25th July 2015, 11:52 AM
alien space marine Wrote:it takes money to build and maintain public infastructure and institutions, Voluntary contributions are not a reliable or sustainable sources of revenue to fund their upkeep, freeloaders are the reason we have taxes.
If you privatize law enforcement and defence you've essentially handed the monopoly on the use of force to billionaires or warlords who head private security contractors.
How does it hand a monopoly to multiple competing private security services?
Why do you automatically call people warlords or billionaires? Of all the security companies I've seen: the ones that patrol apartment complexes, the ones that are at concerts & events .... I doubt those are warlords and billionaires.
It behooves those security companies to employ quality people, lest the companies go out of business after no one likes their services.
Were you referring to Blackwater and gangs? Now Blackwater may be worth millions or billions but that's because the your precious government is paying them that much.
The billionaires that do exist could pay for roads. They'd own them, and they could charge us for us. That way if you don't drive, you don't have to pay. I drive, so I'd want my contract with the road owners to state that they owe me a safe road to drive on. The road owners would want to maintain their roads because they'd then be responsible for the safety of the roads
- - - Updated - - -
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I live in a state with a very random sort of natural disaster. Tornadoes are only just barely predictable, in that you can predict when the conditions are right for them. Beyond that, the best you can hope for is a few hour's warning at best. Some have wondered why Oklahomans don't "evacuate" during tornado season, and that's why. Tornadoes just don't have enough lead time to make evacuation a realistic possibility. This is actually a massive improvement on past ability to predict tornadoes (basically your only chance at all was actually seeing one with your own eyes).
The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).
Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.
The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.
I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.
Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I live in a state with a very random sort of natural disaster. Tornadoes are only just barely predictable, in that you can predict when the conditions are right for them. Beyond that, the best you can hope for is a few hour's warning at best. Some have wondered why Oklahomans don't "evacuate" during tornado season, and that's why. Tornadoes just don't have enough lead time to make evacuation a realistic possibility. This is actually a massive improvement on past ability to predict tornadoes (basically your only chance at all was actually seeing one with your own eyes).
The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).
Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.
The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.
I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.
Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.
My emotions do play a part in this debate. I'm passionately against the initiation of the use of force. My previous discussions of life and death situations, are just the statements of the facts of nature. Of course it's an emotional event when people die. Don't tell me I'm detached. I've never suggested that.
Seriously what is it with all of you thinking you can tell people who they are or what they think. It's very disrespectful.
Thanks for the tornado knowledge. The history is interesting. I think it's awesome that there are unscathed people who help their damage-stricken neighbors. I bet it makes these helpful people feel good to do so. The guy who says "suck to be them" obviously doesn't value his neighbors.
Robin Hood is considered a hero by some. In the Disney Robin Hood, he steals from the king to give to the citizens. The government originally stole from the citizens. In that light Robin Hood is sort of like a private security force for the people he helps.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is on a mode for individuals... the top level of the hierarchy if Self Actualization.
"Why is it okay for any entity to initiate the use of force?"
"Because hierarchy of needs!"
Or how about this one. Cop: "Since you aren't a making trouble, I was gonna let you off with a warning for smoking weed in your own residence, but hierarchy of needs, so the city's gonna shake you down $1,000. If you don't pay they'll put you in a cage. If you object to being jailed, you'll be tazed, and then put in a cage."
The "right not to die of exposure" cannot be applied universally without force. I don't think this is a right. As a helpful neighbor myself, I still better get some homeowner's insurance http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insuranc...rnado.aspx I know I can't depend on my neighbors to keep me 100% afloat. I respect that they have lives too. I also wouldn't want to assisted via stolen money or by people that are pissed that they have to help me out. I'd just rather not associate with them.
All of these arguments I've received of people being grains of salt, not having ownership over their lives, not allowed to take any credit for their legitimate accomplishments, and assuming that truly free individuals will help one another... These are the arguments of people who are not passionate about life, who are hopeless for themselves, who are hopeless for others, who live for death.