This is a conversation that I was having via Facebook with a girl I used to know and one of her friends, who are Libertarians. It started out with me asking if they really believe that the best way to run the economy was to end all government subsidies and all taxation. There is more to their ideas than this, but it is all along those themes. That is, for those that think this might be a good thing is any government subsidy, like education and health care (public schools are run by the state and healthcare too). This would mean a lot of home schooling for the poor and uneducated and private schools for the wealthy. Three tiered healthcare: none, what you get with insurance and what you can pay for. In exchange you get no taxes. Initially this might sound good, I have no children and the last time I had a serious medical problem was when I was a kid, one broken arm and one elective surgery at age seven. But I know that healthcare is paying for emergencies and the elderly, which if I do not die by my own hand, I might reach one day. Education needs to be universal as emancipation, because it frees the masses and adds to the potential economy.
When I finished writing this they simply stated that I was wrong and it would take too long to explain why. They would not even take the time to explain one thing.:
Greenpsychpomp, what do you think is happening now?
Tiger lions' claims:
1)Libertarianism returns the power to the people, where it should be.
Who are these people, as previously mentioned I suggested that these people are the wealthy, as they are the ones that would benefit most from no taxes and who would be able to afford proper schooling and healthcare, but also better quality everything. As per the American Dream, the poor could aspire to join the wealthy elite, but as with that dream that is all that it is. See the growing gap between the poor and the rich and the present myth of the middle class.
2)Who is in control right now? A few very large corporations and a government that is in bed with them.
Strange, if I follow from the last comment on the last claim, I might suggest that the owners of those same few very large corporations would be the same "people" who would benefit most from Libertarianism. Still this is a claim, it holds no truth unless you are going to name names. You have to substantiate your claim.
3)The a) government is a self serving entity b) that is growing larger and larger on the backs of the taxpayers and c)subsidies from those few big corporations that require legislation in their favour.
a) true. Government is a job and the party in control wants to stay in control, how would a Libertarian government be any different — it wouldn't.
b) ah something that can be proven one way or the other, but you would have to prove that it has grown bigger than the population has grown and in proportion to all the services that people expect of it. But you just stated the claim there is no proof that backs up your assertion and that is all it is until you do.
c) I assume that you are talking lobbyists? Or political contributions? Funny how the left wing Socialist governments have tried to limit that source of political Capitol and right wing libertarian-like parties increase these donations, oops I just made a claim myself. Corporations often benefit more from reduced regulation that right-wing parties often introduce so right-wing parties often reap more political funding from these businesses than pro regulation left-wing parties— do you contest this?
4) government mismanages, wastes and squanders tax payer dollars
Sure there is some waste, there is always some waste in every government and the waste gets bigger as the government gets bigger. Rob Ford got elected to get rid of the Gravy Train, but when he got in he found out there was very little to trim. One might say that coaching football during working hours was more gravy than he found. As was pulling strings to get work done on his mother's street before the annual Ford Picnic was more gravy. I think that it is interesting that the closing of two gas plants got a lot of fuss when all three parties wanted to end them. When you are talking about governments with budgets of billions, a million dollars is not much.
I challenge you to show me a government that did not have waste.
5) big corporations keep them (governments) going so that they control the legislators. (I assume you meant legislation.)
This you will need to show proof, it is a rather extraordinary claim. Are you talking about Lobbyists? If you can prove this I know that the RCMP will want to see your proof, unless you are suggesting that the police are in on the conspiracy?
5)The system we have now guarantees the disparity that you are opposed to.
Oh I quite agree, but I see your system, essentially an Oligarchy, as worse. As the often attributed quote to Winston Churchill, "Democracy, is the worst government, except for all the others." Capitalism is far from ideal and has some huge flaws like the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few: the 1%, the .1% and the .0001%, but then Libertarians would represent high these loftily low percentages.
6) Freedom is the only hope!
Long live the Roman Republic! Oops. Old argument: Pax Libertas. Give me peace or give me freedom. You offer freedom, do you offer true freedom? Anarchy. Lawlessness? Or total Authoritarianism of those with the money?
I would take peace over freedom every time. Pax Romana!
(Assertion suggesting that I am naïve designed to belittle my arguments without addressing them) You have drunk the Koolaid if you really believe that the government is there to protect you.
Girl-That-I-Used-To-Know:
The essential flaw in the socialism you describe, Aubrey, is that it assumes that humans are a sorry lot who won't do anything for each other unless they are forced to at gunpoint. I disagree.
-Actually I don't subscribe to that theory either. I am a Humanist
Girl-That-I-Used-To-Know:
I like humans and I trust them to behave humanely. Problem is - you and I have never been alive in a pre-socialistic world. So you can assume it wouldn't work - I assume that it did and does and must. The poor exist today because of government mismanagement.
-no. The poor always existed. There were poor, always. The poor in Canada are substantially better off, for the most part than the aristocracy of a millennium ago, but it is the disparity between the poor and the wealthy that is the main problem. This is not a government issue, except that the cure is in the hands of the government and they have yet to act to cure the problem.
-the problem is a flaw in Capitalism. There is a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few the .001%. Well actually there is a general concentration in the hands of the top 1%. The Capitol is not in circulation anymore and the people that have it are continuing to acquire more and more wealth increasing the income gap.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
Girl-That-I-Used-To-Know:
No one has money to spend anymore, so there go the jobs. Where did the money go? Buy gas - mostly tax, buy beer - mostly tax, pay a lawyer - mostly tax, buy anything - tax, tax, tax. Income tax, employment tax, insurance tax, fines, permit fees, passport fee, licensing fees, on and on and bloody on. So who can buy flowers? The rich. Nice. Basically, libertarians trust their fellow man. Socialists trust government.
- interesting, I have not heard of a few of those taxes, employment tax, insurance tax. Fines as opposed to jail time- usually a fine is levelled as a penalty for breaking a law, have you been speeding? Interestingly speeding fines are a good way to get people to stop speeding. People who travel to fast are more likely to get in accidents and the accidents are more likely to be serious and serious accidents are a huge burden on our health care system.
- I thought it interesting your point that humans would help other humans without putting a gun to their heads. This is true it you are poor, but not if you are wealthy, the wealthy need things like tax right offs to contribute. Wow Greenpsychopomp, that is a bold statement, I hope you have proof:
http://m.thirdsector.co.uk/article/1176810/poorest-people-give-highest-proportion-income-charity-says-study
-What I am saying is, as a Humanist, I see socialism as a cure for the concentration of wealth from the flaw in Capitolism. I also see that a few economist around the world are coming to the same conclusion, and they are expounding their radical ideas and it is getting traction in world governments.
Too many flaws to discuss one point they said, or perhaps they thought I had drunk the koolaid. They then said I was deluded by my liberal arts education and needed some real world experience. And then they labeled me a few times. Labelling the tried and true way of excluding people from society, something they then said the education system does to people. People do it to people Girl-That-I-Used-To-Know and her friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment