means no alliances, no foreign aid, national Defense instead of national Offense(so purely defensive military), no trade restrictions e.t.c. I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
So similar to what the Belgians agreed to in 1839. And how well did that work out for them in 1914 and 1940?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Elite colaberation between countries: Example of elite colaberating: A tech company constructing internett infrastructure, working with a small group in the targetingc ountry. Setting up infrastructure for telecomminication/internett. Now the tech company is massivly profiting on the lack of infra structure in the new market. This crippels the new market meaning they get a monopoly.
We can also see this when Disney pump out content targeted at children / youth. The cost of translating it for a new country is massivly cheaper then produsing new content in the targeted country. This corners the market as the potensial local market gets tapped. Over time all local resistance gets quelced, and a cultural imperialismen will sett in. There are examples of counter culture, but it happens rarly. It needs some form of govermental regulation or the country gets screwed over time. In Norway we activly counter this. The liberterian model would not protect it's own infrastructure or colture.
Impede technological progress: While there are few examples of countries holding back technolagy, we have seen examples of what happens when new technology enters the playing field. The word sabotour for instance comes from the french sabo (meaning wooden shoe) and refers to the weavers throwing the shoes into the new weaving machines that outsorced them. What would happen if a lot of jobs disapeared on a massive scale? Well the goverment would have to either put up a ban on it (unlikley) or make a work around. But you can not have 50% of your population get unemployed over night, with no new jobs created. The free market model would not suport that withouth major problems in sociaty and the giverment would need to govern.
What ever the future holds, goverment would need to be involved to handle these problems. To many jobs will disapear compared to new once getting created. I actually think free marked will be put to a test under these circumstances. This will not work with liberterniaism.
Free press: In Norway the state actualy subsidize newspapers and other journalistic things. They even have their own TV network called NRK, and they have also branched out for news on radio and online. Without this I think it will be hard to have 'objective news'. While we can discuss what objective means, it sure does not mean news outlets like what we see in North Korea and Russia. Also Fox News (and its counterpart) are not neutral. Objectivaty is slowly getting harder to maintain. Also the rise of fake news would mean that a liberterian state would have a hard time not being suckered by somebody else.
And yes BlinkingSpirit I do know how free press works. I do not apreciate a condesenting tone. Maybe it is all free marked in USA, but in Norway we ensure that we have free press. Payed for by the goverment.
Private hospitals: I think the idea of private hospitals is very bad. Free healthcare for everyone is a much better system to make sure your giverment works out fine. Under full liberterianismn I can garantee you that not everyone would be able to cover their bills. It would be much closer to the senarioes pressented in the literary realism where poor people die because of they where poor, and that is the way it should be.
Private orphanages: You are right that private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. But can you come up with a good buissniss model for a private orphanage under liberterianism? It sounds like a bad way to get ahead in sociaty.
Timeline American / French revolaution: You do know that the french had more then one revolution right? They are the country with most revolutions in the least amount of time for a long period. And while the American Revolution help pioner liberterian ideas these ideas came out of the thoughts being developed in france. And then french again benefits from the good ideas generated in amerika. Norway also build on these ideas when we where founded. It seems like you have a poor understanding on how pholosofical ideas can be trased throughout history Blinking Spirit.
Founding farthers: People like Lin-Manuel Miranda, in fact a lot of americans, are idolising the founding farthers to much. While there are some good ideas in it, it needs to be updated. The ideas of the founding farthers is something that gets talked about so much in America it becomes an echo chamber for Americans. If the founding farthers where alive today they would get a heart attack at the sight of a smartphone, let alone an airplane. Their ideas would not be incorperated today, as they are not 21 centry ideas.
In fact during the drafting of the American constetution they where running out of time, and it would apear there would be solution. They came upon the idea of having very vague language in it, meaning each representative could read into it whatever they wanted. While it worked at the time, the vagua language has been haunting America ever since. Many Americans are so stuck in the past you can not get any movement. Discussions about guns for instance is one of these discussion. Your country shoul '***** or get of the pot'. But instead you have the same argument again and again. Your constetution should unite your country, not split it.
