Judge Fairness? Give Us A Break! - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14558850
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for your claim that most people would prefer to let a loved one die rather than part with any money. Thank you.

Most people would prefer to part with any money to save the loved ones. It can be a definition of a 'loved one'. The question is, how many people have these loved ones? You believe, everyone. Machiavelli thought, only a few. The another catch of this phrase, it talks about your father, not your son. Maybe, if there was a son, Machiavelli was not right.
#14558851
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Most people would prefer to part with any money to save the loved ones.


Right. That's what I said.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:It can be a definition of a 'loved one'. The question is, how many people have these loved ones? You believe, everyone. Machiavelli thought, only a few. The another catch of this phrase, it talks about your father, not your son. Maybe, if there was a son, Machiavelli was not right.


If Machiavelli was assuming that most people do not have any family, then he was wrong.

Also, I doubt the exact type of relationship matters.
#14590830
In a libertarian political environment, there would be no tax tribunals because there would be so little taxes. The vast majority of taxes go to government bureaucracy that should not exist.

The worst possible administrators of money is the government. The worst possible administrators of any type of industry, service, or necessities of life are the government.

Anything performed by a government can be done more efficiently, far less expensively, and far more effectively by private enterprise or local community associations. This would include things such as the distribution of food to the needy and health care. They would be better tailored to fit the needs of those who required such assistance, better monitored for effectiveness and relevance, far more transparent to those who were assisting in the funding.

The farther we are from the operation of such things, the far less accountability. Taxes aren't high because the need is plenty. Taxes are high because the money doesn't belong to those in charge of it's distribution.
#14590920
TheRedPill wrote:The worst possible administrators of money is the government.

That's clearly false, as the inferior societal outcomes in small-government societies prove. While a large government may be bad or good, a small one is always bad. There is no country on earth where a government that spends a single-digit percentage of GDP has resulted in better societal outcomes than in the advanced democracies where governments all spend more than 1/4 of GDP -- and sometimes more than 1/2. The "meeza hatesa gubmint" ninnies are just factually wrong.
The worst possible administrators of any type of industry, service, or necessities of life are the government.

Silliness. Some goods and services can't be provided efficiently by anyone but government, for reasons that are well understood by economists.
Anything performed by a government can be done more efficiently, far less expensively, and far more effectively by private enterprise or local community associations.

That's just objectively false. There are several market failure conditions that make it economically impossible for private enterprise or local community associations to invest efficiently in some of the services and infrastructure that governments provide. The most important of these is the externality of land value: as the Henry George Theorem shows, all the value created by provision of services and infrastructure -- whether public or private -- is taken by landowners. That is why, e.g., without government help, the builders of private highways always go bankrupt, while those who own the land beside the highways get rich without effort or contribution.
This would include things such as the distribution of food to the needy and health care. They would be better tailored to fit the needs of those who required such assistance, better monitored for effectiveness and relevance, far more transparent to those who were assisting in the funding.

Nope. Whether they are publicly or privately provided, all such charitable efforts are in vain, because the benefits are simply taken by landowners in the form of increased rents. That's why we have increasing homelessness in the very places where food stamps, food-banked food, Medicaid, etc. are being given away: poor people have to pay private landowners full market value for access to everything government and the community provide, and many of them can't afford it.
The farther we are from the operation of such things, the far less accountability.

Accountability is determined by institutions, not distance.
Taxes aren't high because the need is plenty. Taxes are high because the money doesn't belong to those in charge of it's distribution.

No, taxes are high because governments give away almost all the value of the services and infrastructure they provide to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic private landowners, instead of recovering it to pay for the services and infrastructure that create it. Land value is NOTHING BUT the MEASURE of how much the market expects the landowner to take from government (i.e., taxpayers) and the community in return for nothing.
#14591145
Voluntary local community associations.


Yea, they join together voluntary and then decided who to give the guns too and then boom, you have state and an army.
#14592377
Truth To Power wrote: Too easy. To borrow from Churchill, "...except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

I was responding to the often made arguement that if we had a succesful anarchy, it would end up as a government again. I don't believe this is a very good pro-government arguement.
#14592451
Truth To Power wrote: Too easy. To borrow from Churchill, "...except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

Nunt wrote:I was responding to the often made arguement that if we had a succesful anarchy, it would end up as a government again. I don't believe this is a very good pro-government arguement.

I think it is. There is no more thorough failure than failure to survive.
#14592577
Truth To Power wrote:I think it is. There is no more thorough failure than failure to survive.


Not in this case. Whether anarchy is temporary or permanent doens't influence whether anarchy is desirable or not.

Just compare these 4 cases:

Assume anarchy is permanent, and anarchy is good ==> strive for anarchy
Assume anarchy is permanent, and anarchy is bad ==> don't strive for anarchy
Assume anarchy is temporary, and anarchy is good ==> strive for anarchy
Assume anarchy is temporary, and anarchy is bad==> don't strive for anarchy

If one wants to make an arguement against anarchy, one should make an arguement about whether it is desirable, not about whether it is durable.
#14592807
Truth To Power wrote:I think it is. There is no more thorough failure than failure to survive.

Nunt wrote:Not in this case.

Yes, in this case too.
Whether anarchy is temporary or permanent doens't influence whether anarchy is desirable or not.

Yes, it does.
Just compare these 4 cases:

Assume anarchy is permanent, and anarchy is good ==> strive for anarchy
Assume anarchy is permanent, and anarchy is bad ==> don't strive for anarchy

Obviously.
Assume anarchy is temporary, and anarchy is good ==> strive for anarchy

It can't be good if it can't last, or lead naturally to something better. So the only reason to strive for anarchy would be that it would lead to something better that could not be achieved by striving for it directly, or emerge except through anarchy. Unlikely.
Assume anarchy is temporary, and anarchy is bad==> don't strive for anarchy

Obviously.
If one wants to make an arguement against anarchy, one should make an arguement about whether it is desirable, not about whether it is durable.

See above. It can't be good if it leads to something worse; and if it leads to something better, it would be better to strive for that in the first place, instead.

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]