So, ya, after almost 2 weeks I have decided to make a reply... I guess I do somewhat owe you an apology Bardock, I'll do my best to reply more promptly and not let 10 pages of debate bury our conversation. I do enjoy it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some of the things you said I agree with on a rational basis,but I present elaborations or further arguments about them, because I believe one that would read it might easily get the wrong impression of what you said, especially the drug issue, I believe, though you said you are for the legalization of drugs, the casual reader would read on further and take your points as anti-drug arguments, which I wanted to prevent with some of the answers. It will be a two parter, cause I exceeded the maximum length of a post.Since you agree already, I don't really have to convince you. And I think it can't be said enough, because most people don't realize that that's exactly what is going on.
Indeed. Even in the reply you made below, I found myself in almost total agreement with you, with notable exceptions. I think one of the biggest points of contention are that, at least it seems to me, that you are talking about an ideal libertarian society or what the ideal policy would be, whereas I am looking to get people into a situation where those policies would benefit their lives.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I brought that up. It is not really the task of government to work against poverty though. (there aren't that many fair or good policies that help it anyways).
The unfortunate part of this is that you are absolutely right. There is almost nothing that can be done to elevate cyclical poverty. Almost all government involvement just makes the situation worse.
Whether or not the government should directly target poverty seems moot to me. My point is that the legitimate role of the government is to protect me from aggressors, and that poverty is a leading cause of that aggression. In its legitimate role of protecting me, attacking poverty is justified, at least thats how I see it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Rightfully armed as long as it is not used for the wrong oppressive goals (as it is now). I did say that also, by the way, I accept the governments right to enforce the non-aggression principle, it's when the government becomes the aggressor (as it has) when it has to be cut down or done away with. (besides, there are always anarchist solutions as well, we get told government is the only way, that is not true)
I agree with this. I'm absolutely not in favor of socialist type solutions, but rather in government offering incentive to businesses willing to take risks and invest and create theses "anarchist" solutions.
In the modern market, profit is so important that the investment risks associated with early capitalism are no longer in practice. Early corporations took financial risks and created new markets, often running at a loss for a few years in order to build the infrastructure needed to sell their product. This type of aggressive and far sighted capitalism would annihilate poverty. However, running at a loss for a few years is not an acceptable strategy for CEOs in the modern board room. Plus, there is enough wealth held in a small market of people, that they no longer need to create it for people to buy their products. Modern capitalism is more centered upon creating demand for a new product within an already existing pool of capital rather than creating new capital. This is simply because this strategy offers the highest short term payoffs.
All I'm saying, is that in a marketplace where long term capital investment into the infrastructure of needy places is no longer being adequately provided by the market, government needs to do something. I'd say carrots rather than sticks of course, but ultimately I'm not an economist, and thats probably the best I have 🙂.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's the thing, there should be private solutions and there could and would be if the government didn't take it upon itself, destroy all competition and make situations only worse.
I hear you. If I had the ability to remove all the bullshit laws that were passed and the nonsense restrictions and mandates on businesses that were brought in under the name of social reform, obviously I would. My feelings on poverty arise more from my feeling that it is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately rather than from ideological commitment to helping people.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because they don't work. They make it worse. It's not like libertarians have any power and stopped those programs (not in Europe at least) and there is still unemployment and much less need for actually getting a job. The problem, in my and libertarian opinions, is the involvement of the government altogether. To me, it seems like there are problems the government created or made worse and now uses them to give itself more power in order to make them even worse.
I agree entirely. I'd like to see the government encourage the private sector to work in the ways that most benefit society (good old ambiguities), but ultimately ya, government proves to be rather useless most of the time.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nonsense.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That whole paragraph forgets the likely possibility that all those problems are actually caused by government interference in the first place. Nor that ít has adverse effects to go into that direction. The distribution of wealth (at gunpoint (which is what this is factually)) is immoral and not necessarily of any positive effect. Better private solutions could be available if the government wasn't in the way.
better private solutions are available now, today, this very instant, even with the bloated government in the way. Nobody is investing in them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Agreed. False dilemma though, to use it as justification for socialist tools.
I'd agree that it doesn't justify socialist tools, but I do feel it justifies some government policy. I'm not interested in funding some feel good program that just bleeds capital and isn't effective. However, if the government can find a way to effectively target poverty, I have no issues in giving my money to it.
Honestly, I feel it is the pragmatic argument that damns socialist policy more so than the ethical one. Of course I don't feel government should be involved in people's lives, however, the fact that it never produces the desired outcome, and normally makes things worse, means that it shouldn't even be given consideration. To keep the debate in a moral framework gives it a leg to stand on, but as soon as we start discussing what works, it is shown to be asinine nonsense.
A government should only use policy that is effective. If there is no effective policy for targeting poverty, than I agree, there should be no policy (although I would support social research).
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I meant and I absolutely agree.
Indeed.