John Stossel: Why I am a libertarian

[MJinZ]

That's some fine gibberish. So you're saying that people's Addictions which result in Marital problems, loss of Job, Crime, ore other nefarious consequence is not a Social Problem? It is only a Social Construct that doesn't truly exist and you reject such Constructs?

I find your Post lacking in substance, but overflowing with Words.

I think he's saying that addictions as taboo are social constructs. Addictions obviously exist, but addiction to Alcohol and Cocaine is not the same as addiction to Coffee and the Internet.

Addiction itself is a construct, and we choose which addictions are viewed as good and which addictions we don't care about. Basically, if you are a coffee drinker and generally against "addictions", you're not using your brain.

 

[daishi5]

I think he's saying that addictions as taboo are social constructs. Addictions obviously exist, but addiction to Alcohol and Cocaine is not the same as addiction to Coffee and the Internet.

Addiction itself is a construct, and we choose which addictions are viewed as good and which addictions we don't care about. Basically, if you are a coffee drinker and generally against "addictions", you're not using your brain.

I don't want to dive too deep into the addiction stuff, but I know some addiction counselors. I think a few of them are looking too hard for things to treat. They are now offering treatment for computer gaming addiction. I understand some people take computer games too far, but to them, it is a sign of addiction that someone is spending $15 a month for a subscription MMO. I don't have the little brochure they showed me for gaming addiction, but apparently $15 dollars a month is one of the indicators a person is addicted. I think they are assuming something they don't understand, computer games, is an aberrant behavior because it is different from what they know. They are also blurring the lines between addictions and compulsions. However, these people are running treatment centers across the nation, and I know almost nothing about addiction.

 

[nonlnear]

Addiction itself is a construct, and we choose which addictions are viewed as good and which addictions we don't care about. Basically, if you are a coffee drinker and generally against "addictions", you're not using your brain.

Bingo.

The rhetorical construct used in public policy is nothing more than a club used to beat up on unpopular addictions and implicitly legitimize popular ones. Observing this, I reject the significance of the label as useful in determining this abstract "Social Need/Desire" - at least for me. Cooking up these labels is simply a way to make Lord of the Flies morality appear a little bit more sophisticated.

I freely acknowledge that I believe some addictions are destructive. However my estimation of "destructive" is only useful to me as a guide to my own conduct. Others' opinions may differ and I respect their right to engage in behavior that I deem self-destructive, just as I expect them to keep their noses out of my business when I do something that they deem self-destructive. There are almost two billion Muslims who believe that my occasional beer is a terrible, self-destructive abomination. Does their belief give them the right to stop me from drinking when I want? I say no. Thankfully many Muslims do too, but anyone who attempts to enforce social policy by the rule of law is fundamentally no different from the Wahhabis.

 

[xj0hnx]

You can't be Self Reliant if you can't Feed yourself. You just pushed the end of Self Reliance earlier than I did.

What makes you think that growing your own food is the only way to feed yourself? As long as man has been on earth there have been some that could make food, and others that traded for it. Instead of hunting for beaver pelts we work for dollars

 

[sandorski]

What makes you think that growing your own food is the only way to feed yourself? As long as man has been on earth there have been some that could make food, and others that traded for it. Instead of hunting for beaver pelts we work for dollars

Oy vey, I suppose we just disagree on what Self Reliance means then. No big whoop, my last post on this tangent.

 

[nonlnear]

Oy vey, I suppose we just disagree on what Self Reliance means then. No big whoop, my last post on this tangent.

It is a big deal for one very simple reason: Your identification of the death of self-reliance with the shift to urban lives is very intentionally constructed to promulgate the idea that the government services commonly associated with urban life are somehow necessitated (to be provided as government services) by that shift to urban life. i.e. that the shift from self-reliance to social interdependency somehow justifies, or even necessitates a much larger role for government.

It matters, because it cuts to the very heart of your rhetoric. But of course, now that it's being deconstructed in front of your face, it's just another "tangent"...

 

[sandorski]

It is a big deal for one very simple reason: Your identification of the death of self-reliance with the shift to urban lives is very intentionally constructed to promulgate the idea that the government services commonly associated with urban life are somehow necessitated (to be provided as government services) by that shift to urban life. i.e. that the shift from self-reliance to social interdependency somehow justifies, or even necessitates a much larger role for government.

It matters, because it cuts to the very heart of your rhetoric. But of course, now that it's being deconstructed in front of your face, it's just another "tangent"...

Nothing has been "Deconstructed". Clearly, you have grown in your understanding of the crux of the problem, though you seem to have as yet admit to it.

