Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Sen McCain on the Obama Stimulis
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
Sen McCain on the Obama Stimulis
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 3 2009, 12:29 PM (563 Views)
boilergrad01 Feb 11 2009, 08:45 PM Post #76
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Cost wasn't a factor in the SUV I drive I wanted a Dodge Dur and bought what I wanted never once checked the collision report
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM Post #77
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 11 2009, 11:32 PM Post #78
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
OldSchool is staying consistent in his views that private is always better than government, however I think he takes it a step past classic liberalism and into the edge of anarchy. I believe there is a role for government to play, but that role should be limited to it's constitutional parameters.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Feb 12 2009, 03:28 PM Post #79
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 06:46 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
Old_School
Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
Old_School
Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
Old_School
Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments.
:blink:
care to elaborate OldSchool?
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
Blah, blah, blah.

Do you think corporations want to poison the environment so they can make a bigger profit? Fuck yeah, some have already done it, and we're all paying for it now. The government is needed for some regulatory functions. Believing other wise is naive.

Why not just enforce private property rights? You pollute my land or water, you're gettin' sued. Fraud laws are already on the books as well, to discourage or prosecute the Enrons and Madoffs of the world.

Emissions regulations aren't at the top of my list on things to repeal, however, so it's a moot point.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Feb 12 2009, 03:37 PM Post #80
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

So let me get this straight...You're saying that because a person doesn't want to take interest in his or her own safety the government should do it for them?

Furthermore, when the government steps in and takes over functions that were at one point up to society (be they welfare vs. charity, inherent regulations within the market vs. arbitrary state sponsored regulations, or public, government provided security vs. private security) the general disposition of society to provide these services atrophies (to paraphrase the god Albert J. Nock). What this means is that when the government comes in and takes over these functions a society's incentive and utility to provide the same services diminishes. The end result is a total or near total coercive monopoly of state sponsored solutions that are never up to par with corresponding private solutions.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Feb 12 2009, 03:39 PM Post #81
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
I'm not saying there's no difference between the theoretical, hypothetical world, and the real world. I'm not making these claims because I think they'd be great if everything was perfect, if we lived in a utopia. I'm a utilitarian as much as you guys are. I have these ideas because I think they would legitimately work.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 12 2009, 03:41 PM Post #82
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,825
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
boilergrad01
Feb 3 2009, 12:54 PM
Sen. McCain took a stand and saved Iraq maybe he can do the same from the Senate on the economy.
I didn't know he voted for us to never go to Iraq in the first place.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Feb 12 2009, 03:52 PM Post #83
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 11 2009, 11:32 PM
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
OldSchool is staying consistent in his views that private is always better than government, however I think he takes it a step past classic liberalism and into the edge of anarchy. I believe there is a role for government to play, but that role should be limited to it's constitutional parameters.
Bingo. However, I'm only an anarchist in the sense that I don't believe in the legitimacy of a coercive government, i.e. the state. That is not to say I would not be in favor of voluntary government associations much like what were set up by the Articles of Confederation. The right of secession, i.e. to rescind ones status as a resident of a governing body, is one of the most powerful checks on tyranny possible.

But I don't argue from an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, rather from a classical liberal one (unless I'm talking to a fellow libertarian IN PERSON - screw trying to hash that shit out online, that's a fruitless venture for both parties involved). I may stray into my heart's desires for the abolition of the state from time to time, but I know that obviously this is not something that will ever happen, so I try to stay as pragmatic as possible.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 12 2009, 07:25 PM Post #84
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Old_School
Feb 12 2009, 03:28 PM
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 06:46 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
Old_School
Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
Old_School
Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
Old_School
Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments.
:blink:
care to elaborate OldSchool?
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
Blah, blah, blah.

Do you think corporations want to poison the environment so they can make a bigger profit? Fuck yeah, some have already done it, and we're all paying for it now. The government is needed for some regulatory functions. Believing other wise is naive.

Why not just enforce private property rights? You pollute my land or water, you're gettin' sued. Fraud laws are already on the books as well, to discourage or prosecute the Enrons and Madoffs of the world.

Emissions regulations aren't at the top of my list on things to repeal, however, so it's a moot point.
You can go ahead and sue Enron and Madoff, but the money is ALREADY GONE. When companies are allowed to pollute without oversight, the bad guys will make their money, distribute most of it, and there won't be much if anything left when you win the law suit.

If airlines are allowed to fly without regulations, you will have abuse and carnage to deal with later. Some human beings will always be trying to game the system. This is part of my bigger argument why smaller government is better. Politicians are human beings, and some will ALWAYS be trying to game the system. Liberals believe that Democrats magically become pure of heart and only want to serve others. Bull fucking shit.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Feb 12 2009, 08:53 PM Post #85
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
Old_School
Feb 12 2009, 03:37 PM
So let me get this straight...You're saying that because a person doesn't want to take interest in his or her own safety the government should do it for them?

Furthermore, when the government steps in and takes over functions that were at one point up to society (be they welfare vs. charity, inherent regulations within the market vs. arbitrary state sponsored regulations, or public, government provided security vs. private security) the general disposition of society to provide these services atrophies (to paraphrase the god Albert J. Nock). What this means is that when the government comes in and takes over these functions a society's incentive and utility to provide the same services diminishes. The end result is a total or near total coercive monopoly of state sponsored solutions that are never up to par with corresponding private solutions.
I'm pointing out that the market only sells to what the majority want. In your argument, you said that people would be safer without government intervention. That's not true at all, so now you've changed the argument to whether the government should do what the people don't want.

You're not going to convince me that your philosophy is better because it's been my philosophy since you were watching Sesame Street. The difference is that I know it has flaws, and you choose to pretend that it's all-knowing, which in the end will hurt a lot of your arguments. If you ever want to convince someone to believe in a philosophy, then you need to become an expert on the weaknesses instead of the strengths.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 12 2009, 10:12 PM Post #86
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Old_School
Feb 12 2009, 03:52 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 11 2009, 11:32 PM
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
OldSchool is staying consistent in his views that private is always better than government, however I think he takes it a step past classic liberalism and into the edge of anarchy. I believe there is a role for government to play, but that role should be limited to it's constitutional parameters.
Bingo. However, I'm only an anarchist in the sense that I don't believe in the legitimacy of a coercive government, i.e. the state. That is not to say I would not be in favor of voluntary government associations much like what were set up by the Articles of Confederation. The right of secession, i.e. to rescind ones status as a resident of a governing body, is one of the most powerful checks on tyranny possible.

But I don't argue from an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, rather from a classical liberal one (unless I'm talking to a fellow libertarian IN PERSON - screw trying to hash that shit out online, that's a fruitless venture for both parties involved). I may stray into my heart's desires for the abolition of the state from time to time, but I know that obviously this is not something that will ever happen, so I try to stay as pragmatic as possible.
Well, Adam Smith, who founded the American free market system, felt that government had a limited role in the economy, but a role none the less.

These involve the policing responsibilities of the government to prevent:

ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products
FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought
MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade
DEBAUCHERY of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 13 2009, 02:12 AM Post #87
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 12 2009, 08:53 PM
Old_School
Feb 12 2009, 03:37 PM
So let me get this straight...You're saying that because a person doesn't want to take interest in his or her own safety the government should do it for them?

Furthermore, when the government steps in and takes over functions that were at one point up to society (be they welfare vs. charity, inherent regulations within the market vs. arbitrary state sponsored regulations, or public, government provided security vs. private security) the general disposition of society to provide these services atrophies (to paraphrase the god Albert J. Nock). What this means is that when the government comes in and takes over these functions a society's incentive and utility to provide the same services diminishes. The end result is a total or near total coercive monopoly of state sponsored solutions that are never up to par with corresponding private solutions.
I'm pointing out that the market only sells to what the majority want. In your argument, you said that people would be safer without government intervention. That's not true at all, so now you've changed the argument to whether the government should do what the people don't want.

You're not going to convince me that your philosophy is better because it's been my philosophy since you were watching Sesame Street. The difference is that I know it has flaws, and you choose to pretend that it's all-knowing, which in the end will hurt a lot of your arguments. If you ever want to convince someone to believe in a philosophy, then you need to become an expert on the weaknesses instead of the strengths.
Ummmm.... But Austrian Economics has no weaknesses.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 13 2009, 05:29 PM Post #88
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 12 2009, 10:12 PM
Old_School
Feb 12 2009, 03:52 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 11 2009, 11:32 PM
HoosierLars
Feb 11 2009, 09:35 PM
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Old_School
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.

You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.

If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.

You get it, Faithful. There's a huge difference between the theoretical world and reality. It's ironic that OldSchool is the one always accusing others of living in fantasy land.
OldSchool is staying consistent in his views that private is always better than government, however I think he takes it a step past classic liberalism and into the edge of anarchy. I believe there is a role for government to play, but that role should be limited to it's constitutional parameters.
Bingo. However, I'm only an anarchist in the sense that I don't believe in the legitimacy of a coercive government, i.e. the state. That is not to say I would not be in favor of voluntary government associations much like what were set up by the Articles of Confederation. The right of secession, i.e. to rescind ones status as a resident of a governing body, is one of the most powerful checks on tyranny possible.

But I don't argue from an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, rather from a classical liberal one (unless I'm talking to a fellow libertarian IN PERSON - screw trying to hash that shit out online, that's a fruitless venture for both parties involved). I may stray into my heart's desires for the abolition of the state from time to time, but I know that obviously this is not something that will ever happen, so I try to stay as pragmatic as possible.
Well, Adam Smith, who founded the American free market system, felt that government had a limited role in the economy, but a role none the less.

These involve the policing responsibilities of the government to prevent:

ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products
FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought
MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade
DEBAUCHERY of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.
bump to the resident economy theorists (Lars, Phil, OS, trouble...etc). How do you feel about Adam Smith's writings?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 13 2009, 06:31 PM Post #89
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 12 2009, 10:12 PM
Well, Adam Smith, who founded the American free market system, felt that government had a limited role in the economy, but a role none the less.

These involve the policing responsibilities of the government to prevent:

ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products
FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought
MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade
DEBAUCHERY of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.
I tend to agree with all of his points, especially fraud. The debauchery point can be a slippery slope though, and I tend to lean more toward the libertarian side of the argument.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Feb 16 2009, 02:25 PM Post #90
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 12 2009, 10:12 PM
Well, Adam Smith, who founded the American free market system, felt that government had a limited role in the economy, but a role none the less.

These involve the policing responsibilities of the government to prevent:

ILLEGAL FORCE in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products
FRAUD in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought
MONOPOLY which eliminates competition and results in restraint of trade
DEBAUCHERY of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.
Adam Smith made some very important contributions to economic theory, but he is far from perfect in my opinion.

The problem with a state is that it has absolutely no incentive to stay limited, to operate within its original confines. The US Constitution, for example, has proven to be a total failure at keeping the government in check, especially once the threat of secession was taken off the table by the prodigious asshole Lincoln. Add in the fact that it has monopolistic power as the arbiter of all cases, including those between itself and its citizenry, and it is no wonder it has grown to such epic proportions. The state itself commits acts of illegal force, fraud, monopoly, and debauchery on a daily basis!
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 9:31 AM Jul 11
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy