Libertartarians, Children and Guns, and socialized everything..

[jimmyjamsslo]

I met a friend of one of my fellow hippy friends last night, who decried libertarians as being crazy Republicans who give their children guns.

I found these items:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_lpkidsguns.html
http://www.manhattanlp.org/news_files/Article-5.htm

I guess I'm on the fence about the gun control issue, but this does seem drastic.


Selfsame new friend, although intensely inebriated, called for socialized healthcare, and everything else, for that matter. I guess there was no room for rational discussion because of his state. I'm in the process of reevaluating my socialist tendencies, and lately have ceded that socialism places too much trust in centralized governance. I guess I don't know how to present this to someone who has their mind made up. Although I am in my 40's, I try to be flexible. I don't think there is really any need to 'convince' people about Ron Paul's positions. I guess I thought the common sense would be prevalent, but we've been inculcated with the notion of government taking care of us from 'cradle to grave', which is no longer conscionable to me. I thought that my fellow liberals would understand that this 'cradle to grave' ethos is the predominant excuse for the encroaching Big Brother styled police state that we abhor so much.

I guess I really want to avoid knock-down, drag-out arguments with people about politics, instead of genuine debate.



Elucidations appreciated....

 

[Bluedevil]

Get him to read one of these books:

"The Road to Serfdom" by Fredrick Hayek
"Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman
"Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman

(they are both nobel prize winning economists) It would be very difficult to read any of those books and not be convinced.

 

[manuel]

Tell him you want Freedom.

When ever I want to avoid long arguments, I tell my friends that I believe in Liberty for all. They usually just stare at me with a look of "I can't argue with that"!

 

[angrydragon]

What's wrong with guns and kids? If you teach gun responsibility, they'll be very effective at defending themselves if harm does come their way and they'll know it's not a toy. Weren't kids back in the day carrying guns around all the time?

 

[Gee]

I guess I'm on the fence about the gun control issue, but this does seem drastic.

Have you spend much time in rural America, such as southern georgia? Everyone has guns. I shot .22 caliber rifles when I started visiting the area at something like 10 years of age. If kids grow up around guns, they are as natural to them as computers are to the newer generations. Its really a non-issue, IMO.

Of course, in more urban areas guns cannot be fired safely. So far fewer people have them, as their only use is in self-defense, and these tend to be handguns. In these cases children unfamiliar with guns are of course much more likely to accidentally shoot someone.

As for socialized healthcare, I'd encourage your friend to look up the reasons why healthcase is so expensive to begin with, and where these price increases started. I'll give you a hint: It didn't start in the free market The free market provides everything at lower prices which the ordinary man can afford more easily. I'm not sure where this misconception started that cheap labor is somehow a bad thing for poor people. Do rich consumers benifit at all from cheap labor? Of course not, they can buy expensive things. Its the ordinary poor person who benifits from cheap labor and cheaper goods and services.

 

[Elwar]

I've had discussions with socialists in the past. Those that are reasonable agree with some planks of the Green Party that work toward shifting power from a centralized government to local governments.

I'd be fine with having various cities in my state set up as socialist havens (that I could avoid). Let them play their game and find out their mistakes.

De-centralized power allows for any ideology.

Just tell him to vote for libertarians in the federal government and socialists locally. There he will find what he wants.

I prefer discussions with socialists/communists who have thought things through than ditto head Republicans and Democrats.

Unfortunately, for their communist eutopia to work, they think that they can change human nature which avoids pain (work) and seeks pleasure (reward$). They think that can change in a generation brought up under socialism.

 

[Lasse]

How can you be on the fence about gun control? Gun ownership is the fundament of a free society, it is the mortar that keeps the bricks that are the free market and the rule of law together. Without armed citizenry, the government can do as it pleases because once people are so complacent that they will give up their guns or allow government to declare gun owners guilty before proven innocent, they can do anything.

Just look at Europe. I was raised here, and I can't talk about freedom issues, people look at me as if I was a creature from outer space.

 

[Gee]

De-centralized power allows for any ideology.

That is what I keep telling socialists, over and over. They don't seem to get it. Under our federalist system, the states could be completely socialist! Then people could, as Elwar points out, avoid those states if desired. Socialism can exist within libertarianism, but not vise-versa.

I personally think socialism can have some benifits if used at more local levels (the family being the classic example of when socialism works, even if its not a product of the law). But the key is also allowing people to choose, and not forcing them to live within a socialist society. If history is any judge, people would leave the socialist areas and head for the capitalistic ones.

Its not just human nature, Elwar, but the laws of economics too. The market is simply the best way of judging the demand of a good or service we know of. This is why prediction markets work - even with play money where there is no selfish incentive to profit.

 

[aravoth]

Libertarians are so mixed it's difficult to put a finger down on any one issue. Some Libertarians are pro-life, some are pro-choice, some are for a type of gun control that would prohibit certain groups from obtaining firearms, such as the mentally ill, or convicted felons. There was a time when I was left leaning, and thought socialized healthcare would be a great benefit. Then when I joined the military I sharply moved to the right, mostly because I sent to a foreign country to enforce a UN mandate by a Democrat. After that I got neoconned like alot of us did. Now I've come to my senses. And realized that it is not the purpose of the United States to save the world at the cost of thousands of lives.

Throughout it all I have had a backround in emergency medicine. I had always advocated for socialized healthcare. Then I did some research. And I learned that something like 65% of healthcare in the United States is already paid for by the government. Thats practically socialized medicine already, but it didn't make sense, becuase costs were so high. After a little more digging I found that almost 90% of the profits made from the healthcare system, even the services the government pays for, does not go back into the economy. Instead it lines the pockets of the CEO's in the healthcare and insurance industries. The real kicker is that the profits are protected by the federal government. As someone else put it, "we have a socialized healthcare system with fascist profiteering, what a cluster***".

The problem however, is that people tend to advocate for only one thing, without thinking about the effects on the whole system. Lets say eveyone wants healthcare to be funded 100% by the government. It would have to be paid for through taxes, which would would rise the cost of living. But with the CEO's not circulating the money back into the economy and keeping the profits, it creates a shortfall and causes inflation. Because with less money in the economy, we would have to print more notes to continue to function. But every time you do that it devalues the dollar. Print 10% more money, then the dollar loses 10% of it's value. With the dollar loosing it's value on the global market, the cost of imports increase. This is part of the reason Gas prices are so high. CEO's are not "sticking it to us". The dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be. So even if a Company posts a 200 million dollar profit, it's comparativly the same as the profits back in the 90's.

At the same time all of this is happening, wages are not increasing, they are in fact, decreasing. A large part of the reason for that is a company's ability to hire an illegal immigrant. If one company hires a few illegals, then that company can out-bid anyone else competeing for the same project, becuase they don't have as much overhead. Companies with Legal workers are snuffed out, and forced to cut costs, and they do this by firing legal workers and hiring illegals just to stay competitive. Another part of that particular problem is outsourcing. Our high paying jobs get outsourced to foriegn nations like Mexico or India. Which again creates less money in the US Economy, and contributes to a declining dollar.

Additionally at the same time, our defense budget has skyrocketed. But we can't afford to pay for it. So we literally borrow the money from foreign countries, mostly China, to fund our war.

Our National Debt is now in the neighborhood of 9 trillion dollars, But that is only the money we have borrowed. The part of the national debt that is never reported on is the fact that we have promised Americans that they will get social security, medicare, medicaid, and various other entitlment programs. Which, again, we don't have the money to pay for. So we will most likely end up borrowing it. This will push the National Debt figure from 9 trillion, to somewhere around 53 trillion. Even if you packaged the entire land mass of the United States and sold in a real estate transaction, you couldn't pay that off. To pay off that figure, every man woman and child in America would have to pay over 175,000 dollars to our creditors.

This is what proponets of socialized healthcare won't talk about. They think the govermnet has an endless supply of money, which to an extent is true, becuase whenever they need more they just print it. But they will never touch the fact that every single one of thier ideas raises the cost of living, drives wages down, forces the middle class into poverty level, stifles our economy, and lines the pockets of corporations that they hate so much.

That is a perfect example of what big government does. It's what it has always done. Create a bueracracy that is so large that checks and balances nearly become unenforcable. The more control govermnet has, the more it's open to corruption. In my opinion if people weren't forced to pay more than 50% of everything they earned to the government through a variaty of taxes then they'd have a shot at taking care of themselves.

That is why I think our government has gone completely insane. The American People are a healthy, educated, informed and responsible society, for the most part. It is becuase of that, that we don't need all this, it's qiuckly bleeding the life out of all of us. I don't need the government to take care of me, neither do you, neither does 99% of americans. Most social programs are needed, but the majority of people that use them, don't need it, they need to be able to keep the money they earn so they can invest it, use it to go back to school, buy food for thier families. Thats what the american dream is all about. Carving out your own destiny, not letting the government do it for you.

 

[angrydragon]

Good points aravoth, be Ron's running mate. =)

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[IRO-bot]

Yeah it was 8th grade. I remember because it's the same year he had to learn about he Constitution and pass a massive test on it.

 

[vertesc]

By and large, I make it a point to only try discussing rationally with people who display a propensity for rational thought. That is a category that VERY RARELY includes socialists. Those few that I have found have been in your generation however, so there may be some hope .

Maybe try the philosophical argument? Libertarianism rests on the idea that the only possible relationship between two free men is the relationship of a trader. In order for any exchange of any sort to take place, both people must (subjectively) benefit. The relationship MUST be win-win. Socialism rejects freedom in favor of equality - that the best relationship between two men is that of equals, and regardless of the reality, it is the responsibility of the state to elevate one and lower the other in order to MAKE them equals. In practice, this means taking from the rich to give to the poor (monetarily, spiritually, whatever). The relationship is therefore win-lose: the able man artificially loses status and the incapable one artificially gains status. What's more, the winner of the exchange is determined not by what a person can offer, but by how INCAPABLE they can be. Under socialism, the less capable you are the more you are rewarded. And the rewards are paid for in the blood of the capable. This is more than unjust; this is a REVERSAL of justice.

People like socialist policies because everyone thinks that will mean a bigger break for them, at the expense of those higher up the food chain. They forget that it also means bigger breaks for the next guy DOWN the ladder, at their own expense. Ultimately, the only person who wins is the person at the very bottom rung; the person who makes themselves as miserable as possible in all the right ways to collect loot from everyone above. The truth is, if you set up a policy that punishes people for being capable and rewards for being incapable, no one will strive to be capable. Misery is the only result, all around.

Philosophically, there is a decision to make. Do you favor justice, or mercy? You cannot have both. Do you prefer freedom, or equality? Individual liberty or collective misery? I've made MY choice.

Adding to the reading list, I would say that they should read Atlas Shrugged, or perhaps the Fountainhead (both by Ayn Rand).

 

[Broadlighter]

Mr. CEO, I hate you! Take my money!!

This is what proponets of socialized healthcare won't talk about. They think the govermnet has an endless supply of money, which to an extent is true, becuase whenever they need more they just print it. But they will never touch the fact that every single one of thier ideas raises the cost of living, drives wages down, forces the middle class into poverty level, stifles our economy, and lines the pockets of corporations that they hate so much.

I love this paragraph

How does the saying go? "If you are a conservative at age 20, you have no heart. If you are a liberal at age 40, you have no brain."

 

[SlapItHigh]

Tell him you want Freedom.

When ever I want to avoid long arguments, I tell my friends that I believe in Liberty for all. They usually just stare at me with a look of "I can't argue with that"!

I get the response that socialism is freedom.



Without it, people can't be free to live their lives and provide for themselves because the big bad corporations will monopolize everything and make us all too poor to afford healthcare. How is that being free??, they say.

 

[aravoth]

I get the response that socialism is freedom.



Without it, people can't be free to live their lives and provide for themselves because the big bad corporations will monopolize everything and make us all too poor to afford healthcare. How is that being free??, they say.

Socialism actually makes corporations bigger, through subsidies. Just read my post on page 1 of this thread, that spells it out for you.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Socialism actually makes corporations bigger, through subsidies. Just read my post on page 1 of this thread, that spells it out for you.

I understand that, but socialists don't agree because they think they can regulate corporations enough so that this won't happen. They don't mind giving all of their money to the government if they think everyone will have "free" healthcare.

I'm a hippy, most my friends are hippies. 90% of them are socialists and proud of it. I raise my children in liberty and so do they, yet they advocate for the opposite in government. To me, libertarian views are about as hippy as it gets. Apparently most hippies don't see it that way.

Seriously, if you are ever bored check out my "hippy parent" message board. It has 83,819 members. See the logic on this thread - http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=651540 to see what I'm up against with my fellow hippies.

 

[Matt]

Here's an article that gets people thinking. It's not pleasant but it's effective. There's a reason all socialist governments favor gun control.

Why socialism needs killing fields:

Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass production of murder by specialized labor.

Although this institution has been widely used throughout the twentieth century, we did not create a word for it until close to the end of the twentieth century, when Pol Pot organized approximately 20 000 separate killing fields, a world record, thanks to his firm commitment to decentralized government.

Though the word is new, the system is as old as socialism.

The basic problem of socialism is the relationship between production and consumption. It is likely that the number seven widget collective might want to produce fewer widgets, or a different kind of widget, to that which certain users of widgets desire. Furthermore some users of widgets will want widgets for one purpose, and others for a different purpose, and there probably will not be as many widgets as they all desire, or the varieties that each diverse user of widgets desires.

Now under capitalism, no problem. You want widgets? You pay for widgets. You get the widgets you want or you refuse to buy widgets. And if you do not want to pay, then you probably do not need the widgets as much as the guy who is willing to pay. And if the price is high, then making widgets must be hard, and if it is not hard, you go into business making widgets, and you do not have to ask anyone's permission to do that.

But under socialism, the number seven widget collective is producing widgets for free, or at a “socially desirable price”, which usually might as well be free, since when goods are produced at “socially desirable” prices money rapidly becomes unspendable. So who gets to decide what widgets to produce? Those who produce them, or those who consume them?

Well obviously “the community” must decide.

And then “the community” must impose its decision on the producers and consumers of widgets.

Whereas in capitalism, the community can go jump in the lake. It is nobody's business but that of a willing seller and a willing buyer.

This means that under socialism, issues of production and consumption have to be dealt with in the same way that capitalists deal with issues such as a stolen handbag.

Under capitalism there is a positive incentive to produce, since if you produce something you own it, until you trade if for something you want more, and you cannot consume, except you have produced something that someone else values more than what you consume.

This of course makes it possible in capitalism for one person to wind up owning vastly more than another due to the accidents of luck, opportunity, ability, and ambition.

Under socialism it is necessary to use negative incentives, to punish people for “parasitism” “hoarding”, “black marketeering”, and suchlike “crimes”, “crimes” which are unknown in capitalism, or rather honored as virtues.

A socialist economy must employ negative incentives, the kind of incentives that law abiding people apply only to muggers and the like, in order to get light bulbs in the light sockets and toilet paper in the toilets. Thus the entire socialist country must be run as a prison, and all the citizens are lifers, and the nomenclatura are merely trusties.

Needless to say, when this system is introduced, a great many people misbehave. You cannot send them to prison, they already are in prison.

You have to murder them.

Hence the need for efficient methods for the mass production of murder.

http://jim.com/killingfields.html

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I understand that, but socialists don't agree because they think they can regulate corporations enough so that this won't happen. They don't mind giving all of their money to the government if they think everyone will have "free" healthcare.

I'm a hippy, most my friends are hippies. 90% of them are socialists and proud of it. I raise my children in liberty and so do they, yet they advocate for the opposite in government. To me, libertarian views are about as hippy as it gets. Apparently most hippies don't see it that way.

Seriously, if you are ever bored check out my "hippy parent" message board. It has 83,819 members. See the logic on this thread - http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=651540 to see what I'm up against with my fellow hippies.

That forum has more women on the interbutz than anywhere else. Holy shit, i dont think ive ever seen that many females on the internets? I didnt think they even existed!

 

[SlapItHigh]

That forum has more women on the interbutz than anywhere else. Holy shit, i dont think ive ever seen that many females on the internets? I didnt think they even existed!

Ha! They aren't all women though, despite the "mothering" name. In fact the main anti-Libertarian poster on the thread I linked is a male. He has all the others praising his posts.