Yes, interdependence changes everything. Private Charity and/or Public Safety Net attempt to address that Reality. The big difference between the 2 is that Public Safety Net is more Consistent and Predictable, allowing Citizens to take reasonable Risk with confidence that they have something to fall back on if need be.

Once again, look at History. It is no accident that the greatest period of Economic expansions and technological advancements has occurred where extensive Public Safety Nets exist. Ask yourself why that is.

 

[nonlnear]

Nothing has been "Deconstructed".

Right. That's just a tangent, so it doesn't count...

Clearly, you have grown in your understanding of the crux of the problem, though you seem to have as yet admit to it.

No, I just use words with more precision than you. You throw broad terms like Need[sic] around vaguely, and then pull the rug out from under anyone who attempts to use your own words in good faith.

I have never denied the interdependence of people when working to achieve their goals, and yet I deny the legitimacy of the word "Need". Why? It's so absurd, isn't it? It must be a sign of ignorance... Or maybe it's because words such as goals and interdependence don't have nearly the same measure of implicit value judgment that "Need" does. Yes, we are talking about the same broad questions. However you insist on using ill-defined terms so that you can morph your arguments retroactively to say what you want.

Yes, interdependence changes everything.

I would never deny such an obvious truth.

Private Charity and/or Public Safety Net attempt to address that Reality. The big difference between the 2 is that Public Safety Net is more Consistent and Predictable, allowing Citizens to take reasonable Risk with confidence that they have something to fall back on if need be.

They are functionally similar in certain ways. However a perspective that reduces to such purely functional terms is not one that interests me. First, stating that different modes of wealth transfer are, in fact, modes of wealth transfer is hardly a profound insight. I can produce more insight with a burrito and an Ex-Lax. This over-simplification is aided by the meaningless term "Social Need" (or you can swap it out for the equally useless term "Social Desire"). Such language implicitly anthropomorphizes the concept of the collective. There are people, and those individual people have desires. That is undeniable. Groups can produce documents and statements that the group has a "need" or "desire", but that is simply a convenient mythology used to distract the less influential from the fact that they have just been taken advantage of by the more influential in the group. A "Social Need" is an abstraction used by those who have influence to overstate the significance of their personal desires.

I reject the power structures implicit in your terminology as I reject all attempts to legitimize gangs. To rephrase your claim: Private Charity is the free action of free people; Public Safety Net is a euphemism for a pack of jackals cleaning a carcass they stole. Yes, there is likely to always be more available for the jackals, as long as they don't kill everything in sight.

Once again, look at History. It is no accident that the greatest period of Economic expansions and technological advancements has occurred where extensive Public Safety Nets exist. Ask yourself why that is.

There are a lot of things that happened from about 1400-1940. A LOT. Yes, the nature of government changed radically, and many people fixate on that as the cause of all things wonderful. History is like a mirror for one's subconscious. When most people say "Look at history", what they really mean is "Look at history through my eyes and with my prejudices". It doesn't make a very compelling argument unless you provide your own details. Don't worry, I'm not asking you to back up your argument. I've learned my lesson!

 

[sandorski]

Right. That's just a tangent, so it doesn't count...
No, I just use words with more precision than you. You throw broad terms like Need[sic] around vaguely, and then pull the rug out from under anyone who attempts to use your own words in good faith.

I have never denied the interdependence of people when working to achieve their goals, and yet I deny the legitimacy of the word "Need". Why? It's so absurd, isn't it? It must be a sign of ignorance... Or maybe it's because words such as goals and interdependence don't have nearly the same measure of implicit value judgment that "Need" does. Yes, we are talking about the same broad questions. However you insist on using ill-defined terms so that you can morph your arguments retroactively to say what you want.
I would never deny such an obvious truth.
They are functionally similar in certain ways. However a perspective that reduces to such purely functional terms is not one that interests me. First, stating that different modes of wealth transfer are, in fact, modes of wealth transfer is hardly a profound insight. I can produce more insight with a burrito and an Ex-Lax. This over-simplification is aided by the meaningless term "Social Need" (or you can swap it out for the equally useless term "Social Desire"). Such language implicitly anthropomorphizes the concept of the collective. There are people, and those individual people have desires. That is undeniable. Groups can produce documents and statements that the group has a "need" or "desire", but that is simply a convenient mythology used to distract the less influential from the fact that they have just been taken advantage of by the more influential in the group. A "Social Need" is an abstraction used by those who have influence to overstate the significance of their personal desires.

