- Joined
- Sep 11, 2018
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 116
- Location
- Brooks, Alberta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I funded my engineering degree by working the drilling rigs during the summer months. Working hard, foregoing recreation, facing the elements, and exposing myself to more workplace danger contributed to a big paycheck. I had contempt for those students who took an easier, but lesser paying, job. So when the libertarian philosophy was first introduced to me, it seemed quite logical: one earns based on one’s effort—and one gets to enjoy the benefits of that effort.
...
But we are not in a functional libertarian mindset yet. The only way to get there is to apply a better balance of individual freedom and collective action.
Your conclusion is what I would call 'democratic socialism' which is a popular approach and one that I take on the basis that I don't think that socialism can be imposed by revolution but, by education and debate.
I flirted with 'libertarianism' at one point but, realised that the internal contradictions and hypocrisy required to apply that tag were not my leaning. I have found that libertarians tend to be 'anarchists' who believe that they already have the means to insulate themselves against the World, usually in league with others of the same status (ironic); they are generally not interested in collectivism unless it is at a level that directly benefits them and are 'drawbridgers' when it suits them.
I discovered that it was the Anarchistic side of the philosophy that really attracted me and so, I have adopted some aspects of that in terms of personal responsibility to cooperate and try to improve things at a local level.
True.After several years of thinking, I am neither a conservative nor a socialist. I have gravitated towards this political philosophy:
1. There are situations where society must let individuals make their own choices and live with the consequences.
True, but I will note that this should be done through charity, NOT through compulsion.2. There are situations where society must take collective action to better society. This means paying taxes and providing services to those who cannot afford them.
I disagree. I think it should be determined, more or less, by charity rather than "compulsion by majority".3. The balance between #1 and #2 shall be determined by democratic means.
I disagree. I want the charity of individuals to be in control of these matters, not federal government compulsion.4. For each time government tries to effect change in society, it should monitor how well the change is working and make appropriate adjustments.
True.
True, but I will note that this should be done through charity, NOT through compulsion.
I disagree. I think it should be determined, more or less, by charity rather than "compulsion by majority".
I disagree. I want the charity of individuals to be in control of these matters, not federal government compulsion.
Agreed.From an idealistic standpoint, I would have agree the voluntary giving is preferable to compulsory giving.
Before responding, I will note that this is a bigoted argument, as you are inferring that [all of the "more wealthy" people distinction] are not generous enough from the truth that [a part of the "more wealthy" people distinction] are not generous enough. But, putting that fallacy aside...However, we (or should I say the "more wealthy") just are not generous enough to have much of an impact.
I agree that people who need help should be helped... It doesn't even have to be in the form of giving them money... It can be in the form of "teaching them how to fish" as well, which typically is the more fruitful method of aid.Our current "have-nots" will have even less, and this sets up an untenable social order.
Plenty of people are quite compassionate and generous, if left to their own free will... Other people are not. There's nothing that can be done about that, as not even an entity as great as God can control free will, let alone us humans... The best we can do is 'lead by example' and hope that other people will take notice and want to "join the cause"...Until we change our mindsets to become more compassionate and generous, a libertarian society cannot function. Maybe sometime in the future, but not now.
Toward post secondary perhaps not toward primary education.how to educate the children of the working poor would be that some wealthy person or organization would make a deal with my father.
Why assume that cost of education is properly reflected? edX offer many courses that can cost $30,000 for a few hundred.The drilling rig wages I had put towards to pay my tuition fees only covered 10% of the costs for my post-secondary education.
This does seem to be the compromise we need, at least for now. I would argue though 3 and 4 are incompatible and the law must enshrine liberty above democracy by imposing strict limits on the ability of society to tax or impose social programs etc. Governments must be view as a cancer as much as a cure to complex problems.I have gravitated towards this political philosophy:
1. There are situations where society must let individuals make their own choices and live with the consequences.
2. There are situations where society must take collective action to better society. This means paying taxes and providing services to those who cannot afford them.
3. The balance between #1 and #2 shall be determined by democratic means.
4. For each time government tries to effect change in society, it should monitor how well the change is working and make appropriate adjustments.
Agreed.
Before responding, I will note that this is a bigoted argument, as you are inferring that [all of the "more wealthy" people distinction] are not generous enough from the truth that [a part of the "more wealthy" people distinction] are not generous enough. But, putting that fallacy aside...
This argument is also too vague for me to adequately respond to... Could you please define what you mean by "more wealthy"? As in, what yearly wage/salary amount would you consider to be the entry level for the "more wealthy" category?
I would also counter-argue that even the least generous of "more wealthy" people (awaiting a definition for the term), still end up making more of an impact than "less wealthy" (awaiting a definition for the term) people do, even though the "less wealthy" people would obviously be considered more generous from a 'percentage of total wages/salary' standpoint.
I agree that people who need help should be helped... It doesn't even have to be in the form of giving them money... It can be in the form of "teaching them how to fish" as well, which typically is the more fruitful method of aid.
Plenty of people are quite compassionate and generous, if left to their own free will... Other people are not. There's nothing that can be done about that, as not even an entity as great as God can control free will, let alone us humans... The best we can do is 'lead by example' and hope that other people will take notice and want to "join the cause"...
Compulsion is never the answer... Compulsion, as colored by my personal religious views, comes from Satan himself.
Toward post secondary perhaps not toward primary education.
There is an observation that literacy rates raised not with the amount of available education but as market incentive for having a literate workforce increased. This can be observed in many contexts and has more than one implementation.
In this way there will always be an abundant pool of educational teaching resources as a function of need for literate labour. The public / private then really comes down to efficiently..
Why assume that cost of education is properly reflected? edX offer many courses that can cost $30,000 for a few hundred.
Don't misunderstand. I am only highlighting a budget is a reflection of their condition. Look at dental rates in AB as a function of being on employer-insurance paid the same way medical costs are in the states. I would argue both are highly inflated and are not a reflection of a true free market as seen in other places in the world.
If people are insulated from price than there is no elasticity and market reaction. If market barriers are too restrictive - same same.
Privatizing post-secondary would without a doubt prohibitively increase the costs for a short time. If however the demand of the economy was for high skilled educated workforce [which it is]….we would massively accelerate our modernization by reducing fat and inefficient system of formal education which produces marginal productive gains with a certification system based on meritocracy and open learning, which everyone knows is the future anyway. [with the one big risk of just importing foreign labour: china's top 1% is our entire school system]
Doubt this look no further than secondary education: grades 10-12. How useful an education does the average child receive? ….if preparatory for post-secondary why does it fails in most cases?
The answer is the system, due to how it funded and administered. If administered well - the student outcomes are good - if administer poorly bad. Cost being a non related factor despite the cries of bias parties and instead being directly tied to funding structure.
Why bet the total of your students on a public system when you can micronize the problem and have options in a free educational market which generally multiply and compound success overtime?
This does seem to be the compromise we need, at least for now. I would argue though 3 and 4 are incompatible and the law must enshrine liberty above democracy by imposing strict limits on the ability of society to tax or impose social programs etc. Governments must be view as a cancer as much as a cure to complex problems.
I honestly though if I could ask one thing in this political world. It would not be internal reform, merely the ability to trade citizenship. If we were allowed to choose our citizenship; I have no doubt my fellow small government conservatives would create our own little slice of paradise. A greater compromise is necessary in a country of millions of divergent views and that leads to too many cooks in kitchen to get anythign close. A socialist to deserves their chance to play god.
I flirted with 'libertarianism' at one point but, realised that the internal contradictions and hypocrisy required to apply that tag were not my leaning. I have found that libertarians tend to be 'anarchists' who believe that they already have the means to insulate themselves against the World, usually in league with others of the same status (ironic); they are generally not interested in collectivism unless it is at a level that directly benefits them and are 'drawbridgers' when it suits them.