Using it as a basis for being liberterian is a bad idea.
NATO: America is so conserned about keeping their fotholds both culturaly and economically of course you are paying for NATO. It is through NATO you can invade, sorry 'liberate', all these countries. Just last month you wanted USA troops stationed, sorry 'rotated', in Norway. You are welcome, by the way.
Elite colaberation between countries: Example of elite colaberating: A tech company constructing internett infrastructure, working with a small group in the targetingc ountry. Setting up infrastructure for telecomminication/internett. Now the tech company is massivly profiting on the lack of infra structure in the new market. This crippels the new market meaning they get a monopoly.
We can also see this when Disney pump out content targeted at children / youth. The cost of translating it for a new country is massivly cheaper then produsing new content in the targeted country. This corners the market as the potensial local market gets tapped. Over time all local resistance gets quelced, and a cultural imperialismen will sett in. There are examples of counter culture, but it happens rarly. It needs some form of govermental regulation or the country gets screwed over time. In Norway we activly counter this. The liberterian model would not protect it's own infrastructure or colture.
Yes, by all means you need to protect your country from the threat of... Disney animated movies.
Impede technological progress: While there are few examples of countries holding back technolagy, we have seen examples of what happens when new technology enters the playing field. The word sabotour for instance comes from the french sabo (meaning wooden shoe) and refers to the weavers throwing the shoes into the new weaving machines that outsorced them.
It's "sabot", actually. And I'd bet dollars to donuts the clothes you're wearing right now are machine woven. The French government didn't protect the hand-weaving industry, because that would have been stupid, because machine weaving massively increased the supply of textiles, making much more of them available to many more people for much lower prices. The saboteurs were attempting to save their jobs at the expense of their entire country's economic prosperity.
None of these address my point. Yes, technology is doing jobs that were once performed by humans. That doesn't mean the state or anyone else should try to protect those jobs.
Free press: In Norway the state actualy subsidize newspapers and other journalistic things. They even have their own TV network called NRK, and they have also branched out for news on radio and online. Without this I think it will be hard to have 'objective news'. While we can discuss what objective means, it sure does not mean news outlets like what we see in North Korea and Russia.
Both North Korean and Russian news outlets are state funded. When we speak about a "free press", it is freedom from the government that we are talking about first and foremost. I'm sure NRK is a fine news source, like the BBC in Britain or NPR and public television in the United States. But these sources are good despite state funding, not because of it.
Private hospitals: I think the idea of private hospitals is very bad. Free healthcare for everyone is a much better system to make sure your giverment works out fine. Under full liberterianismn I can garantee you that not everyone would be able to cover their bills. It would be much closer to the senarioes pressented in the literary realism where poor people die because of they where poor, and that is the way it should be.
Private orphanages: You are right that private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. But can you come up with a good buissniss model for a private orphanage under liberterianism? It sounds like a bad way to get ahead in sociaty.
"Private hospitals and orphanages are bad" is a completely different argument than "private hospitals and orphanages are impossible". You had claimed the latter, and that's what I was refuting.
Timeline American / French revolaution: You do know that the french had more then one revolution right? They are the country with most revolutions in the least amount of time for a long period.
Yes. All of which occurred after the American Revolution broke out in 1776. I honestly can't believe you're pushing back on this. All the dates are right there in the history books in black and white.
And while the American Revolution help pioner liberterian ideas these ideas came out of the thoughts being developed in france.
It did not help pioneer libertarian ideas, because libertarian ideas would not exist for over a hundred years. And the ideas it did pioneer were coming out of Britain much more than France. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were Englishmen; David Hume was a Scot. Rousseau is the most famous French-language political philosopher of the period, but he was seldom cited by the American Founders (and he was Swiss anyway).
And then french again benefits from the good ideas generated in amerika. Norway also build on these ideas when we where founded. It seems like you have a poor understanding on how pholosofical ideas can be trased throughout history Blinking Spirit.
In fact during the drafting of the American constetution they where running out of time, and it would apear there would be solution. They came upon the idea of having very vague language in it, meaning each representative could read into it whatever they wanted.
You may not be aware that we have transcripts of the Constitutional Convention, so we can tell exactly what they were thinking and discussing when they wrote the thing. You may also not be aware that I have read these transcripts from beginning to end. So when I tell you that what you're saying here simply isn't true, it is with some authority. If you like, you can look through Madison's notes for yourself (they're right here) and show me where they talk about how it would be a good idea to use vague language in order to allow for multiple interpretations. But, spoiler alert: you won't find it.
While it worked at the time, the vagua language has been haunting America ever since. Many Americans are so stuck in the past you can not get any movement. Discussions about guns for instance is one of these discussion. Your country shoul '***** or get of the pot'. But instead you have the same argument again and again. Your constetution should unite your country, not split it.
While I do appreciate you finally at least referencing a specific section of the Constitution, I honestly don't understand what you're proposing here. What would our country "*****ting" entail, versus "getting off the pot", and how would this unite the country? You do realize, right, that the reason there isn't a lot of movement on the gun issue is that most Americans are happy where we're at, and Euro-style gun control is a losing issue for liberal Democrats? Here's Obama doing some recreational shooting to boost his Second Amendment cred.
NATO: America is so conserned about keeping their fotholds both culturaly and economically of course you are paying for NATO. It is through NATO you can invade, sorry 'liberate', all these countries. Just last month you wanted USA troops stationed, sorry 'rotated', in Norway. You are welcome, by the way.
Riiight. Your eastern neighbor is getting all annexy, and you're doing us a favor. It's not like the Norwegian Defense Ministry asked for the troop rotation or anything...
"In 2014, that was a clear sign that Russia has stepped in to an area where they are willing and able to use military power," says Brigadier Eldar Bernil, of the Norwegian Army. "Suddenly we have changed focus in particular from what was going on in Afghanistan to collective national defense." (Source)
You don't think potensial cultural imperalism is a problem when the Disney movies come? We in Norway take these things quite seriusly, or rather the branch of the goverment in charge of this takes this quite seriusly. When Disney channel launched in Norway NRK made a new channel, NRK 3. This channel is focused on children / youths. They do this to give children a fictional entertainment that more realisticly represent the culture they are growing up in. Instead of representing very american values, and also disneys lack of feminism. Or at least used to, Frozen was a step in the right direction (set in a fictional Norway mind you.)
Witout having american (or british or japansese) prodused culture saturate the market we are free to produse our own cultural products and distribute among other countries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
You don't think potensial cultural imperalism is a problem when the Disney movies come? We in Norway take these things quite seriusly, or rather the branch of the goverment in charge of this takes this quite seriusly. When Disney channel launched in Norway NRK made a new channel, NRK 3. This channel is focused on children / youths. They do this to give children a fictional entertainment that more realisticly represent the culture they are growing up in. Instead of representing very american values, and also disneys lack of feminism. Or at least used to, Frozen was a step in the right direction (set in a fictional Norway mind you.)
Witout having american (or british or japansese) prodused culture saturate the market we are free to produse our own cultural products and distribute among other countries.
The government sound like my mom who thinks that Japan is "invading" China with their shows and anime.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am sorry if this comes of as offensive. If it does, that is not my intension. But I am afraid discussing this would be putting an atheist and a religius person in the same discusson. No matter what the atheist says it will be percieved as a personal attack.
I must say most of my experiance with liberternoanism is two podcasts from NPR. This American Life Act 3 'Or give me death'. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/237/regime-change and a longer podcast freakanomics '10 signs you might be liberterian' http://freakonomics.com/?s=libertarianism I found the consept intriguing from a conseptual perspective. I also think that America needs some form of change as I do not think your country is operating as optimally as it did say 20 years ago. The liberterian movement sound like a change of phase. I also like the idea of having all the liberterians moving to one state and make that the liberterian state sounds like an intriguing consept.