I reject the power structures implicit in your terminology as I reject all attempts to legitimize gangs. To rephrase your claim: Private Charity is the free action of free people; Public Safety Net is a euphemism for a pack of jackals cleaning a carcass they stole. Yes, there is likely to always be more available for the jackals, as long as they don't kill everything in sight.

There are a lot of things that happened from about 1400-1940. A LOT. Yes, the nature of government changed radically, and many people fixate on that as the cause of all things wonderful. History is like a mirror for one's subconscious. When most people say "Look at history", what they really mean is "Look at history through my eyes and with my prejudices". It doesn't make a very compelling argument unless you provide your own details. Don't worry, I'm not asking you to back up your argument. I've learned my lesson!

So many Words, so much Confusion, so little Understanding. In short, Fail.

 

[nonlnear]

Don't worry, I'm not asking you to back up your argument. I've learned my lesson!

So many Words, so much Confusion, so little Understanding. In short, Fail.

Shocking...

 

[sandorski]

Shocking...

You have learned little, but have come close to Learning much. You still want to play your twisty games of mental contortions. That's fine, eventually you'll see the folly of it and accept the simple truth that Libertarianism is a fantasy.

 

[nonlnear]

You have learned little, but have come close to Learning much. You still want to play your twisty games of mental contortions. That's fine, eventually you'll see the folly of it and accept the simple truth that Libertarianism is a fantasy.

I have accepted the simple truth that all ideologies are myth. That much is obvious. The moral legitimacy of a majority (or of any gang for that matter) is another such myth, but it takes a lot of honesty to come to this realization. More honesty than most people muster before they die. Some myths are useful though: to those who take them for what they are they are tools of power, and to those who believe them to be "truth" they are tools of subjugation.

 

[xj0hnx]

You have learned little, but have come close to Learning much. You still want to play your twisty games of mental contortions. That's fine, eventually you'll see the folly of it and accept the simple truth that Libertarianism is a fantasy.

Your argument gets taken apart all the way down to it's core and this is your response? Like they say, denial isn't just a river.

 

[sandorski]

Your argument gets taken apart all the way down to it's core and this is your response? Like they say, denial isn't just a river.

Negative.

 

[nobodyknows]

I agree with you 100%. Thing is, only libertarians are honest about this motive. Every party selling a platform built upon a claimed lack of self-interest is the worst kind of liar. Of course, this is the kind of liar that many people gravitate towards, yourself apparently included.

I have no opinion on Stossel or Rivera as I can't be bothered to watch TV, but your insightful use of vulgarity and derision is as convincing and elegant as usual.

I now summon the powers of Hayabusa Rider:

Release the Kracken!!


LMAO@U

You dumb ass Libertarians sure are suckers for circle jerks. When fools get together and agree on something the only thing it proves is that fools of a feather flock together.

 

[xj0hnx]

Release the Kracken!!


LMAO@U

You dumb ass Libertarians sure are suckers for circle jerks. When fools get together and agree on something the only thing it proves is that fools of a feather flock together.

Translation: I don't have the brain capacity to comprehend, or refute anything you are saying so I'm just going to call you a dumb ass.

 

[xj0hnx]

Negative.

Yes, stick to single word responses, that way you don't trip yourself up too bad.

 

[daishi5]

There never will be a Libertarian Government, but to answer your question, that depends. The answer lies mostly in what the Citizens Expect and what they are willing to Tolerate. Why bother trying to go through a hypothetical though, just look at history.

Before various Government Programs, various Social Needs were met solely through Charity. The results of which were spotty at best, with some Locations receiving attention and others going completely without. Some Issues were addressed, some were not, and even amongst those that were Addressed the efficacy of various programs varied greatly. In short, Citizens were dissatisfied with that arrangement and chose to take those Issues from Charitable Organizations and make them a Public concern.

Although the Public Programs do not address all the Needs with 100% success, they still far outperform what existed before they were conceived.

This is a much more clear and strong argument, but it is annoying that we had to go round and round. You usually have a decent reasoning behind your beliefs, but most of the time you never every come out and say it clearly so that it can be examined on its merits.

Self Reliance died the moment people abandoned their Rural lives and adopted Urban ones. The vast majority are now Reliant on others.
...
You can't be Self Reliant if you can't Feed yourself. You just pushed the end of Self Reliance earlier than I did.
...
Yes, interdependence changes everything. Private Charity and/or Public Safety Net attempt to address that Reality. The big difference between the 2 is that Public Safety Net is more Consistent and Predictable, allowing Citizens to take reasonable Risk with confidence that they have something to fall back on if need be.

Once again, look at History. It is no accident that the greatest period of Economic expansions and technological advancements has occurred where extensive Public Safety Nets exist. Ask yourself why that is.

