Should America be Run by a Political Minority or a Political Majority?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about eating? Eating really provides freedom at the most basic level. You don't eat then not much else matters. Maybe we should storm the grocery stores.

Or maybe we should just take measures so that people don't starve... which we do.

 

[BSM1]

Or maybe we should just take measures so that people don't starve... which we do.

Still not a right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still not a right.

In countries that don't value freedom, you're right.

 

[BSM1]

In countries that don't value freedom, you're right.

This makes no sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This makes no sense.

Not to you.

 

[BSM1]

Not to you.

Why don't you simply explain what you mean instead of tossing personal barbs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why don't you simply explain what you mean instead of tossing personal barbs.

Let's go back to basics, then: if someone is starving, are they free?

 

[BSM1]

Let's go back to basics, then: if someone is starving, are they free?

Sure. Why wouldn't they be?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. Why wouldn't they be?

Because starving interferes with "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint"... i.e. freedom.

 

[BSM1]

Because starving interferes with "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint"... i.e. freedom.

So does not having BMW to tool around in if we follow your thinking...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So does not having BMW to tool around in if we follow your thinking...

Yes: not having a BMW is exactly like starving to death.

 

[BSM1]

Yes: not having a BMW is exactly like starving to death.

Says who?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Says who?

You just did.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm talking about freedom as in physical freedom or freedom of employment.

Health care provides freedom at the most basic level: you're no less free than you are when you're dead. Health conditions also impose literal restrictions on freedom: someone who's stuck in a chair in a dialysis clinic for 4 hours a day is just as deprived of liberty as if they were imprisoned for 4 hours a day; preventative care that stops people from getting to that point represents an increase in freedom. Untreated asthma can make it so that a person simply can't do many activities they want to do... and could do if they had proper treatment. Someone who has gone blind or lost a foot to uncontrolled diabetes is less free than someone who didn't.

And there's also the issue of economic freedom: when insurance is tied to employment, if a worker or their family member has a pre-existing condition, they're forced to stay in that job to maintain their insurance.

What does "freedom of actions" mean to you? Does it include physical mobility? The ability to seek new employment?

Freedom of action depends on people being as healthy as possible and being free of situations where health care can be used to coerce them... IOW, freedom is served by universal health care. Deny people this and you deny people freedom in every way that matters.

Ok....i see what your saying.

But, if the medical field was a free interprise, like other products and services are, whats wrong with that?

Doctor office A competes with doctor office B for customers. Under this method medical is not paid by insurrence or tax. Its paid AS NEEDED. And the price wont be skyrocket because of compitition.

And what i mean by freedom of action is having less red tape, less laws, rules, regulations. Still having some laws, reasonable ones, but nothing going overboard to smother people.

 

[Jollybear]

How about this for example.

You own a small family farm. It has been in your family for generations and you are doing fairly well.

Until one day your livestock starts dying and you can’t figure out why.

After and investigation it turns out a local mining co is poisoning the water table from which your well draws water. You, your family and your livestock have been poisoned by drinking that water.

Should the mining company have the right to do business this way? Or should the government inhibit their liberty to protect yours?

Hmmmm....you made a good point. You just made this too hard on my head now

Ok...well, the way id answer that is by saying there still needs to be reasonable laws still in place. Just not too much red tape.

After all, libertarianism is not anarchism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rigging the vote: how the American right is on the way to permanent minority rule | Ian Samuel

Are you in favor of the principle of majority rule, or are you opposed to it?

Should a political party that represents a minority of the people, rather than a majority of the people, run the country?

What if the party came to power through underhanded tactics?

I generally went with majority rule overall yet some valid points have been made to me about the Electoral College that tempered me from keeping that opinion entirely. In general terms I would likely go for majority for reasons for stability of the society.

I go with people not the politicians. Maybe that's where it gets convoluted in terms as to whether it's about the majority vs minority of the population, or the majority or minority of the politicians.

Any election won with underhanded tactics defeats the point of having a fair and honest election depending on what exactly is meant by underhandedness. It could range anywhere from mudslinging dirt on your opponent all the way to actual manipulation of the voting infrastructure itself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If Democrats choose to live in urban areas and Republicans choose to live in rural area, doesn't forced busing of voting district lines, go against this choice?

The analogy is you move to particular neighborhood because they have good schools. The other person moves to the city where there is more theaters, restaurants and night life. The city dweller then complains the schools are not as good. He wants forced busing so his children have the best of both worlds and the other person is deprived of their main choice.

The minorities, who tend to favor the Democrat party, often move to urban areas. This then allows the Democrats to win elections. The Democrats then mess-up the city, which causes the minorities to remain a permanent underclass, where service become second rate.

Then the Democrat convert the urban areas where management is better and services are better. They say it is not fair, while never mentioning they are the problem, due to mismanagement. For example, Democrat controlled Baltimore has the among the highest per pupil expenditure for their schools, yet it is near the bottom in term of academic results. Where does the money go? Gerrymandering is often a response and/or reaction to potential viral infestation, as Democrats seek to supplement their classic mismanagement style.

No Doubt.

All you have to do is look at San Francisco today to observe Democrat party ideology implemented in full effect. A real world peak at Democrat policy along with its own dependent underclass that seals the deal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok....i see what your saying.

But, if the medical field was a free interprise, like other products and services are, whats wrong with that?

Doctor office A competes with doctor office B for customers. Under this method medical is not paid by insurrence or tax. Its paid AS NEEDED. And the price wont be skyrocket because of compitition.

And what i mean by freedom of action is having less red tape, less laws, rules, regulations. Still having some laws, reasonable ones, but nothing going overboard to smother people.

How would you control the market to ensure that there's competition? There are a lot of barriers to entry to provide health care, as well as economies of scale. Even a medium-sized city can usually only support one or two hospitals. Lack of competition is kinda baked in.

