jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (183 posts)

The Liberal vs. Conservative Issue

  1. A Thousand Words profile image80
    A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago

    Am I the only one disturbed by this constant back and forth between the two in the political arena? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of certain conservative ideas, but they do also make some valid arguments. As do liberals. I've said my fair share about the conservative ideas I think are completely ridiculous, but I try not to generalize anymore, because I've learned that when both sides act in this way, it causes more division than any real good. Both sides have unrealistic views about the other in many regards. This two-party system and the war that it is waging has and is still seriously retarding necessary growth/progression/reform in this country. I don't think it's good to be at either extreme, but rather somewhere in the middle with wisdom from both sides.

    Are people following certain ideas and "values" simply because it seems to embody their party, and not necessarily because they've objectively thought everything through on the issues?

    Have people become more concerned with the success of their party than the American population as a whole?

    This butting of heads and unwillingness to compromise is completely childish and inappropriate when considering the main scheme of things, is it not? I'm glad we're starting to see small compromises here and there, but we have a long way to go. I once said and felt that if a certain portion of the country wanted to secede from the Union that they should do so, but now I realize that we need a more balanced way to approach our country and its needs (again, a happy middle).

    What are your thoughts on the matter?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting that you should post this today. I just watched a really interesting TED talk on this whole left-right dichotomy and what liberals and conservatives could learn from each other if they'd be willing to take a look at what common ground they do have.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I do get a little confused because in the UK Liberals ARE Conservatives with the hard edges rubbed off a bit. Carry on.

      2. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I've seen two different videos from TED. They were pretty interesting.

    2. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh well no doubt we are all a bunch of stiff-necked people.

      Where do you believe the compromise needs to start?

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Clearly on the GOP side...

        1. Barefootfae profile image59
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why?
          No talking points Cody.

    3. Aaron Seitler profile image79
      Aaron Seitlerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Fascinating points.Perhaps at the end of the day, we need to realize that whether directly or indirectly,every man and woman in politics is in it for their own personal gain and we  can't get away from that and just have to accept it...

  2. donotfear profile image92
    donotfearposted 3 years ago

    There's too many who aren't willing to bend a little. Like me.....

    OOps.

  3. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago

    I have abandoned the GOP for a more conservative approach. Donotfear is right we should not bend simply to get along, I reject everything democrats have thrown out because it involves less freedom. I am seeing the same thing from the GOP and now I'm looking for that group that is for more liberty.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yea, I mean, why would we want to compromise or anything like that....

      1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
        BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you think a compromise is good? When both sides come from stupid positions the compromise will be equally stupid.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah yes, why try to find common ground when you can just act like a little child and cry that you might not get everything you want.

          1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
            BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not really understanding what I said are you?

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think Cody understands you very well indeed.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Don't think so or he would have responded differently.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You keep using words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

                  1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then ignore them!

                2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I know you want me to say "Yea, go even more conservative, that'll show 'em! Those stupid liberals!"

                  It's just that it isn't the right answer...

                  1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't want you to say that, I'm ok with you not saying anything at all!

            2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No I get it....you're acting like a spoiled child who didn't get everything she wanted.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Still not getting it.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Rather than compromise, I'd rather use the term consensus. Same difference perhaps but consensus involves both sides agreeing on something, which might sound like compromise to a lot of you but is a way of hitting the people with things that the most people, on either side, will feel comfortable with.

          Life shouldn't be a battle between left and right.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You're right, it shouldn't be. It should be a battle between liberty and authority.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But if you have consensus, you have liberty, it might not be the liberty that you like but it will be the liberty that most like.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's false.

                If the consensus is to enslave the populace, put them in prison, and take away their liberty, that cannot be liberty. By definition, it cannot.

                Liberty is objective, not subjective.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And how likely is it that the populace would want imprisonment? That's consensus.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Doesn't matter. Consensus doesn't create liberty. If the consensus is imprisonment, that's the exact opposite of liberty.

                    The point you should have inferred from what I said is "Consensus does not equal liberty." You took a wrong turn somewhere.

