Poverty does not exist in a society with no money.
pov-er-ty; noun
1.
a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or
material possessions b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property
2.
: scarcity, dearth
3.
a: debility due to malnutrition
b: lack of fertility
I'm not particularly interested in getting into a zero sum debate here, because I think both of us know that neither will convince the other. But unless you propose to create a world in which there is no matter, there will
always be poverty, because there will always be individuals who place personal gain over the welfare of every member of a given society. Pretty dreams are pleasant, but one must eventually decide that rather than wishing for a dramatic reversal of human behavior, one must endeavour to make the most out of what we actually have. The idea of a functioning stateless society is beautiful, but not practical.
I'm just going to state my own views on the matter as clearly as I can and leave it at that:
I recognize that the system I live under is horribly flawed and riddled with corruption, yet I would rather work to improve it than abandon it, because I cannot concieve of a society which not only sounds better in theory, but operates better in fact. The first and foremost role of a democratic government is to provide representation and protection for its citizens. All political systems are a balance between freedom and security; I prefer a greater degree of freedom, but not anarchy, which is essentially what you are espousing. Yes, in an anarchy, you do have about as complete a range of freedoms as are possible in a human form, but only by allowing others, including those who have already proven that they are willing to both endanger others and flout government regulation for their own benefit.
On another note, Jello Biafra put it rather well,"Anarchy sounds good to me/Until someone asks, "Who'd fix the sewers"". The second core problem with any system or lack thereof that eliminates or cuts government down to nearly nothing is that the network which supported our infrastructure is no longer in place. I suppose the core difference between the two views is that you believe either that Rosseau was correct in supposing that morality is innate, or that the majority would be able to keep the greedy in line by preventing them from doing anything out of line (Oh, wait, that is government regulation)/frowning indignantly at them. I guess? Because libertarianism has never been the most transparent concept to me; lots of preaching about freedom and cutting down government in the vein of Adam Smith, without any practical ideas on how it would work beyond "Everyone would cooperate because it is good for everyone to cooperate.".
Well, looking back at that, I'm tempted to delete it all and stick with the original point.
to fix Belgian system, adjustment must be made to the existing infrastructure
to sanction action against the collective good by government officials.
Rather than punishing your dog every time he poops on your carpet, wouldn't it be easier to not have a dog? Maybe you want a dog. And maybe you're willing to have dog poop on your floor from time to time in order to have one.
Some people don't want a dog, and find very unpleasant the notion of having clean up the poop of a dog they don't even want.
You advertise libertarianism as a way to protect everyone's freedoms.
I simply ask how it would achieve the desired effect.
By eliminating the systems that limit freedom.
You apparently perceive government as an entity that "protects" freedom. Why do you not see that government:
* Creates laws for you to obey, and will imprison you if you do not
* Extorts money from you in the form in taxes, and will imprison you if you do not pay
* Creates systems that require financial support, and expects you to provide them
* Engages in wars of aggression, imposing on the lives and freedoms of people abroad
Wouldn't eliminating the organization that does these things increase freedom?
On the first point: If you eliminate everything that someone doesn't like, you get anarchy. And we all know how well that works. Somalia is a shining star in the tapestry of the world, no?
On the second: In your ideal society, what is to prevent individuals from building a power base that replicates that without even the pretension to ethical principles? Thank you very much, but you can keep your HRE principalities to yourself.
All I can see here is that you have the absurdly idealistic view that if there were no government, everyone would get along because it is good for them and the right thing to do. Human nature does not work that way. It has
never worked that way. There will
always be individuals who are willing to harm others for their own gain, and they will always be able to worm themselves into positions of power. I would rather have limited freedoms under a somewhat democratic state than none at all under the Great New Corporate Warlord of The Territory of East Kentucky.
Author
Topic: A question for llibertarians. (Read 10720 times)