Okay, then maybe expand upon what you're considering a 'truly libertarian society' to be? Do you mean "no government"? Because I do agree that at least some government is necessary.I think you are missing the point. A truly libertarian society is unsustainable. It will be unable to keep social order and eventually fall in on itself.
When you say "they", are you referring to Haiti or to 'The rich' (which remains a buzzword until you define what makes someone 'rich')...I would say Haiti is the best example of a libertarian society. The rich get to keep most of their money. They hire their police force, have their own hospital, etc. etc. The poor have little opportunity for upward advancement, mostly dependent on foreign aid and the poor-paying jobs proffered by the rich. But everyone is free.
What good is liberty when society is in a state of chaos?
I will address your valid point shortly.What good is liberty when society is in a state of chaos?
Okay, then maybe expand upon what you're considering a 'truly libertarian society' to be? Do you mean "no government"? Because I do agree that at least some government is necessary.
Edit: Obviously not 'no government' since Haiti has a government.
When you say "they", are you referring to Haiti or to 'The rich' (which remains a buzzword until you define what makes someone 'rich')...
I will advocate as best I am able, after all the barriers to class mobility and the market are under attack by the day especially in the minds of youngest generation. There does remain hope in a more balanced equation. Thanks to what remains of the libertarian values of the early period.If you can sell libertarianism to the poor masses such that it keeps them placated, then by all means, go for it.
Create what has always been? No give a name to it so that it can be overcome.Libertarianism will create a two class system: the extremely wealthy elite and a poor masses
True.
True, but I will note that this should be done through charity, NOT through compulsion.
I disagree. I think it should be determined, more or less, by charity rather than "compulsion by majority".
I disagree. I want the charity of individuals to be in control of these matters, not federal government compulsion.
The best answer I could find within libertarian philosophy on how to educate the children of the working poor would be that some wealthy person or organization would make a deal with my father. They would pay for his children’s primary education, and either we children or my father would somehow pay them back in future labor. That “indentured servitude” didn’t sound right to me at the time, so I abandoned the libertarian philosophy.
Still the urge to identify with an ideology was strong. For a very brief time, socialism sounded great. Fortunately, that period lasted shorter than my time as libertarian. Eventually I parked myself into a version of conservatism, one that emphasized self-reliance and independence from government but allowed some interference from government to the “natural order”. This stage of my life lasted about 15 years.
One day, I came across a stunning fact. The drilling rig wages I had put towards to pay my tuition fees only covered 10% of the costs for my post-secondary education. My provincial government picked up the rest of the bill. So here I was with my conservatism ideology, but my education came from a socialist agenda. I had troubles reconciling this paradox. If I were to truly to be a conservative, I should have paid for all my education up front. But even the high wages of the drilling rigs would not have covered these costs.
Had society not collectively educated young men and women from working poor backgrounds, many of them would not have gone on to fill important occupations in society. In essence, society made an investment its people, and society attained a profit a decade or so later. I could see the logic, so I was starting to think like a socialist again.
After several years of thinking, I am neither a conservative nor a socialist. I have gravitated towards this political philosophy:
1. There are situations where society must let individuals make their own choices and live with the consequences.
2. There are situations where society must take collective action to better society. This means paying taxes and providing services to those who cannot afford them.
3. The balance between #1 and #2 shall be determined by democratic means.
4. For each time government tries to effect change in society, it should monitor how well the change is working and make appropriate adjustments.
Western democracies are already providing some sort of balance. I would argue that it is probably not the best balance we could attain for political parties are far more interested in electoral success than the society they may govern. It’s time for a new system, one not based on “isms.”
Ironically, I can now see how a libertarian philosophy could work. Those with higher abilities and drive should be allowed to keep much of their earnings. But they also need to be trained to recognize that they have talents, ambition, skills, and experience other people could never attain. The more talented need to become more compassionate and generous and recognize that a strong civil society helps them earn and enjoy a higher income. And for those on the “receiving” end, they must learn to be more grateful and responsible. They still have a duty to move themselves forward in life.
But we are not in a functional libertarian mindset yet. The only way to get there is to apply a better balance of individual freedom and collective action.
You're not a socialist, you're a social democrat, with a certain wistful fondness for your libertarian dreams from the past.
No worry, those will fade eventually.
You're normal.
Because charity is people actually wanting to make a true difference and set a good example, while compulsion is not.WHy??
Yup... and how would that be different for compulsion? In fact, I would argue that more people would suffer under compulsion and more negative results would come out of compulsion than out of charity. -- I think there's a lesson to be learned from The Bible (whether those stories are truth or fiction) in realizing that "the way of Jesus" was charity and "the way of Satan" was compulsion.It is shown that charity leaves people behind to suffer.
To help people in need of help. To lift up society. To "make a positive difference".What do you think the purpose of charity is?
Because charity is people actually wanting to make a true difference and set a good example, while compulsion is not.
Yup... and how would that be different for compulsion? In fact, I would argue that more people would suffer under compulsion and more negative results would come out of compulsion than out of charity. -- I think there's a lesson to be learned from The Bible (whether those stories are truth or fiction) in realizing that "the way of Jesus" was charity and "the way of Satan" was compulsion.
To help people in need of help. To lift up society. To "make a positive difference".
Okay, gotcha now.All versions of libertarian philosophy have some government. I think the Ayn Rand version only allows for foreign affairs, a standing army, and courts. Everything else, including sewers and ambulances, belongs in private affairs or co-operative movements.
Okay, gotcha now.The antecedent pronoun is correct. "They" refers previous noun phrase "the rich."
I'd still like to know what exactly "the rich" means... Over 50K/yr? Over 100K/yr? Plus, the number will vary by location (since cost of living varies by location).Haiti is not a full libertarian society. The rich put all sorts of roadblocks for the any of the masses to become successful. But maybe that is just good business.
No, it doesn't... For some people, charity might be about themselves (and making themselves feel better). For other people, charity might be about the 'needy people' (and making THEM feel better). It depends on one's motives... Either way, the end result is needy people receiving help by means of free will instead of compulsion.That of course, makes it all about YOU, and not about the people to be uplifted.
Government got involved because government wants control and power. Charity can and does do just fine without government involvement and compulsion. Once the government gets involved, it isn't even charity anymore. It is compulsion and force.Ans the reason the government got involved is that 'charity' wasn't doing the job completely. So you re argument is null and void
I will address your valid point shortly.
First, what good is a "democratic" government that can't correct itself from its woes?
Okay, gotcha now.
Okay, gotcha now.
So, you're saying that "the rich" can afford to hire police, get health care, etc. etc. while "the poor" can't afford it, so they don't get those services.
Here, I agree that things such as the police should probably be in the public sector.
I'd still like to know what exactly "the rich" means... Over 50K/yr? Over 100K/yr? Plus, the number will vary by location (since cost of living varies by location).
I'm not sure how "the rich" stop "the masses" from being successful... Capitalism has brought great wealth to America, to where even the poorest people in America typically have a sizeably higher QOL than wealthier people in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Richer people make this happen for poorer people, and they provide jobs for the poorer people.
We could...When we make collective decision to hire police for all citizens, we are moving away from a pure libertarian philosophy. We could make the same argument for elementary schools, sewage systems, roads, public health, etc. And I should add that there are branches of the libertarian philosophy that support this level of government intervention.
That's kind of why I'm asking... My thoughts on what constitutes "rich" and "poor" are probably different than yours, so it's rather hard to use undefined terms equally... Plus, we don't even live in the same country, if your location is to be believed... How far one's income goes in Alberta (Canada) is likely different than in Wisconsin (USA). Heck, even different cities and regions within our states likely differ quite a bit...There really isn't a line to define rich or poor. My family would be classed as "lower middle class". But a single mother with 2 kids and a minimum wage job would see our income as rich. It's all relative.
Libertarianism... it was definitely NOT because of Socialism... Socialism creates no wealth. Capitalism is what creates wealth.The life of the poor has improved dramatically in the century in western societies. But was that because of libertarianism or socialism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?