However, my big question is stil what your end goal is? It seems to me that you are looking for the end goal of as much personal freedom as possible. I think the scandinavian countries have that one nailed down, even though we have very big state regulation. The liberterian movement keeps focusing on 'how' instead of 'why' it seems to me. Would you care to comment?
What, do you not have the Devil in Norway or something?
Not the favorite scenario, but yes, archetypically, the American culture hero would prefer to be poor but independent rather than wealthy but dependent on the government or some other outside entity. Getting rich is nice, but being free is more important. Better to be Crusoe than Faust.
These two sentences are directly contradictory. A state regulation is by definition a limitation on personal freedom.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I would not say state regulation is a robbery of personal freedom. I think in many cases state regulation gives mote personal freedom. Even liberterians would enjoy some form of goverment.
How about roads to drive on? Norway is a very big place with very little people in it.
Internett or regular mail service?
An army to defend your borders?
Someone to stop climate change? It is bad to own a house near the beach of somebody else then you make the sea level rise.
Someone to take care of diplomatic things, aka things that happen beyond your border but stil afects you? In norway we where affected by the chernobyl acident for instance, with nuclear fallout afecting ouer fauna. Somebody has to tell your nabour to take better care of their nuclear reactors.
I like to outsource all of those things to a central person who takes care of that, so that i do not need to spend all day organising it. In Norway that and much more is provided by the state. Also, personaly, i really enjoy free education in a world that keeps getting smaller and looking more like one global village. It gives me a leg up.
Not obly does it give me a leg up. It gives me more freedom. Imagine if nobody thought you hove to read or count, would you be more free?
If a hostile army invades your country, your soldiers are going to start shooting at them. Normally we think that shooting at people is bad, but in this case almost everybody would agree that the shooting is justified: the bad act is serving a greater good. What you're trying to say here is like saying that because it's is justified, the soldiers aren't actually "shooting" at all. This is a misuse of the word "shooting", and a potentially dangerous downplaying of the fact that what's happening is still a bad act in its own right and not to be undertaken lightly.
It's not free. Somebody's paying for it. If it's not you, it's somebody else who would otherwise be able to spend that money on themselves and their family. Again, I'm not saying public education isn't justified. Public education is a very good thing. But we shouldn't start pretending it's "free" and lose sight of what actually goes into it. It's a meaningful tradeoff, not magic.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As for your idea of a lottery, two problems. The first is just a revisitation of the problem from last paragraph: it can offset the cost of some small government programs, but you're not going to make enough selling lottery tickets to pay for stuff like $4.5 billion aircraft carriers. The second is that a lottery is an exploitation of public ignorance and addictive behavior. It's almost like you're saying, "Taxes are bad, so let's get everybody hooked on cocaine instead." And where are public ignorance and addictive behavior most acute? That's right, in the lower socioeconomic classes. Not only do these people not have as much money to give you for their fix (getting back to problem one), but what they do give is going to be a larger proportion of their income and therefore do more damage to their lives and prospects.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The more i think about this liberterianism the more it sounds like a bad idea. You need some form of regulation.
In universaty (300 democratic culture) we learned that usualy the elite in one country will try to work together with the elite in another country to benefit the two smaller groups, usualy at the cost of the once not in the elite. This often would be private firms running infrastructure. If they can corner a monopoly you have no way to get past paying high prices.
With no goverment you will have no way to protect yourself from cheap competetive labour from the outside. Every itemn will be imported leaving many jobs absolete.
Also a lot of tech companies are working on robots who can replace most menial tasks all the way from taxi, uber self driving card, up to doctor diagnostocian, watson who can diagnose cancer better then humans. Cilicon valey are also learning robots to copy regular body movement meaning all labour like making food, cleaning, doing services can all be gone as jobs in 10 to 100 years. This is a problem even with a state, and a big one without it.
If you remove education people will start getting dumn real fast after some generations. This will make it harder to aford, making a self increasing trend (we already see this in usa today). Over time this will severly limit your countries abilaty to compete in a global enviorment.
