Now that our season is over...

[Roy 82]

For fuck's sake, if it will kill this thread, then Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

It wasn't a part of an argument, so I don't think it counts.

Oh, so who are you to decide what counts and what doesn't? Last century in Germany there was a man who thought that he could tell everyone what should count and what shouldn't. He ended up murdering millions. Thread Nazi!

[Rosey]

I don't know what to tell you Kyle. We're social animals. Group behavior is what this species is all about. Just as groups of cells can be sentient, groups of people can be sentient as well.

OMG, we've gone off the deep end.

We've developed an imperfect system to encourage peaceful, cooperative group behavior to foster decision-making in terms of the allocation of our resources.

No, people form governments primarily to protect them from external threats.  That all this other stuff has been tacked on later, and the power of government levy taxes used to fund further erosions of our liberty, is just more evidence in favor of my argument.  There is no reason why my desire to have an army to defend me from invading Mongols must come paired with pension payments to old people: the two are entirely orthogonal, and implying that they are somehow inexorably linked is disingenuous.  Total government may be the inevitable endpoint of any government, but it isn't necessary to achieve the objectives that people had in mind when they formed the government in the first place.

While this system curbs certain individual actions (like the abillity to own nuclear weapons, earn an incoming without paying taxes, or building structures with asbestos in them)

Straw man.  But don't let me stop you.

it also provides a lot of benefits to everybody in the group as well.

You reject the possibility that a far more limited government might benefit some people much more than the existing system?

Common defense. Research in basic science. Education for our youth. Public provisions to the young, old, and suffering. Greater prosperity and well-being.

So you assert that these things are not possible in the absence of total government?

If you really dislike democracy as a system of government, you can: 1) run for public office on a platform of getting rid of democracy, or 2) try to find another group of people somewhere else in this universe that will have you.

As expected, I will file you in the "If you don't like it, move" bucket.  Cheers.

[mnagowski]

As expected, I will file you in the "If you don't like it, move" bucket. Cheers.

Not at all. I eagerly await your run for public office.

[kaelistus]

If you really dislike democracy as a system of government, you can: 1) run for public office on a platform of getting rid of democracy, or 2) try to find another group of people somewhere else in this universe that will have you.

While we're seem to be on the same side of health care, I absolutely hate the leave the country statements.

I'd love to move to a country that has a more socialist type government*. But in order to do this I need to be given full citizenship or a permanent green card for said country. Otherwise I can't actually make a living there. So it's not an option. (I'd probably also need language lessons for me and my wife if the country I move to is not Spain or the U.K.). Given what are real options for me, I chose to live in one of the most socialist of American cities.

(Kyle would want to move to a less socialist country but the point still stands. Although I'm not sure why he would want to live in Boston.)

* Not a fan of full socialism either. But unlike what some screamers might say, socialism vs capitalism does not have to be a black and white thing.

[French Rage]

Me? I only wonder what the Kentucky post-season thread is talking about.

I hear they're having an in-depth discussion on the merits of an integrated European economic market.

[Rosey]

(Kyle would want to move to a less socialist country but the point still stands. Although I'm not sure why he would want to live in Boston.)

I love everything about Boston except for the government.  (And the terrible drivers, of course, but that's really not so bad once you figure out the specific ways in which Boston drivers are retarded.)  In all seriousness, Boston is a great place to live because it's full of young, energetic people with passions for nearly everything: if you have a hobby, no matter how esoteric, you can find a group of like-minded people here.  I also like the fact that at practically any time of the day or night somewhere there is a pickup hockey game I can get in on: there are at least 80 hockey rinks in the greater Boston area.

The government here, OTOH, is a corrupt, one-party, old boys' club that is in serious need of major turnover.  For example, the last three speakers of the Massachusetts House have been indicted.  But the people vote Democrat because they've always voted Democrat and their daddies voted Democrat, and I suspect they also have the voting equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome: secretly, they've come to identify with their terrible government.  "They're assholes, sure... but they're our assholes!"  I suspect this will change eventually, but right now the Republican party (anti-gay, pro-war, anti-freedom) isn't exactly a viable alternative.  People here are educated and rightfully look on populism and politicians like Sarah Palin with disdain: but that doesn't leave them much of a choice on election day.