                2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                  A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  True liberty is impossible in current "civil" society, though. Sorry. It would take all power out of the hands of the government and put it all into hands of the people. This is not really human-like. By history's example, we like to create these excessively large societies, and the only way to run them is to give up certain freedoms by introducing some form of authority, be it a secular "government" or religious in nature. To seek true freedom is to seek the days when every family only worried about themselves. It would be back to the days when I could harm you without being tried in a court, and the only justice would be for someone in my family to take you out. It's up to you to decide whether a life style like that would be better or not. Ask yourself if the liberty you seek is worth the cost. Its consequences would be more massive in nature than I think people realize. Most people aren't even mature or self-sufficient enough to healthily survive in a truly "free" place. Again, whether this truth is a bad or a good thing is up to you. Some might say, "survival of the fittest." I would say, how do you know that you are the fittest and that you would survive? To tell the truth, in some ways I would personally enjoy true freedom. However, I can see the domino effect that would nearly instantly take away the security that people experience every day (that they're mostly unaware of) that exists within the type of society we have currently.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Law and courts do not violate absolute liberty. Laws against aggression, and to resolve contractual disputes are necessary for the running of society, but liberty does not have to be curtailed to produce such things.

            2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sure, but neither side is going to get the perfect society that they wish for.

              Therefore, their needs to be compromise and consensus

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Compromise on what?
                I agree if you mean compromise on how to help the economy legitimately, how to help people create better jobs or "create" jobs instead of just hiring more people for panels to figure out how to push Obama's agenda through.  Heck, I'd consider it a great step forward  if our leaders would figure out a way simply for people to KEEP their jobs or regain their jobs they had before the carp hit the fan, instead of worrying about "creating" jobs (which is simply another stupid word that the Left keeps using to throw everybody off). 
                It would be okay to compromise on how to do a lot of things!

                But not on the things that are actually moral principles.
                It sickens me that there's all the hoopla about "morality" coming from the Left (and a tendency to ignore from the Rights sometimes even),  when in fact this Nation's leader has openly advocated for the most immoral practices ever backed from the top position in the world (the White House).

                So, no, you'll not find me in the mood to "compromise" on anything until he shuts his nasty mouth or recants his position about the biggest and baddest holocaust of any American era--------baby killing.
                He first said that's an issue above his pay grade.
                Well, if that's how he wants to see it,  then everything else is above his pay grade too.   His checks need to start bouncing.   And they would, if it was up to me.

                What?   Anyone want to say hey see her attitude?---no wonder there's no compromise?   You would be right.    What do ya want me to do?---ignore it?    Not gonna happen.   The man is supposed to represent all the people as best he can.    He's ignored a large part of the population-----------unborn children and those of us who believe they should be given the same opportunity we've had and that he had---------a chance to LIVE.       

                His carp, his attitude, would tee off a saint.    You can see him on tv trying to scold Israeli citizens about how the Palestinians have "a right" to a Country of their own too.    And all the while, he doesn't give a whit if little babies ever see the light of day, much less grow up to choose to fight against Palestine rocket-launchings into an American ally's neighborhoods.  He thinks he has the right to walk onto a stage and tell not only America, but every other Nation, what to do,  but he doesn't even think a baby has the right to grow up to walk, period.

                So, no, I have no respect for him nor for those who've seen what he's like and still think he's God's gift to America.   The man and his cronies reek of greed, selfishness, and ignorance, and they don't deserve the positions they're in.    There's no way I could "compromise" with the leaders of a Party like that.    They need to give it up and give America back to the people who believe in Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as intended in the Constitution--------happiness as in normal humanity living with each other in kindness and honesty and morals,  not happiness as in greedy ideas that infringe upon other people's ideas.

                Go ahead, keep calling for "compromise".   I sincerely hope the GOP does NOT compromise its principles.    'Cause if they do, they're heading for being just as bad as Obama and his cronies.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok, so you're against abortion. That's your right.

                  Fortunately, in this country, we are all given the right to choose how we will live our life. What you consider immoral may not be immoral to someone else. Who are you to judge?

