HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
https://forum.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=217859592
i cant even tell anymore
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
Neither. Your views are simply irrational.
-ViriglStar1- |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
how so?
i don't really see any big gaping holes in that ideology
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
Although I empathize with your belief that government should not have a broad scope of powers, I believe you have reached a farther extremity to the right than even most libertarians would be comfortable with.
For example, allowing piracy to be legal would significantly hinder the economy, for piracy is in many respects similar to theft, and in most cases, simply is theft. The function of governments is to ensure that the rights we have agreed to are protected, and therefore I will agree with you that military protection, judicial procedure, and the existence of a police force are legitimate functions of government. I will disagree, however, with your belief that governments are the deciders of where raw resources go, and that they must ensure public education. Regarding the former, I believe this matter should ultimately be left to the people after they have legally purchased the land formerly owned by the government where these resources are. Regarding the latter, public education is not a right, it is a privledge, and seeing as privledges are not consistent with the legitimate function of governments, the government has no business in the matter.
We both agree with laissez-faire capitalism as an economic system, however I disagree with you that we should stifle the existence of monopolies or mega-corporations, at least if doing so requires using government as a vehicle to enact this change. Monopolies are not inherently bad, and in fact during the time of Rockefeller, who had control of the sale of 90% of America's oil, oil prices were very low. This was because monopolies tend to want to remain monopolies, and by lowering the prices, this reduced the likelihood that a successful competitor could be on the market.
So, while I agree with you in principal on most issues, I find that some of your views are either inconsistent with the conservative/libertarian ideology as a whole, or are simply disadvantageous to the rest of society if these ideas were implemented.
-VirgilStar1-
|
|
|
i can see a lot of your points but one thing that bothers me is
"Regarding the latter, public education is not a right, it is a privledge, and seeing as privledges are not consistent with the legitimate function of governments, the government has no business in the matter."
education is a human right by the UN approved universal declaration of human rights. if you're in the UN, i think it's fair to say that you should reflect it's definition of human rights, or you'd be seen as very hypocritical and a human rights abuser, since a good entirety of nations are in the UN and provide education as a right to its citizens. |
|
|
[Responding to Stalinator]
Education is fundamentally important to the persistence of free nations, and so I will not dispute that education is a critical part of any society. However, my view on rights is that they are not a projection of the government, rather they exist to limit the powers of government. For example, when one says they have the right to free speech, this means that the person with the right may not be limited by a government from expressing their views. This system falls apart, however, when we apply this principle to education.
Consider the following:
If we accept that rights may only be deprived if a person violates the rights of someone else, a premise I think we may both agree to, then what should happen if someone refuses an education? Is forcing someone to receive something because it is their right to it not a paradox of what it means to have rights? If we accept that the government necessarily exists to protect rights, and that the government is also the issuer of rights, we have, in a sense, granted the government the power to force what it deems to be rights upon the people, thereby defeating the very core of why rights exist.
So, out of practical consideration and out of principle, I must respectfully disagree with the UN's assessment of education as it pertains to rights.
-VirgilStar1- |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
KatLegacyJoin Date: 2010-11-02
Post Count: 6311 |
i dont know if you sound conservative or libertarian, ive never heard your voice mate |
|
|
nah public education is a right for anyone not of an adult age.
I couldn't see the public school system standing on its own pretty much at all. |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
./
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
i completely overlooked printing money
eh
whatever
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
government should print money and prevent theft and things against our consent
government could also do public education, i'm certainly not against giving people the ability to rise above being poor
i mean, only reason i'd pay taxes. |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
Patent law got nuked by the Supreme Court just a couple of days ago
that's good
total annihilation of intellectual property law in the name of freedom and capitalism is the dream, but it's a step in the right direction
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
but if you made it, it's yours
otherwise, that's socialism
haha socialism and libertarian conflict, the government can't have a tight grip on the economy without some level of a grip on the freedom of the individual |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
"but if you made it, it's yours" I'm not disputing that, I'm arguing that you can't mix capitalism with a system that is inherently anti-capitalist. The idea that someone can own a state-blessed monopoly on anything is fundamentally anti-capitalist. If anything, anti-trust laws are really the doctor trying to treat a broken leg that is intellectual property with ########### so you'll shut up rather than actually fixing the underlying problem. $ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
"but if you made it, it's yours"
I'm not disputing that, I'm arguing that you can't mix capitalism with a system that is inherently anti-capitalist.