With no free press (that needs finacial backing) it is hard to get information that is true. False news, or newss badly reported would be everywhere. The elites in the country would start regulating the news, shaping the public narative like in dictatorships run countries.
Also with no state none will care for the sick. What about abandoned children with no money? They will not survive in an enviorment that is only privatised. And there is no money in privatising orpheneges.
We in Norway based our constetution on the French ideas (same as you) and also on the American constetution. But we have kept updating it as time goes by. Americans seem so star struck by their cinstetution. I will grant you the founding fathers where ahead of their time, but they are getting more and more dates as time goes by. If the founding fathers where alive today, nobody would care what they thought in todays political climate. Their ideas are outdated. Philosephy and ethics have moved on, standing on the shoulders of their ideas. Technology has shaped the world in ways they could not predict. The world has changed.
I am sorry if this comes of as harsh. If so it is not my itension. But this whole liberterian movement seems ill concieved. It has not followed its ideas to completenes, they just dable with some unrealistic utopia. You focus to much on how, instead of the end goal. It seems like a bitter philosefy where you want to go down with the drowning ship as long as it is on your own terms.
This is where you counter with a snappy one liner to feel superior in the debate. Something like 'Freedom is not free'. This is true. That is why all of the social democratic scandinavian countries are paying as much taxed as we can. Because freedom is not free.
The concept of the "greater good" will always be a point in debate, and could probably use it's own debate thread if someone wants to chat about it, but bringing this back to the actual topic, the problem is that most of your average Libertarians don't care why the government has so many regulations, and while some can probably loosened or amended, the reason they exist is because buisness has proven time, time, and time again that Freedom does have to be restrained, because a perfect Capitalist/Free Market will never exist in this world, as long as humans are a part of it.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
What’s circular here is that there is no “law” without “government”. So if you start saying that the government should never be above the law, then you will unfailingly run into contradictions.
Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. All governments, everywhere, in every age. Either the government coerces its people to consent, or it gains that consent as a matter of free will. So “law” then, is a matter of policy enacted by the government. Either it is policy that coerces you into your consent, or it’s a policy that provides benefits to you to the extent that you consent to it over your free will. But government the group association you consent to, and law is what the government does.
But if you do not consent to it, you no longer make up the polity of “the governed”. And finding yourself outside that group of people, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of that group. If there is a law against murder (homicide), and you break that law, you will find yourself in jail under the power of that group. If there is a law in support of murder (war, as you say it), then you might be drafted, and if you refuse that order you will again find yourself at the mercy of the “governed”, with whatever they see fit in the form of law to punish you with.
On the topic of whether “free education” is free, the same concept actually extends to money. Money is the sign of something, it’s not the thing itself. The strength of the sign is related to the government that mints it, both to its overall strength and its policy that either strengthens or weakens a currency. So if you say that nothing a government ever does is “free”, at least by monetary terms, you will run into the same contradiction.
That is a very long-established principle of economics. The only thing that is not subject to government monetary policy are those things not subject to valuation in that currency. You raise beets on your property, they are worth to you what they are worth in your belly. You sell those beets on an exchange denominated in a governments currency, the value of your beets is now tied somewhat to the medium of currency that you use to value it.
That’s where all this Lockean stuff comes from. There was an era, particularly strong in the US, where labor of that nature was worth something intrinsically. There was a lot of undeveloped land that offered benefits to those who labored to develop it. Their labor was theirs by nature, and the fruit of their labor was theirs as of natural right. Now, try applying that same concept to how a government administers wages and other expenses within its educational system, and you’ll find that the monetary expression of value is not nearly as closely tied to anything of natural value.
Can you give a historical example of this happening?
It's called comparative advantage. If someone overseas can do my job more efficiently than I can, that frees me up to to another job. More work gets done overall, the economy grows, and everyone benefits. With or without a government, this is a good thing. Failing to recognize that fact is why protectionist policies can hamstring economies. You will note that the biggest protectionist voice in the world right now is that of notorious ignoramus Donald J. Trump.