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It would be okay to compromise on how to do a lot of things!
                  But not on the things that are actually moral principles.
                  I sincerely hope the GOP does NOT compromise its principles.    'Cause if they do,...
                  they'll continue alienating more and more Americans who understand what true morality really is, and they'll be on the fast track to a very principled--and morally bankrupt--state of irrelevancy.

                  That'd be great.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So glad I'm not the only one who sees that

                  2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    30 out of 50 Governors are republican!

                    As of November 2012, the Democratic Party held the majority in 18 state houses and the Republican Party held the majority in 30 state houses. The Oregon House of Representatives was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nebraska has only one chamber and is counted under the state senate pages.

                    Two Presidential elections with bad candidates will not doom the Republican party! Only bowing down to bad legislation will accomplish that.

  4. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    It's ridiculous... it's a joke.

  5. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago

    It is about pride and prejudice, not the novel nor the movie.

    Pride - not giving in, just wanting to win an argument

    Prejudice - preconceived notion that there are sets of behavior correlated to being a Democrat or a Republican

    The ability to debate issues rather than preconceived notion about a political party.

    In essence, it is the general to particular kind of reasoning which make it difficult to debate issues.

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image94
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am no political scholar, but here is my humble view.  Why do we have to attach labels to each other?  Can I not have personal views that are mine and that may connect to some views of one side and some views of the other?  I have been accused at one time or another of being both liberal and conservative...which shows you how willing people are to pigeon hole me just because I may have expressed a certain view of things.  One view about one thing does not make me all one thing or all another.  If we all took time to realize that there are many shades of gray in people's thinking, we might learn to be more tolerant of one another.  Certainly what we've been doing the past few years is not working, so maybe it's time to take a step back and reassess ourselves.  Just sayin'.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's kind of human nature to lump people who disagree with you into a group, but you're right. It's harmful.

      2. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, friend.

  6. Seth Winter profile image84
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Consensus is not liberty. You could say Hitler had the support of the people...except you'd be hard press to find a Jew that enjoyed that liberty.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But he didn't have the support of the Jews, therefore no consensus.

      1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
        BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That sure stopped him didn't it?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, not one bit did it stop me. I had to go out.

          Hitler didn't rule by consensus, he had the Gestapo who eliminated any political opposition. I thought that was common knowledge and so did not think it worthy of comment, obviously I was wrong.

          1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
            BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was talking about Hitler. It aint all about you

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, that wasn't obvious by your reply. Maybe you should have responded to the post that I responded to, rather than my response.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It should have been obvious.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why?

                  1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You said But he didn't have the support of the Jews, therefore no consensus.

                    To which I replied That sure stopped him didn't it?

                    I'll explain (Not sure why)

                    Even though you say he didn't have a consensus it did not stop him from doing what he did!

                    I hope that is clear.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I thought that was common knowledge and so did not think it worthy of comment, obviously I was wrong.

            You can't assume that folks on here actually know anything, no matter how common that knowledge might be.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sadly I have to agree.

  7. Seth Winter profile image84
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Also is it even possible to compromise on some issues? 

    Take the latest gun control issue. They want to ban Assault Rifles, and 15 round mags.  Now how do you compromise on this issue...remember compromise means that both parties give something up. By the Conservative side saying sure you can ban assault rifles but let us keep larger then 15 round mags, only one side has given anything up. U

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're right, for the gun issue 'compromise' means all gun control, no gun rights.

      Universal background checks, and do away with restricting SBRs and suppressors.

      I'd be fine with that compromise.

      1. Seth Winter profile image84
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let's poke a few holes (possibly) in that compromise.

        Who decides who is safe to own guns...and who isn't?

        We have how many people in the Armed Forces that are returning from the war...now many of these soldiers are going to be seeking mental health help, PTSD, and various other disorders.  How would you feel as a soldier if you got told you could either seek counseling (then disqualified for owning a gun) or not and be able to own a gun?

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Or....a *COMPROMISE*

          You get counseling for your issues, you may be able to get a gun on a case-by-case basis.

      2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Universal background checks and mental health checks before owning a gun......I think those are things that we can all agree on.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'll only agree to it if SBRs and suppressors are removed from NFA

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Seeing as there are already laws regulating them....why not

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, that's my point. Removing the regulations they are currently under.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You can have them, but the tax stays

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Then you aren't getting them out from under NFA.

                  That's like saying 'I'll compromise with you, but you don't get any of the demands you asked for.'

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha, I know......in all seriousness, I have to do proper research to really make a good argument......however, whenever you place a financial impediment to getting something, it causes people to think just a little longer about whether or not they really need that gun.

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And to be fair, there is a lot more than just the tax that you have to deal with when you get that type of a weapon. In some cases its illegal to have them at all. So, in a way, that is a compromise.

                  3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's like saying 'I'll compromise with you, but you don't get any of the demands you asked for.'

                    No, that's what's called a counter-offer. That's negotiation, which is part of the process of compromising.

  8. 60
    Misty Bernandesposted 3 years ago

    Seems to me that first of all as civil servants they are way over paid, by us. Second they are talking about unemployment and social security as entitlements, which we have paid into. Any yet, they feel
    they are entitled to great medical coverage, more vacations than I ever had in a life time, vote in raises behind closed doors, instead of asking us if they deserve a raise. And perks, that are paid for by our tax dollars, meanwhile  we
    are treated like the bottom feeders in the big pond. Hmmmm something smells fishy to me!

  9. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
    BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago

    Is this similar to your assertion that Obama voted against the Iraq war?

  10. healthyfitness profile image84
    healthyfitnessposted 3 years ago

    Like the guy above said, moderation is key. I think the trouble occurs when you have the extremes from both sides arguing over issues.

  11. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Innersmiff, government isn't intrinsically violent. It attracts the sort of people who think they know better and who sometimes use government in a violent way, but to paraphrase, guns don't kill and neither do governments, it's the people holding the guns and the people holding the power.

    What makes you believe that a private police force would be any less violent than a state force? Surely you've had experience of private "security" forces? They generally make the state police look like pussy cats. Don't tell me that the "consumers" wouldn't allow it. If the likes of Bill Gates or similar was to establish a police force he would be the only client and as long as they pleased him they could do what they like.
    Police forces attract a certain kind of person and private or state the same people would be attracted to either.

    Government is highly flawed but we don't solve that by introducing another equally flawed system with a lot less control over it.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Government is not strictly speaking, an entity, but an action: the exercise of monopoly of force. Large organisations can commit good or bad acts, and the act of claiming right over other people's property is aggressive. Since this is the assumption, no matter which party is in power, no government can claim to be un-aggressive.

      Bill Gates has to provide the funds to run his police force for any length of time, and in a free market the only way to establish these funds is to provide a service to consumers. Any use of his force that goes against consumer demand will result of withdrawing of funds and therefore no police force. It simply won't be in any rich person's interest to become a gangster simply because there is no government.

      Security agencies might not be the friendliest of institutions, but they do not have the legal right to declare war and tax us to bail out irresponsible banks, amongst other tyrannies the government claims to have the right to perform, so they're a million times better than the government in my book.

      Police forces are not in their nature aggressive. We must do all we can to ensure that they are not aggressive, but creating a monolithic agent of aggression is counter-moral and counter-productive.  I trust any institution that I can choose whether I give money to over an institution that gives me no choice at all.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think you view the world not as it is but as you would like it to be.
        However good the intentions police forces would still attract the sort of people who seek power over others, business men however good they may appear to be would still find ways of not being good if that was their desire and  without some government control they would find it easier.
        To continue to use Bill Gates as an example (and only a fictional example) if he decided to establish his own police force, firstly, without any sort of government control how would you know it was his force and secondly how exactly would you deprive him of funds remembering that already if you buy a PC even one without any of his products installed, you still pay his company a fee.

        No, you haven't convinced me of a way the world would work without some form of government, least ways not one I'd like to live in.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just look at Somalia....pretty much ends the debate right there

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ah yes, Somalia, the country with increasingly better standards of life than any of its statist neighbours.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Poorest nation or earth equal with the Congo. Outperformed economically by the vast majority of African nations, highest crime rate in the world and growing. Lowest life expectancy in the world and falling.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not to mention frequent gross abuses of human rights.

              2. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bringing up Somalia is a lazy, get-out-of-jail-free card way of attempting to debate libertarians - if you don't accept 'look at the Soviet Union!' as an adequate rebuttal of Socialism you shouldn't attempt to place Somalia as the ultimate proof of the failure of liberty. Not only does it mis-represent what libertarians are arguing for, the facts don't match up. I gave you a long list of quality of life statistics that have improved, and exceeded that of its statist neighbours, since statelessness arrived in Somalia last time you brought it up, and I didn't receive a response.

                Firstly, I'm assuming your 'economic growth' measure is GDP. If it is, you're not going to be very convincing. GDP does not discriminate between frivolities and actual economic growth.  A huge bulk of African GDP comes from their irresponsible spending on things like palaces for the Kings' multiple wives. You have to look at individual metrics, like access to healthcare and average income. These are almost all improving. Your stat on life expectancy is completely wrong too. Since statelessness arrived in Somalia, life expectancy has increased from 46 to 50. Check out the bottom ten countries for life-expectancy: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te … tancy.html

                Somalia is a good 8 years or more better off than those extremely statist countries.

                As for human rights abuses . . . come on, the last time a state was in place in Somalia, the populace were being massacred. Is that preferable?

                But, despite all of that, libertarians are not arguing that statelessness will automatically bring a utopia - we say that absolute liberty provides the best environment for peace and prosperity in the long term, or, "The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society." Somalia is, after all, a developing country and still recovering from the savagery of the previous dictatorial regime. The question is: is the state a viable solution for Somalia? Considering most statist countries in Africa are high-poverty, high-crime, and suffer high human-rights abuses, and the fact that almost all the important metrics are improving since statelessness in Somalia, we have to conclude: 'no'.

                More info:
                http://www.independent.org/publications … sp?id=1861
                http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

                Hopefully we can put 'WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN?? mad' argument to bed now.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  if you don't accept 'look at the Soviet Union!' as an adequate rebuttal of Socialism you shouldn't attempt to place Somalia as the ultimate proof of the failure of liberty.

                  First of all, the USSR's failure isn't a rebuttal of socialism at all. It's a rebuttal of communism. If you want to see an example of how socialism works, look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. You've got happy, healthy citizens, and you've got enterprise as well (Ikea, Erickson, Lego, etc). Second, Somalis isn't an example of the failure of liberty. It's an example of the inherent problems with anarchy. Sure, there's more access to wifi, but there's also the fact that a lot of Somalia's GDP comes from piracy.

                  Since statelessness arrived in Somalia, life expectancy has increased from 46 to 50.
                  And there's no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc, except what each individual can defend. If the local group of badass enforcers decide you're a threat, they can burn down your business, and unless you have a lot of friends willing to risk the displeasure of those same local badasses, you're pretty much screwed.

                  Plus, piracy.

                  Considering most statist countries in Africa are high-poverty, high-crime, and suffer high human-rights abuses, [i]and the fact that almost all the important metrics are improving since statelessness in Somalia, we have to conclude: 'no'.[/i]
                  But you're also forgetting that in places like Norway, Sweden, Iceland (especially Iceland) etc, you've got a state, and you've got greater prosperity, lower crime, few if any human rights abuses, and an almost total absence of poverty, as well as the freedom to build a vibrant, dynamic business without the fear of the local warlord burning your workshop to the ground with impunity. This didn't happen overnight, either. It's been a long time a-building.


                  Hopefully we can put 'WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN?? mad' argument to bed now.
                  Why would we? Seriously, if Somali-style liberty is so awesome, why would any libertarian in his right mind want to hang around in this oppressive, tyrannical, dystopian country when they could hop a plane and head for paradise?

                  Off you go! I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms and wil have built a prosperous business within a year of your arrival. Because Somalia's a perfect environment for free enterprise. Heck, I'll even invest $50 in whatever business you want to start. Serious offer. You go to Somalia and start your business in that Eden of Freedom(tm), and I'll invest $50 in it. We can call it a share in your business (whatever it might be) which will pay an annual dividend after the first year, and which I can sell for whatever I can get for it, or we can call it a bond, which will be redeemable for a reasonable markup after five years, plus an additional percentage for each year after that. Whatever.