The idea that someone can own a state-blessed monopoly on anything is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
If anything, anti-trust laws are really the doctor trying to treat a broken leg that is intellectual property with things to stop your nerves from feeling pain so you'll shut up rather than actually fixing the underlying problem.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
pretty left-leaning if you ask me
"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
"For example, allowing piracy to be legal would significantly hinder the economy, for piracy is in many respects similar to theft, and in most cases, simply is theft."
If I take something, modify it, and then resell it, why should the government restrict my ability to sell an objectively superior product than whatever's on the market right now?
Pirated content is simply a form of competition against legitimate sold copies of a product. If your content was worthy, then people would pay for it. Why punish the content creators whom you enjoy by not supporting them? It's the ideology of open source, and the payment model of Linux clearly demonstrates that not only is it effective, it is objectively the most moral way to profit off of your product. See things like GOG and how it's thriving without DRM and free of the DMCA to an extent, and then look at the backlash against EA for DRM.
I'm not saying 'outlaw DRM', I'm saying 'DRM-less versions (ie, pirated) of a product are objectively superior to their 'legal' counterparts.)
It's your product, you can cram as much DRM as you want in it. Just don't go whining, kicking and screaming to the government when someone takes your game, resells it, and removes the DRM which creates an objectively superior product.
Ideally, nuking intellectual property as a whole would allow for more freedom in the marketplace. Why should Intel have a monopoly on x86? Why shouldn't I be able to go up, build my own factory (provided either the resources or some other method to do so), and start pumping out ARM chips tomorrow? Why shouldn't I be able to decompile Microsoft Windows, create changes, and redistribute my changes to the world for a fee? Or with no fee?
Are those things which I create not 'mine' because they're derivative works?
In which case, why isn't everything considered a derivative work in the first place, because one way or another, it is not 100% original?
x86 uses the concept of a Turing machine (and implemented as Von ###m######### Intel doesn't get sued every 5 minutes for intellectual property issues.
My problem with intellectual property is that it restricts the freedom of the consumer and of the free market in favor of a socialist system which simply is NOT sustainable. The DMCA extends this beyond any possible hope of repair, and the whole law is inherently unethical and perhaps you can argue as 'evil'.
"however, with your belief that governments are the deciders of where raw resources go"
"I believe this matter should ultimately be left to the people after they have legally purchased the land formerly owned by the government where these resources are."
That is what I intended to mean by that -- the government avoids traditional taxation by simply selling off resources to private groups in an effort to avoid arbitrary restrictions on the marketplace via traditional taxes. Of course, the government will (inevitably) run out of these resources, and thus must invest in private groups itself so as to 'buy back' these areas to be suitable for a different purpose later on.
Of course, the government doesn't have to sell *everything*, simply use whatever it can to generate profits such that it avoids traditional taxation as much as possible. In a sense, the government is the only OK 'megacorporation' to exist.
I suppose my wording was absolutely atrocious before.
"Monopolies are not inherently bad, and in fact during the time of Rockefeller, who had control of the sale of 90% of America's oil, oil prices were very low. This was because monopolies tend to want to remain monopolies, and by lowering the prices, this reduced the likelihood that a successful competitor could be on the market."
Which then hurts the consumer's personal freedoms of choice to take a superior product.
Here I suppose I have an ideological flaw which I'm not sure how to reconcile.
I suppose the best answer is that this is an oddity and a rare exception, and it would be better to be safe and assume monopolies will inherently abuse their status and if their goods are particularly required, they will charge more for it than is necessary and be anti-competitive and break the capitalist system. (read: oil companies today, Microsoft, especially Apple, etc.)
I'd actually argue the government is a catalyst to monopolies (hence how patents are really just state-sponsored monopolies, ie, more government regulation in disguise), and that by minimizing both government spending (in an effort to avoid the raw numbers in order to break even) and the overall size of the government, the "inherent" problems with the market would dissipate over time.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
SurgoJoin Date: 2011-01-11
Post Count: 2748 |
A Libertarian state is a state in anarchy |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
Which is a problem with total anarchy: a state must inevitably exist one way or another.
At best I can say I'm more authoritarian than Minarchists, but I'm certainly muuuuccccchhhhh farther down than someone like the Donald.
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
You are a far-right social libertarian.
Right: 9.44, Libertarian: 7.59
On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: 4.33
Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: 0.67
huh
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|
HarbyngerJoin Date: 2008-07-06
Post Count: 34677 |
call me the right wing version of richard stallman then
haha
$ echo "Get slam jammed, kid!" && sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root |
|