If self reliance is defined by the ability to survive without interaction with other people, that died long before written history began. To horribly butcher Adam Smith's quote, I depend on the baker and the butcher for my food. They do not provide me with food out of the goodness of their hearts, but they do so out of mutual self interest.

The appeal to self reliance is that a person succeeds or fails based on the merits of his own work, which I don't think is a bad thing. If the safety nets of society grow so comfortable that people voluntarily choose them over producing output, those people reduce the wealth of everyone else. If too many people stay in the safety nets, then the safety net will collapse.

Public safety nets are not a necessity of a society. They do not meet a need, it would be possible to have a society without safety nets. They are a form of charity, and investment. The safety nets are the redistribution of wealth from those who have, to those who do not have. A good safety net will catch people who fall on hard times, and save them from the hard stop at the bottom. But, they must also make it easy to climb out of the net and get back to work. At the same time, it is probably best for the safety net to encourage people to get out of the net and back to work. It is better for everyone if we have as many people as possible producing more wealth.

Safety nets are a form of charity in that people usually prefer that other people not suffer. When society creates a safety net, it is an act of charity, where all sacrifice some of their wealth, to catch those who fall.

Safety nets are also a form of investment. As the world changes, progress does not care if it puts people out of business, or makes their job obsolete. Safety nets can help catch workers whose jobs are destroyed from progress and give them a chance to find new work. If the safety nets succeed at doing this, than everyone benefits from the increased output.

 

[totalnoob]

Your argument gets taken apart all the way down to it's core and this is your response? Like they say, denial isn't just a river.

Sandorski got raped.

 

[sandorski]

This is a much more clear and strong argument, but it is annoying that we had to go round and round. You usually have a decent reasoning behind your beliefs, but most of the time you never every come out and say it clearly so that it can be examined on its merits.



If self reliance is defined by the ability to survive without interaction with other people, that died long before written history began. To horribly butcher Adam Smith's quote, I depend on the baker and the butcher for my food. They do not provide me with food out of the goodness of their hearts, but they do so out of mutual self interest.

The appeal to self reliance is that a person succeeds or fails based on the merits of his own work, which I don't think is a bad thing. If the safety nets of society grow so comfortable that people voluntarily choose them over producing output, those people reduce the wealth of everyone else. If too many people stay in the safety nets, then the safety net will collapse.

Public safety nets are not a necessity of a society. They do not meet a need, it would be possible to have a society without safety nets. They are a form of charity, and investment. The safety nets are the redistribution of wealth from those who have, to those who do not have. A good safety net will catch people who fall on hard times, and save them from the hard stop at the bottom. But, they must also make it easy to climb out of the net and get back to work. At the same time, it is probably best for the safety net to encourage people to get out of the net and back to work. It is better for everyone if we have as many people as possible producing more wealth.

Safety nets are a form of charity in that people usually prefer that other people not suffer. When society creates a safety net, it is an act of charity, where all sacrifice some of their wealth, to catch those who fall.

Safety nets are also a form of investment. As the world changes, progress does not care if it puts people out of business, or makes their job obsolete. Safety nets can help catch workers whose jobs are destroyed from progress and give them a chance to find new work. If the safety nets succeed at doing this, than everyone benefits from the increased output.

This is where you are wrong, sorry. Look at History and compare the difference between Pre and Post Public Safety Nets. The difference is very clear.

 

[xj0hnx]

This is where you are wrong, sorry. Look at History and compare the difference between Pre and Post Public Safety Nets. The difference is very clear.

The difference is very clear, ghettos filled with crime, whole segments of society living off the government, no fear of failing or motivation to succeed, very different indeed.

It's ok to fail at something. Remember when you were a kid and fell off you bike, dad telling you to get back up and try again? Higher risk produces higher rewards, no risk, no reward. A safety net to help yu back on your feet is one thing, a safety net to build an entire society out of is another.

 

[sandorski]

The difference is very clear, ghettos filled with crime, whole segments of society living off the government, no fear of failing or motivation to succeed, very different indeed.

It's ok to fail at something. Remember when you were a kid and fell off you bike, dad telling you to get back up and try again? Higher risk produces higher rewards, no risk, no reward. A safety net to help yu back on your feet is one thing, a safety net to build an entire society out of is another.

/facepalm

 

[xj0hnx]

/facepalm

I know you are but what am I?

 

[Nielsio]

This is where you are wrong, sorry. Look at History and compare the difference between Pre and Post Public Safety Nets. The difference is very clear.

How do you establish cause and effect in your historical analysis?