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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (41320)	11/16/2005 4:11:04 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

What would you do, outlaw gambling? Completely? No. Limit full-scale casinos to one state, say NV? Sounds good. The addicts can go or live there and leave the rest of us in peace. Meanwhile the states are one of the biggest gambling operations themselves with the lotteries they run. Yeah. AND THAT SHOULD END!!! Better corrupt businesses than corrupt gov'ts. (ordered anarchy seems like a contradiction in terms but it isn't necessarily so, particularly in theory, practice can of course be a bit more difficult and messy than theory) "Oxymoron" is the term I'd use. Give an example of "ordered anarchy". Where or when has it been seen? If it's so great. why isn't it still around? For that matter, give an example of stable anarchy. The first guy with a big club grabs control, declares himself king or Supreme Leader, and end of anarchy. but that doesn't make for an effective argument against libertarian ideas It doesn't? The fact that libertarianism doesn't work in the real world isn't an argument against it? Then the fact that communisn doesn't work isn't an argument against it either. at most it makes for an argument against the most extreme forms of libertarianism (and then only with the unstated assumption that any form of anarchy is automatically horrible). If people actually LIKED anarchy, you'd see it. Lots of it. They don't. "Better ANY gov't than anarchy" seems to be the rule. Totally random violence coming from any quarter is judged worse than an arbitrary dictatorship. At least then you have some idea who the enemy is. What "form" of libertarianism are you promoting? They all seem to soon devolve into anarchy when pushed. What is required to prove incompetence? Missing a credit card payment? Losing a house? Bankruptcy? I wouldn't say any of those, or even all of those together would be sufficient. Something like a legal finding that someone was criminally insane, or a finding that they where incompetent do to having an IQ of about 60 might do the job. Competent adults can and should be allowed to make their own decisions on most things. I think there should be a strong presumption that people (at least those who have reached a certain age) are competent adults, not children, lunatics, or idiots who need to be cared for an controlled by the state. The absence of such a presumption would be IMO extremely dangerous, far more dangerous then gambling. Incompetent in this case not just meaning somewhat foolish, or prone to get themselves in to trouble, but rather unable to function in society without close supervision. Where are you on this? Message 21888872