[mnagowski]

(And the terrible drivers, of course, but that's really not so bad once you figure out the specific ways in which Boston drivers are retarded.)

Well, at least we can agree on some things. I felt the highway driving in Boston was pretty awful, as well as through some of inner suburbs. Part of it has to do, I think, with the shorter acceleration lanes. I biked a lot during the summer I first got sick because I couldn't walk but I could still bike, and I felt the drivers throughout Cambridge and downtown were always fairly courteous to bikers.

As for Massachusett's corruptness, I didn't feel it was that bad. But that's because I come from Upstate New York, which is pretty awful. Massachusett's state government looks like a model of efficiency and restraint relative to New York State. Much lower taxes as well. The 'Taxachusetts' name is not deserved at all.

[Roy 82]

No, people form governments primarily to protect them from external threats.  That all this other stuff has been tacked on later, and the power of government levy taxes used to fund further erosions of our liberty, is just more evidence in favor of my argument.  There is no reason why my desire to have an army to defend me from invading Mongols must come paired with pension payments to old people: the two are entirely orthogonal, and implying that they are somehow inexorably linked is disingenuous.  Total government may be the inevitable endpoint of any government, but it isn't necessary to achieve the objectives that people had in mind when they formed the government in the first place.

Do not people form governments to also protect themselves from internal threats? You know, prohibitions against killing, stealing, physical harm, etc....laws. Are there not other forms of internal threats that governments by the people and of the people could also protect people from like hunger, slavery, and many of the common good issues discussed somewhere above?

But let's stick with the assertion that government exists primarily to protect us from external threats. Who decides whether or not there is an external threat to act on? What is the method by which we should act on it? War? Alliance? How do we decide this? How is the tyranny of the majority any different in this case from the case in which the government acts against an internal threat?

One other deep issue to consider in addition to the fundamental legitimacy of property rights is what about children? If the parents choose not to insure themselves or their family is it the child's fault? Should they suffer for it and fail to receive care?

[mnagowski]

One other deep issue to consider in addition to the fundamental legitimacy of property rights is what about children? If the parents choose not to insure themselves or their family is it the child's fault? Should they suffer for it and fail to receive care?

But children are just the property of their parent's until the age of 18 so we don't have to worry about them, right?  ::rolleyes::

I think dealing with the issue of children and what you are born into is one of the fundamental problems with a property rights only approach to liberty and justice. Specifically, there are many scenarios in a property-rights only universe that fail the Rawlsian test that freedoms and liberties should have meaningful value to you.

More specifically, if you aren't granted any of our positive rights (the right to life, the right to eduction, the right to nourishment, etc.) your freedoms to interact in a property-rights regime will be seriously encroached upon.

In your ideal property-rights world, let's suggest that for whatever reason a lot of adults die. So you could find yourself in a situation where you have a lot of feral children roaming around, technically squatters on other people's property, trying to steal food, and constantly being chased away by the property-owners, with guns. Because they had stunted linguistic and cognitive skills, these feral children would lack the capacity to interact in a property-rights universe. Hell, they would lack the capacity to live. And, well, you can't worry about "freedom" unless you are pretty certain you are going to live the next day, right?

One could suggest that all of the property-rights holders could donate charity to an orphanage. But because it's voluntary, only some do, and eventually the orphanage gets overcrowded and underfunded. Soon there's no food for the orphans and the children start to die.

Questions:

1) Would either Kyle or Keith agree to the possibility of being born into a system like this?
2a) If not, describe to me how a property-rights only view of liberty could possibly safeguard this outcome. Because I wouldn't have wanted either of you to die in an orphanage at the age of five.
2b) If yes, assume that you become that dying orphan. Could you then tell me that none of your liberties had been encroached upon by your perfect 'property-rights' regime?

[Roy 82]

No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

[KeithK]

No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

[Jim Hyla]

No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

You have your theory, we have ours.::snore::

[Roy 82]

No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

I'm sorry, your arguing time is up. That's it. Good morning!:-)

P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.
P.P.S. No I haven't had an original thought in years.

[KeithK]

P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.

No argument there.

[ugarte]

P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.

No argument there.

Quitter.