Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (97811)	3/12/2005 2:45:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

it causes problems for society at the same time it may solve others The question is what to do about that. Most government programs have unforeseen consequences. Where you stand on exerting the power of government in various matters is to a great extent a function of your confidence in government to fix more than it messes up. As a thirty year fed, I am well aware of the down side of managing centrally. So we have to decide whether to intervene and override the freedom of individuals to make their own choices. As you suggest, either way their will be some losses--either government distortions of natural systems or individual screw ups. I think, as a general rule, we're better off exerting a light hand and then helping those who lose out rather than proactively overruling the individual's responsibility and judgment. I don't know if the net damage done by the war on drugs is more or less than allowing drugs to be sold and use legally. I don't think anyone knows. There will be problems either way. I doubt things could be worse than with our current model, but I don't know. I think we should at least give the matter some creative consideration. Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy because it does not take into consideration that not everyone is capable of achieving at the same highly capable level--that some people do need more assistance from society than others, for many reasons, often beyond the control of the individual. I do not enjoy looking at homeless people either. Your insistence on selfishness assumes that the only instrument for helping the homeless is the government. If that were the case, then you'd be right. But we can help the homeless independent of the government, certainly independent of the federal government. Assuming that libertarians selfishly have any less concern for those who fall through the cracks than statists do is not valid. Rather, it's a matter of what instruments we use.

To: Grainne who wrote (97811)	3/12/2005 2:47:02 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

some people do need more assistance from society than others I think most people agree with that. The difficulty is to help the helpless without the more able taking unfair advantage of that good will. * * *

To: Grainne who wrote (97811)	3/12/2005 3:32:31 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy> When I was younger and all-knowing I was a libertarian. I didn't want anything because nothing had been given to me. Society and the economy are better off because I got GI Bill after donating my body to the government, but I'd have preferred a Government Service equivalent like fighting forest fires or something. As an educated professional, I could provide more leverage. As I got older, had children and aging parents, it became apparent that not everyone gets the same set of capabilities. Libertarian philosophies lack compassion, which I feel (now) is essential. But so is a general socially liberal philosophy because there are many ways to make it in the world, most of which bring some value if not exploitive and balanced by their true costs.

To: Grainne who wrote (97811)	3/23/2005 7:29:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Libertarianism is a selfish philosophy because it does not take into consideration that not everyone is capable of achieving at the same highly capable level--that some people do need more assistance from society than others, for many reasons, often beyond the control of the individual. Not believing in the use of force or threat of force (even indirectly) as a routine way to try and make the circumstances of peoples lives more equal doesn't equal selfishness. Let me try to make an analogy to make the point. Imagine you are stranded on a deserted island with me, and two other people we will cal Joe and Bob. Imagine that Joe is very good at fishing with primitive equipment and that he keeps himself well fed. Also imagine Joe is either selfish or has some other reason he will not share the fish he catches. Imagine that you and I do ok at fishing, hunting, gathering or whatever other method we use to get food. We get enough to feed ourselves but not really enough to share with others. No imagine Bob is incompetent at getting food for himself. He stays alive because we give him what we can. Joe is getting fat off fish and he doesn't even have to put a lot of time and effort in to it. You've seen him throw back some of his catch when he is full rather than share it with Joe. This gets you angry but when you yell at Joe about it he tells you to go to hell. Then you have an idea. Maybe if you get together with me, we can force Joe to share some of his food with poor Bob. We wouldn't have to exhaust ourselves trying to get enough food for a third person. Joe, once he was forced in to it, could get plenty of food. So you ask me. I tell you I'll try to argue with Joe to get him to share. I do but it has no effect. Then you tell me "we have to force him". What if I say "No, I'm not Joe's ruler and while I think he's a selfish bastard I'm not going to try and control his life. OK, so Joe is a selfish bastard. But am I? Does it make any difference that I am busting my butt to produce extra food for Bob? --- And that is dealing with food. Our country is rich enough that we can ensure that the sick and feeble, those who are incapable, can get enough food without being too much strain on everyone else. Many libertarians wouldn't oppose a government program to keep people from starving, or if they did oppose it, they might be likely to do so because they think the program is poorly designed and wasteful, or because they think it can be handled by private charity, rather than because they are ready to say the people should be allowed to starve. Tim