Should Marriage Be Within The Scope of Government?

[Xerographica]

Just about every libertarian on the planet agrees that basic human rights should be equal for all citizens, and not just the rich.

If we allowed taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector...then what would happen to basic human rights?

You want to give the rich all the power and the poor none of the power.

So you disagree with the concept of dollar voting?

I asked you two questions earlier which you ignored:

I already answered both of them

- How would you feel being on trial in a court room full of people that would financially benefit by putting you in jail?

What does this even mean? Let's say that I've tricked 1000s of people into giving me their money. Therefore, 1000s of people would financially benefit by putting me in jail? Errr...yes? Don't half-ass your examples...be specific. Explain exactly what I'm on trail for.

- How many "followers" do you have for your made-up pragmatarianism religion?

Less than 20 on facebook. Evidently all the rich people haven't gotten the memo yet.

We live in a republic, where all citizens have equal rights, and it's not their wealth that determines their rights.

Vague nonsense. Be specific.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If we allowed taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector...then what would happen to basic human rights?



So you disagree with the concept of dollar voting?



I already answered both of them



What does this even mean? Let's say that I've tricked 1000s of people into giving me their money. Therefore, 1000s of people would financially benefit by putting me in jail? Errr...yes? Don't half-ass your examples...be specific. Explain exactly what I'm on trail for.



Less than 20 on facebook. Evidently all the rich people haven't gotten the memo yet.



Vague nonsense. Be specific.

I've already told you I disagree with the concept of dollar voting, because the richer get more votes, and the poor get zero votes. That's not the way a republic and egalitarian society are structured.

I would like to know, from a moral aspect, why you think that rich people deserve billions more votes than the normal citizen, and that poor people deserve no votes?

 

[Xerographica]

I've already told you I disagree with the concept of dollar voting, because the richer get more votes, and the poor get zero votes. That's not the way a republic and egalitarian society are structured.

I would like to know, from a moral aspect, why you think that rich people deserve billions more votes than the normal citizen, and that poor people deserve no votes?

Once you understand the economics then you'll understand why your question is so useless.

The most important question is: how should we use society's limited resources? For example...how should we use lemons? How many different ways are there of using lemons?

1. We can throw them at cars
2. We can use them to make lemonade
3. We can use them to make the best salad dressing ever
4. We can use them in these 25 ways

Is that list comprehensive? Is it possible that there is some use that has yet to be discovered?

Each use provides society with a different amount of benefit. It's a given that throwing lemons at cars provides very little benefit. In fact, the total harm is greater than the total benefit. In other words, the cost is greater than the benefit. Therefore, throwing lemons at cars is a loss for society as a whole.

So, perhaps you enjoy throwing lemons at cars...but the rest of society suffers because of it. As a result, nobody's going to pay you to throw lemons at cars. You're not going to get rich by throwing lemons at cars. This obviously limits how many lemons are thrown at cars.

But what if you happened to win the lotto? Then you could hire people to help you throw lemons at cars. Hiring people is a good thing right? This is the "aggregate demand" that RGacky3 seems to love. RGacky3 loves employment and could care less how much benefit/harm is actually being produced.

If, unlike RGacky3, we actually want lemons to be used in a way that produces the maximum benefit...then consumers have to have the freedom to communicate exactly which use benefits them the most. Markets work because consumers can reach into their own pockets and dollar vote for the most beneficial uses of lemons. Whoever is using lemons to produce the most benefit will receive the most dollar votes. This is how people become rich.

People become rich by using society's limited resources to benefit others. With this in mind...it should be obvious how nonsensical your argument is...

I would like to know, from a moral aspect, why you think that rich people deserve billions more votes than the normal citizen, and that poor people deserve no votes?

If I use lemons to produce the best salad dressing ever...whether or not I "deserve" to be rich is determined by "normal" citizens. Is it "fair" if a multitude of consumers want to give me their money in exchange for my salad dressing? Is it the "right" thing for them to do? Why don't they just give all that money to poor people instead? Why don't they just completely disregard how well people are using society's limited resources? If they did so then it would be easy for them to evenly distribute their dollars. The result would be a very egalitarian society in which everybody was completely worse off.

The "moral" of the story is that society as a whole suffers when society's limited resources are inefficiently allocated. Poor people don't benefit when all of society's lemons are thrown at cars. Poor people benefit when they have more opportunities to help produce the products/goods that they benefit from and hence are willing to pay for. In other words, poor people benefit from prosperity. We all benefit from prosperity and prosperity depends on efficiently allocating resources.

Now try actually doing your homework...

• Wealth Equality vs Consumer Sovereignty
• Dollar Voting vs Ballot Voting
• Preference Revelation Problem

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Once you understand the economics then you'll understand why your question is so useless.

The most important question is: how should we use society's limited resources? For example...how should we use lemons? How many different ways are there of using lemons?

1. We can throw them at cars
2. We can use them to make lemonade
3. We can use them to make the best salad dressing ever
4. We can use them in these 25 ways

Is that list comprehensive? Is it possible that there is some use that has yet to be discovered?

Each use provides society with a different amount of benefit. It's a given that throwing lemons at cars provides very little benefit. In fact, the total harm is greater than the total benefit. In other words, the cost is greater than the benefit. Therefore, throwing lemons at cars is a loss for society as a whole.

So, perhaps you enjoy throwing lemons at cars...but the rest of society suffers because of it. As a result, nobody's going to pay you to throw lemons at cars. You're not going to get rich by throwing lemons at cars. This obviously limits how many lemons are thrown at cars.

But what if you happened to win the lotto? Then you could hire people to help you throw lemons at cars. Hiring people is a good thing right? This is the "aggregate demand" that RGacky3 seems to love. RGacky3 loves employment and could care less how much benefit/harm is actually being produced.

