I'd be interested to hear others views on the practicality of change towards a more libertarian government structure. Wean the welfare checks away? Cold turkey? What do we do for the ex govt workers for who there is no more paper to push? i think it's the way we need to be running things but struggle to see a way for changes to occur without the system coming total collapse.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the system to change. The only real change occurs on the individual level.
The socialists already have a plan for when the economy completely collapses.And they are in power right now! Right there in the drivers seat.P.S. Abbott & Co are just as socialist as Gillard - as shown by the ludicrous baby bonus which just encourages poorer people to pop out as many kids as possible so they are increasingly dependant on the state.
So you are looking for a system where wealthy people can generally operate without government interference and the poor get no help from the government ? There are many countries in the world that operate in this fashion - perhaps you can seek them out and go live there and be happy ever after.
Trew, you nailed it. the standard of health care, education and infrastructure provision, that we all take for granted here in Australia would probably be lost as 'collateral' damage in a Libertarian government structure. This would likely also have dire consequence to economic development. Is that how Libertarian governance is supposed to represent a better circumstance than having to pay too much tax or deal with pesky environmental regulations. Mr.G
Fear of the unknown stays the hand of the many. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A[/youtube] Understand that fear & normalcy bias would have people who understand the corrupt nature of the system defend it, under the guise of an even worse disaster awaiting if you do not. I've had this discussion a number of times on SS (coming from the Objectivist ideology myself) and had so much resistance over the issue, it's not even worth debating anymore. You will either fight for personal liberty and gather courage to face the unknown, or you will surrender your freedom to the establishment and the whim of others. There will be no 'middle ground' in the end. Look at Australia even today and compare it to 20 years ago (if you are old enough). The path this country is headed down is clear and tell me, is it really that good for the people? Housing? Food? Job security? Time management? Family health? Community Safety? Taxation? Control? Regulation? Law? Cost of living? At what point, what trigger, will have you pause to consider that perhaps liberty is worth fighting for? It won't matter because by time the majority do get to this point of realisation, they'll be way too far down the collectivist road to do anything about it.
-100 Spoken like a true zombie!! I'd love to say to you if that's what you're after why don't you go live in the Soviet Union? But then i remembered - they actually learned from their mistakes ... Oh well, keep you head up your arse then - it's probably much warmer and safer there than in the real world :lol:
Jeez. Obviously you are trying to make the simplistic "We're not a third world country because we have a lovely big Government" 'argument' (fallacy more like it). Third world countries are third world because they don't have individual freedoms not because of a lack of Government. In nearly all cases it's because they have too much government. Iran, Afghanistan, Argentina, Zimbabwe, the USSR, North Korea etc are all text book examples of previously healthy liberal countries (not libertarian) being turtled up by anti-Libertarian philosophies. In contrast all developed economies are a product of them embracing the principles of personal liberty (albeit under the guise of Liberal Democracy). Trying to argue that personal liberty kills social cohesion and growth while compulsory collectivism (i.e. anti-personal liberty) fosters them is utterly stupid and flies in the face of every real world "experiment".
Well i have to disagree with you there . The 3rd world country ive been living in for over 18 months has individual freedom coming out of their arse so it has nothing to do with it . They have far too much freedom to make money & not pay tax so the infrastructure suffers BECAUSE of such freedoms . Its blatantly obvious when i go anywhere at the amount of small stores everywhere & i mean everywhere not paying taxes is the problem .If they all paid a small amount of tax their infrastructure would be far better . This privatise everything bullshit does nothing but make a bigger divide between rich & poor. Ive been seeing it first hand & theres absolutely no doubt that the freedom is whats the problem The divide between rich & poor is staggering while some drive brand new cars theres others riding 5 up on a motorbike or scraping to find few cents for a jeepney or tricycle ride to the public market to buy food . I suggest until you have actually lived for a lengthy period of time in an impoverished country that you shouldnt make blanket statements on why they are in such situations because if you do it will be blatantly obvious that freedom is NOT the problem .Its REVENUE if the government has no revenue they cant improve the systems or the infrastucture. Corruption is another problem even if they have the revenue if it gets funneled out of the system its only bettering the ones siphoning it out & not to those who need it
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you ? All of those countries you list were destroyed by corruption - nothing to do with personal freedom (or lack of) or size of government.
No he doesnt :lol: hes just a computer debater with little real life experience which is obvious from his posts
Really? You don't think that big coercive government lends itself to massive corruption? No doubt that corruption was/is a factor in all these cases, however I believe that you cannot see the wood for the trees and that bordsilver is perfectly correct in his assertions.
Care to share with us this the name of this third world country you're living in? I must admit that I've never heard of any third world country which values individual liberties - quite the opposite in fact. You sound like a true Marxist. Are you a student of Lenin perhaps?
The phillipines. Im the furthest thing from a gubmint lover as you can get .I just see through the bullshit theories some post .Until theres a plausible solution thats put forward then you might aswell stick with what we have .Unless you would like to go backwards .Im all for progress not regression . I know the system is flawed to the point its become a joke but the throw it all in the bin & start anew isnt the answer . I believe the answer is scale back the layers not totally trash it . You will never keep everyone happy .
What? Assuming you are correct and that corruption was the sole cause of their demise, extensive corruption can only occur due to a presence of state enforced regulations not its absence. And are you claiming that the biggest social experiment of all - the USSR - failed because of "corruption"? Seriously?
wtf ? What did big government have to do with Iran ? That was a country run by a corrupt dictator that stole all the oil wealth from the population to fund wars and line his pockets. Destroyed by corruption and then war. What did big government have to do with Afghanistan ? Invaded by the USSR and then taken over by the Taliban - then by the US. Destroyed by war. Argentina is supposedly a form of democracy but has had underlying corruption for 100 years... a wealthy country gradually destroyed by corruption. Do I even need to talk about Zimbabwe ? Corrupt to the extreme. Only the USSR fits the argument bordsilver is trying to make - large communist government that failed. Lumping all those other countries into the same list is just plain ignorant.