Meanwhile, since health care deals with people's lives and physical well-being, demand for it is almost perfectly inelastic. I'd be hard-pressed to find another service that's better suited to help people who want to gouge others... withiut reasonable controls, that it. This is where universal health care comes in.

Anyhow, health care was just one example. My overall point is that you shouldn't assume that a reduction in regulation necessarily implies an increase in liberty... especially not if you're talking about removing the regulations that stop one person or group from infringing on the liberty of someone else.

Regulation of health care providers is needed to ensure freedom for patients. Regulation of landlords is needed to ensure freedom for tenants. Regulation of employers is needed to ensure freedom for employees.

Negotiated agreements and leaving things to market forces are generally fine as long as both parties are coming from positions of roughly equal strength, but in situations with huge imbalances, the most equitable outcome - or the one that yields maximal liberty - is generally not the one that will come out of strict market forces. Think of both parties' BATNA: in an employment negotiation in an economic downturn, what happens if the employer or a low-level employee says "no" and walks away? If the employer loses the employee, they hire a replacement quickly; they'll be out the cost of training and a small loss of productivity while the new hire gets up to speed... all in all, probably less than the rounding error on theit rate of return. OTOH, if the employee walks away, they lose their livelihood, maybe their home as well. This situation is inherently set up to allow the employer to coerce the employee in ways that deny or diminish liberty... unless, that is, we put a thumb on the scale through regulation to artifically create a balances situation, such as by mandating that the employer must allow the employees to organize into a union. Suddenly, both parties in the negotiation are negotiating from a position of strength and it's much more likely that the results of the negotiation will protect the liberty of the employee.

Bottom line: don't assume that people haven't thought about this stuff just because they aren't libertarians. Definitely don't assume that libertarians are necessarily the smartest people or the best ones to make decisions. Libertarianism is, at best, a naive mindset full of bad assumptions; many people outgrow it. I hope you do.

 

[Jollybear]

How would you control the market to ensure that there's competition? There are a lot of barriers to entry to provide health care, as well as economies of scale. Even a medium-sized city can usually only support one or two hospitals. Lack of competition is kinda baked in.

The people within the medical field at the top know insurences have alot of money, so it makes sense that they will charge huge prices.

Take away medical insurence companies and the medic field will have no choice but to lower prices. If they dont, no one will be a customer because most wont afford it; accept the rich, but there not majority.

Meanwhile, since health care deals with people's lives and physical well-being, demand for it is almost perfectly inelastic. I'd be hard-pressed to find another service that's better suited to help people who want to gouge others... withiut reasonable controls, that it. This is where universal health care comes in.

I read this part 3 times, you lost me here. Break this down more. I dont understand.

Anyhow, health care was just one example. My overall point is that you shouldn't assume that a reduction in regulation necessarily implies an increase in liberty... especially not if you're talking about removing the regulations that stop one person or group from infringing on the liberty of someone else.

Right, and thats why SOME laws need to remain. But some need to be abolished.

Regulation of health care providers is needed to ensure freedom for patients. Regulation of landlords is needed to ensure freedom for tenants. Regulation of employers is needed to ensure freedom for employees.

What are the regulations on each of those?

Negotiated agreements and leaving things to market forces are generally fine as long as both parties are coming from positions of roughly equal strength, but in situations with huge imbalances, the most equitable outcome - or the one that yields maximal liberty - is generally not the one that will come out of strict market forces. Think of both parties' BATNA: in an employment negotiation in an economic downturn, what happens if the employer or a low-level employee says "no" and walks away? If the employer loses the employee, they hire a replacement quickly; they'll be out the cost of training and a small loss of productivity while the new hire gets up to speed... all in all, probably less than the rounding error on theit rate of return. OTOH, if the employee walks away, they lose their livelihood, maybe their home as well. This situation is inherently set up to allow the employer to coerce the employee in ways that deny or diminish liberty... unless, that is, we put a thumb on the scale through regulation to artifically create a balances situation, such as by mandating that the employer must allow the employees to organize into a union. Suddenly, both parties in the negotiation are negotiating from a position of strength and it's much more likely that the results of the negotiation will protect the liberty of the employee.

Ah, but, i use to work at this wearhouse where unions have no effect there, it was in south carolina. And work conditions are normal. In fact, in oriantation they told us if you use a union, they can still say no to the unions proposal. So, if a employee has an issue, its best to comunicate it directly. This creates more trust and openess between employer and employee. Thus making the situation better and more likely that the employer will address the employees issue favorably.

In fact, i was working in the physically hardest department in the entire wearhouse. Shiping and recieving.

There was 2 sections. One part unloaded and loaded trailers with a forklift. The other section loaded trailers by hand. This is the area i worked. It was 50 to 70 pound boxes. Hundreds of boxes to fill each trailer. It was brutal work. Anyhow, my right shoulder joint started to hurt, in a bad way. At that point i knew i had to take pressure off it. I told the boss about the issue and that i needed to go to a different department, or hed have to send me home until something else came up. He worked with me and i went to another department and my shoulder healed and everything was fine.

No union was needed.

Bottom line: don't assume that people haven't thought about this stuff just because they aren't libertarians. Definitely don't assume that libertarians are necessarily the smartest people or the best ones to make decisions. Libertarianism is, at best, a naive mindset full of bad assumptions; many people outgrow it. I hope you do.

I might outgrow it depending on how or where our discussion lands. Or, mayby youl grow into libertarianism, again depending on where the discussion lands.

Im approuching this with an open mind, but my mind is not so open to where me brain falls out and not so closed to where me brain crushes.

 

[Woberts]

While there are some situations where a minority would be preferable, a majority party is really the only long term solution.