If, unlike RGacky3, we actually want lemons to be used in a way that produces the maximum benefit...then consumers have to have the freedom to communicate exactly which use benefits them the most. Markets work because consumers can reach into their own pockets and dollar vote for the most beneficial uses of lemons. Whoever is using lemons to produce the most benefit will receive the most dollar votes. This is how people become rich.

People become rich by using society's limited resources to benefit others. With this in mind...it should be obvious how nonsensical your argument is...



If I use lemons to produce the best salad dressing ever...whether or not I "deserve" to be rich is determined by "normal" citizens. Is it "fair" if a multitude of consumers want to give me their money in exchange for my salad dressing? Is it the "right" thing for them to do? Why don't they just give all that money to poor people instead? Why don't they just completely disregard how well people are using society's limited resources? If they did so then it would be easy for them to evenly distribute their dollars. The result would be a very egalitarian society in which everybody was completely worse off.

The "moral" of the story is that society as a whole suffers when society's limited resources are inefficiently allocated. Poor people don't benefit when all of society's lemons are thrown at cars. Poor people benefit when they have more opportunities to help produce the products/goods that they benefit from and hence are willing to pay for. In other words, poor people benefit from prosperity. We all benefit from prosperity and prosperity depends on efficiently allocating resources.

Now try actually doing your homework...

• Wealth Equality vs Consumer Sovereignty
• Dollar Voting vs Ballot Voting
• Preference Revelation Problem

Yep, still not seeing anything in here explaining why rich people deserve all the votes and poor people none.

According to your proposed model, why have a government at all? Why not privatize EVERYTHING? Trials will be purely based on the free market. Those who can buy their way out can, poor people will get convicted. National defense? Only if the rich decide they want to.

 

[Xerographica]

Yep, still not seeing anything in here explaining why rich people deserve all the votes and poor people none.

Does it matter how society's limited resources are used?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Does it matter how society's limited resources are used?

For certain things, yes. I think everything that can logically be accomplished by the free market should be. However, the entirety of the justice system can not be accomplished by the free market. Rich people also don't deserve a billion more votes than other people when it comes to government.

What makes your system any different than pure anarchy? In pure anarchy only the rich have justice and defense.

 

[Master PO]

a description of rights and privileges need to be explained in this thread, so people can understand the two are not the same.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

a description of rights and privileges need to be explained in this thread, so people can understand the two are not the same.

Now, you're going into territory way over the head of most posters...

 

[Xerographica]

For certain things, yes.

How can it only matter how some of society's limited resources are used? That's completely nonsensical.

I think everything that can logically be accomplished by the free market should be.

And this is different from how everybody else thinks? Why would consumers pay the private sector to do something that it can't accomplish?

However, the entirety of the justice system can not be accomplished by the free market.

If the government is better than the private sector at supplying justice...then why wouldn't taxpayers pay the government to supply justice?

Rich people also don't deserve a billion more votes than other people when it comes to government.

But they deserve a billion more votes when it comes to the market?

What makes your system any different than pure anarchy? In pure anarchy only the rich have justice and defense.

I already told you that in a pragmatarian system people would still have to pay taxes...but they would be able to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to.

If a rich person gives their taxes to the DoD...do you think the DoD is going to mail them a big box of national defense? If a rich person gives their taxes to the Dept of Justice...do you think the Dept of Justice going to mail them a big box of justice? Is this is how it would be possible for only the rich to have justice and defense?

Is this how it works in the non-profit sector? When rich people make charitable donations...the charitable organizations mail them a big box of charity? Your arguments are hilariously absurd.

The point of shopping is to allow people to address the shortages that concern them. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector...then they'd give their taxes to the Department of Justice if they felt that there was a shortage of public courts. Evidently you fail to grasp simple economics such as supply and demand.

Do we need more judges or more doctors? Or maybe we need more scientists? The market works because consumers are given the freedom to use their own money to communicate their preferences. In a pragmatarian system, if taxpayers wanted more justice then they'd give more of their taxes to the Dept of Justice. If they wanted more space exploration than they'd give more of their taxes to NASA. If they wanted more protection for the environment then they'd give more of their taxes to the EPA.

Why would we want more...or less...judges than society truly demands? Society as a whole does not benefit from a surplus or shortage of judges. As I said, society as a whole is harmed when its limited resources are inefficiently allocated.

Does it matter if society's resources are efficiently allocated? Let me guess...only for certain things? LOL

 

[Xerographica]

a description of rights and privileges need to be explained in this thread, so people can understand the two are not the same.

Should polygamy be a right or a privilege?

 

[roguenuke]

For all those not aware, one of the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment is that if something is a privilege/benefit offered/regulated by the government, then the government is required to treat everyone equally in the distribution of those privileges/benefits. This means if a limitation is put on a specific privilege/benefit, then the onus is on the government, state or federal, whichever offering the specific privilege/benefit, to show how that specific limitation furthers a state interest.

This whole "rights are different than privileges" thing is bull. The people have the rights, not the government. And no, that doesn't mean that states have more rights than individuals. States must show how restricting people from doing something furthers a legitimate state interest.

 

[RGacky3]

Given that you're a socialist...this egalitarian argument makes perfect sense coming from you. But can you explain why RabidAlpaca is making the same exact argument?

No, nor do I care, the point still stands.

But just admit you're gutting any sense of democracy and replacing it with literally plutocracy, i.e. aristocracy.

 

[Xerographica]

No, nor do I care, the point still stands.

But just admit you're gutting any sense of democracy and replacing it with literally plutocracy, i.e. aristocracy.

It's all about.........which is more important?

 

[RGacky3]

It's all about.........which is more important?

That's a false question because it depends what you mean by efficiency, for whome, and whether or not that efficiency includes externalities or not.