Wait, are you saying that you think an advantage of a state is that it can impede technological progress? (a) No, it can't; and (b) why would we want it to?
Do you think the state runs the free press? Do you not know how the free press works?
This is just flatly untrue. Private hospitals are a thing and historically have been for far longer than state-run hospitals.
Actually, again, private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. They were horrible, but if your argument is that they didn't exist, you're still wrong.
See, now it seems like you're just not paying attention, because you're directly contradicting two basic historical facts that have already been pointed out in this thread:
(1) The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by over a decade.
(2) The American Revolution predates the libertarian movement by over a century.
You're also ignoring the fact, not yet stated on this thread but nevertheless well known and easily verified, that the U.S. Constitution is updated with some regularity.
And of course, you provide precisely zero concrete examples of ways in which the Constitution is outdated. It's four pages of plain English. If you know what you're talking about, it shouldn't be hard for you to quote a few choice passages which you think illustrate your point.
That's pretty manifestly not true. Just ask Lin-Manuel Miranda.
"Freedom isn't free" is a reference to the necessity of a military to protect the country and its institutions from hostile forces. As a NATO member, Norway's freedom is overwhelmingly subsidized by American defense spending. Even as a percentage of GDP, Norway (like twenty-two other NATO states out of twenty-eight) is spending less than its treaty obligation requires. In short: you're not paying for your freedom; I'm paying for your freedom. You're welcome, by the way.
So come on, man. If you're going to do snappy, first do your homework.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade. When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
Why is it obvious that this hypothetical government could outcompete private gambling?
I'd rather buy the one that gives me better odds.
So the government is more efficient than a private industry now?
The military is not an area in which you want to spend just a bit more than potential rivals. If the best boxer in the world is only a bit stronger than the second-best boxer in the world, then the second-best boxer in the world wants to challenge him for the title. And even if the best boxer in the world wins that fight, he still leaves the ring bloodied. If he doesn't want to have to fight, he needs to invest in overwhelming superiority.
"Isolationist" and "universal free trade" are oxymoronic. Either you've got foreign entanglements through free trade agreements, or you don't.
If you think trading doesn't upset anyone... argh. England. The Netherlands. Venice. Byzantium. History. Read it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit:I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will. Also all the government has to do to outcompete the private onlinegambling/lottery companies is to match their price/odds/winnings proportion, not that hard to do.
Isn't the Nash equilibrium of that game for the lottery to collect a vanishingly small rake? If the government is running a lottery with enough profit to fund a military, there's plenty of room for private lotteries to undercut them. If the government is running a lottery which cannot be profitably undercut, it can't possibly fund a military with its measly earnings.
And that's kind of the problem. Even before we go into the specific ways this policy might anger other countries, you're resting the security of your country on the assumption that it definitely won't, that everything will always go right. Your planning is based on a best-case scenario, not a worst-case scenario. You're making an investment while ignoring the risk. You're engaging in wishful thinking.
Now, as for those specific ways other countries might find reason to wage war against you, the first and most obvious is that if everything does go right for you and you get rich off of trade, then you're rich. Attacking rich lands and taking their wealth is one of the oldest reasons for warfare there is. Your invader might just want to plunder you and leave, they might make you a tributary, or they might try to conquer you so they can control and tax this wonderful trade hub directly. That's one reason. Reason two is that your invader is another trading power and wants to shut down your trade, rendering theirs more valuable. States can engage in monopolistic practices just as easily as companies can. Reason three is that in your neutrality you're trading with both sides in a war, and one side decides that your trade is benefiting the other side too much to be allowed to continue unabated. Reason four is that your land is strategically valuable. Reason five is that you're just plain the wrong religion. Reason six... reason seven... I can go on and on. Human beings don't exactly need a lot of excuse to go to war.
And before you dismiss these scenarios as not likely, remember that, between the two of us, I'm the one drawing his arguments from the historical record, and you're the one repeatedly face-planting into that same record. Not only can I provide examples of all these things actually happening, I can provide examples of all these things actually happening without leaving the freaking Netherlands.
