Originally Posted by AnnEsthesia

I never called you an ignorant youngun. Try to at least address reality. I see it as a case of you being unable to admit reality. Your perspective on life and on subjects like this does change as you get older. If you cannot even admit that this is true, it is just another proof that debating with you is pointless, as you cannot even admit such simple concepts.

You defend rights that you want to defend, even at the detriment to others. That is why libertarianism is an individualistic ideal and not a philosophy that would work in society. You are an individual who has individual rights and you have to function in society, where your rights are sometimes changed as they interact with the rights of others.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

You said that maybe I will understand when I am older. That means I do not understand now, ignorant, and that I am too young. Not hard to figure that out. Just using different words.

That is not true. Do you think I really care if people stop mowing there grass? I will continue to do so either way. I did not detriment any rights, that is completely false. Individualism most certainly can work in society. What rights did I harm, none.

S there is no right to property value. RS gave a good example of that.

Originally Posted by Lumara

Things such as roads, infrastructure, courts, the Center for Disease Control, the Postal service, are examples of things that DO fall into the realm of government and taxes are needed to pay for these.

The problem is that many have discovered that they have access to the US Treasury for items such as corporate welfare, loans, insurance programs, subsidies, grants, etc. and it is wrong to tax the citizens to pay for these things. Taxes should be collected only to support those programs essential to running the government and infrastructure and the rest should be eliminated or moved to the local level.

Viola mentioned swimming pools, parades, libraries, and parks, among other things. These definitely affect quality of life and are good things to have. Yet these should be financed by those who use them in a given community. The funds shouldn't be funnelled through a central government which siphons off a large amount for administrative costs like bureaucrats' paychecks and benefits; if these costs were borne directly by those who want to use these facilities, it would be cheaper and be more fair.

After all, remember the multi-billion-dollar bridge to nowhere, pork that was used to connect a community of only 200 people to the mainland in Alaska? Or how about the multi-million dollar moving sidewalk for a mall in Altoona, PA? These were paid for with federal tax dollars. Tax money should never be authorized for any pork. The fact that pork even exists shows unfair the system is and libertarians are against things like this. This mindset doesn't make us greedy or wealthy. If it did, I'd be rolling in the dough by now and living on my own island somewhere so I could do whatever I want because there wouldn't be any uniformed thugs to stop me.

Originally Posted by Chan

What these anti-libertarians seem to miss is that there is a huge difference between the powers of the federal government (which are extremely limited under the Constitution) and those of state and local governments (which are quite broad). When libertarians talk about smaller government, etc., we're generally referring to the federal government.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Good distinction, and rarely made.

Quite obviously, I favor greater nationalization, in the name of consistency and equality. States, to me, are rather arbitrary and convenient adminstrative districts, really. Not that they aren't different, of course, and certainly require localized tweaking, but I think the broad similarities tend to outweigh. It makes no sense for one state to have a seat belt law, and for the next state over not to, e.g.

Having very independent states could hamper coordination efforts in emergencies, encourages pork-money competition, and just doesn't hold much appeal, for me.

But yes, too often, we all just say "government".

Originally Posted by Chan

A good comparison would be to compare the relation between American states and the federal government with the relation between European countries and the European Union.

Originally Posted by AnnEsthesia

Maybe when you are older, you will understand my position. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ignorance and everything to do with perspective. You know, not everything I say is intended to be an insult.

As to the rest, that is your opinion. There is a right to property value if the only thing changing it is one person's actions. Towns and cities have laws to protect home owners from people like we are discussing, because they have an inherent interest in maintaining property values.

And again, when you are older, I suspect your values will shift. I have yet to meet anyone who believes at 50 the exact same thing they did when they are 20.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

The best argument against Libertarianism is History. Been there. Done that. Most didn't like it. Thank goodness we will never been 19th century again. It doesn't really matter what fringe loons and LoLbertarians really think, since they are so crazy, only crazy people vote for them. And then they lose elections. Like Communists. Libertarians are really of the same stripe. So confident they are correct, yet so wrong. But better yet, so irrelevant.

What we need is more control, more public action. Not the minarchist nightmare.

Thank goodness for "oppressive government."



Edit: when he says you cannot defend controlling others, he's leaving out an important detail: you can't, but only according to Libertarian ethics. But there's no reason to assume the Libertarian ethic to defend your own ethical system. He cannot "prove" it's wrong any more he can prove he's right. He can only assume it's wrong, assuming the arbitrary values of Libertarianism. So his argument's really moot. Then nature of ethics as a subjective field makes argument nearly impossible, not the fact that he actually has an inherently strong one.