Washing your hands of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions is not a good way to convince us that libertarianism is the morally superior system.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So similar to what the Belgians agreed to in 1839. And how well did that work out for them in 1914 and 1940?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
We can also see this when Disney pump out content targeted at children / youth. The cost of translating it for a new country is massivly cheaper then produsing new content in the targeted country. This corners the market as the potensial local market gets tapped. Over time all local resistance gets quelced, and a cultural imperialismen will sett in. There are examples of counter culture, but it happens rarly. It needs some form of govermental regulation or the country gets screwed over time. In Norway we activly counter this. The liberterian model would not protect it's own infrastructure or colture.
Impede technological progress: While there are few examples of countries holding back technolagy, we have seen examples of what happens when new technology enters the playing field. The word sabotour for instance comes from the french sabo (meaning wooden shoe) and refers to the weavers throwing the shoes into the new weaving machines that outsorced them. What would happen if a lot of jobs disapeared on a massive scale? Well the goverment would have to either put up a ban on it (unlikley) or make a work around. But you can not have 50% of your population get unemployed over night, with no new jobs created. The free market model would not suport that withouth major problems in sociaty and the giverment would need to govern.
Silicon Walley have already sugested basic income for citisents:
( http://www.npr.org/2016/09/24/495186758/as-our-jobs-are-automated-some-say-well-need-a-guaranteed-basic-income )
Very skill intensive jobs can also be taken away:
( http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2016/04/25/surprisingly-these-10-professional-jobs-are-under-threat-from-big-data/#628374894e10 )
Not to mention menial jobs also can disapear like taxi drivers and fast food resturants:
( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-28/uber-drivers-join-fight-15-minimum-wage-protests-autonomous-vehicle-technology-looms )
( http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/29/495925058/our-robot-overlords-are-now-delivering-pizza-and-cooking-it-on-the-go?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160929 )
What ever the future holds, goverment would need to be involved to handle these problems. To many jobs will disapear compared to new once getting created. I actually think free marked will be put to a test under these circumstances. This will not work with liberterniaism.
Free press: In Norway the state actualy subsidize newspapers and other journalistic things. They even have their own TV network called NRK, and they have also branched out for news on radio and online. Without this I think it will be hard to have 'objective news'. While we can discuss what objective means, it sure does not mean news outlets like what we see in North Korea and Russia. Also Fox News (and its counterpart) are not neutral. Objectivaty is slowly getting harder to maintain. Also the rise of fake news would mean that a liberterian state would have a hard time not being suckered by somebody else.
( https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.fafb6f08537d )
And yes BlinkingSpirit I do know how free press works. I do not apreciate a condesenting tone. Maybe it is all free marked in USA, but in Norway we ensure that we have free press. Payed for by the goverment.
Private hospitals: I think the idea of private hospitals is very bad. Free healthcare for everyone is a much better system to make sure your giverment works out fine. Under full liberterianismn I can garantee you that not everyone would be able to cover their bills. It would be much closer to the senarioes pressented in the literary realism where poor people die because of they where poor, and that is the way it should be.
Private orphanages: You are right that private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. But can you come up with a good buissniss model for a private orphanage under liberterianism? It sounds like a bad way to get ahead in sociaty.
Timeline American / French revolaution: You do know that the french had more then one revolution right? They are the country with most revolutions in the least amount of time for a long period. And while the American Revolution help pioner liberterian ideas these ideas came out of the thoughts being developed in france. And then french again benefits from the good ideas generated in amerika. Norway also build on these ideas when we where founded. It seems like you have a poor understanding on how pholosofical ideas can be trased throughout history Blinking Spirit.
Founding farthers: People like Lin-Manuel Miranda, in fact a lot of americans, are idolising the founding farthers to much. While there are some good ideas in it, it needs to be updated. The ideas of the founding farthers is something that gets talked about so much in America it becomes an echo chamber for Americans. If the founding farthers where alive today they would get a heart attack at the sight of a smartphone, let alone an airplane. Their ideas would not be incorperated today, as they are not 21 centry ideas.
In fact during the drafting of the American constetution they where running out of time, and it would apear there would be solution. They came upon the idea of having very vague language in it, meaning each representative could read into it whatever they wanted. While it worked at the time, the vagua language has been haunting America ever since. Many Americans are so stuck in the past you can not get any movement. Discussions about guns for instance is one of these discussion. Your country shoul '***** or get of the pot'. But instead you have the same argument again and again. Your constetution should unite your country, not split it.
Using it as a basis for being liberterian is a bad idea.
NATO: America is so conserned about keeping their fotholds both culturaly and economically of course you are paying for NATO. It is through NATO you can invade, sorry 'liberate', all these countries. Just last month you wanted USA troops stationed, sorry 'rotated', in Norway. You are welcome, by the way.
It's "sabot", actually. And I'd bet dollars to donuts the clothes you're wearing right now are machine woven. The French government didn't protect the hand-weaving industry, because that would have been stupid, because machine weaving massively increased the supply of textiles, making much more of them available to many more people for much lower prices. The saboteurs were attempting to save their jobs at the expense of their entire country's economic prosperity.
None of these address my point. Yes, technology is doing jobs that were once performed by humans. That doesn't mean the state or anyone else should try to protect those jobs.
Both North Korean and Russian news outlets are state funded. When we speak about a "free press", it is freedom from the government that we are talking about first and foremost. I'm sure NRK is a fine news source, like the BBC in Britain or NPR and public television in the United States. But these sources are good despite state funding, not because of it.
It isn't. Again: do your homework.
This is straight-up oxymoronic.
"Private hospitals and orphanages are bad" is a completely different argument than "private hospitals and orphanages are impossible". You had claimed the latter, and that's what I was refuting.
Yes. All of which occurred after the American Revolution broke out in 1776. I honestly can't believe you're pushing back on this. All the dates are right there in the history books in black and white.
It did not help pioneer libertarian ideas, because libertarian ideas would not exist for over a hundred years. And the ideas it did pioneer were coming out of Britain much more than France. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were Englishmen; David Hume was a Scot. Rousseau is the most famous French-language political philosopher of the period, but he was seldom cited by the American Founders (and he was Swiss anyway).
You said they wouldn't care. They do. Now you're saying they shouldn't care. That's a different argument.
What exactly in the Constitution is incompatible with a smart phone or an airplane?
You may not be aware that we have transcripts of the Constitutional Convention, so we can tell exactly what they were thinking and discussing when they wrote the thing. You may also not be aware that I have read these transcripts from beginning to end. So when I tell you that what you're saying here simply isn't true, it is with some authority. If you like, you can look through Madison's notes for yourself (they're right here) and show me where they talk about how it would be a good idea to use vague language in order to allow for multiple interpretations. But, spoiler alert: you won't find it.
While I do appreciate you finally at least referencing a specific section of the Constitution, I honestly don't understand what you're proposing here. What would our country "*****ting" entail, versus "getting off the pot", and how would this unite the country? You do realize, right, that the reason there isn't a lot of movement on the gun issue is that most Americans are happy where we're at, and Euro-style gun control is a losing issue for liberal Democrats? Here's Obama doing some recreational shooting to boost his Second Amendment cred.
I agree.
Riiight. Your eastern neighbor is getting all annexy, and you're doing us a favor. It's not like the Norwegian Defense Ministry asked for the troop rotation or anything...
"In 2014, that was a clear sign that Russia has stepped in to an area where they are willing and able to use military power," says Brigadier Eldar Bernil, of the Norwegian Army. "Suddenly we have changed focus in particular from what was going on in Afghanistan to collective national defense." (Source)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Witout having american (or british or japansese) prodused culture saturate the market we are free to produse our own cultural products and distribute among other countries.
The government sound like my mom who thinks that Japan is "invading" China with their shows and anime.