        2. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If we are talking about limiting agents of power, why are you apparently dead set against limiting the power of the government? It claims absolute legal power over everyone's life and property, with essentially no recourse. Except that every 4 years or so we get to put an X in a box to signify which of satan's minions we want to control our lives. Private police forces do not operate under the illusion that they are 'sovereign' and that it is your duty that you pay them. They also require constant upkeep therefore requiring their efforts to be in the public interest so they can get any revenue at all. Bill Gates, despite his incredible wealth, depends on customers constantly buying his products. Any upset to the service he provides will result in a loss of revenue. And frankly, you can't keep something like that a secret, especially with the presence of a free press.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, you aren't talking about limiting agents of power, you are talking about replacing them with more unscrupulous agents of power.
            I am not dead set against limiting the power of government, I am against removing government and returning us to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where unregulated businesses such as you are in favour of regularly killed their customers - often with their victims collusion. Have you never heard of outbreaks of cholera and typhoid caused by contaminated water supplies, of people poisoned by tainted food? Those are the things you are arguing for!

            Government does not have absolute power over lives and property. If it does it doesn't exercise that power, it still allows us to live as we like if we don't impinge too much on other people in most cases. And as for property, take all your possessions into your back yard and burn them, nobody from the government will come and tell you you can't. Demolish your house and unless it is a listed building, don't expect anybody from the government to come and tell you to rebuild it.

            Private police forces would bow to the highest payer, if that wasn't you you could forget all about withholding your payment, they'd probably come and throw you in a private prison for doing so.

            I take it you didn't actually read what I said about Bill Gates! He doesn't depend on his customers, his customers depend on him, apart from the levy you pay him when you buy a PC, do you not think his company has the power to make your life very difficult?

            And why on earth do you think that the press would be any freer than it isn't at the moment? Would Murdoch pack it in? Would any of the press barons? No, instead they would run wild.without a restraining hand.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm struggling to see how multiple smaller agents of power that have to compete with each other based on consumer demand is somehow more dangerous than one monopoly of absolute legal power. I just can't see it. I think what sets you off on the wrong track is that you believe that the state is the ultimate law and order provider. You don't believe there is incentive for anybody to act peacefully unless there is a central agent of aggression. Time and time again I've pointed out that as an economy grows, more resources can be put into satisfying more of our desires, including safe water and food. We can not honestly compare the teething problems of the industrial revolution with our more economically developed world today, where consumers and workers expect these things as a given, regardless of whether it is enforced or not. Instances today where standards are not up to scratch are more often than not due to government interference. If not, there clearly isn't a demand for it!

              In addition, what is honestly stopping Bill Gates from raising an army now? Is it simply because there is a government? Say he managed to overthrow the government - who the heck would support him?

              Finally, what evidence is there that the state is an effective deterrent to warlord-ism? Increased statism in Iraq has done absolutely nothing to stabilise and de-warlord the country, neither has it in Syria or Mali. Where is the evidence to prove your assumptions?.

              Government exercises its absolute power over us by taxing us and violating individual rights. Whether we solicit it or not the government presumes to have the right to steal our property and impose rules on us. That is absolute power, even if they only exercise some of it. The fact that they allow some freedom, like being able to burn your house (woo! Go freedom!), is not evidence that they are not aggressive.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What? Multiple smaller agents of power like local authorities, local gas and electricity companies run by those local authorities, yeah, bring it on.

                Those teething problems of the industrial revolution as you so quaintly put it weren't teething problems, they were unfettered and uncontrolled capitalism.  Same as would happen now given half a chance.

                Do you read your local newspaper at all? Do you see the frequent stories about eating houses that appear clean and respectable until the public health inspectors enter and find indescribably bad conditions in the kitchens? That is the truth of your unfettered capitalism. And how on earth do you put those conditions down to government interference?

                And as for your comments about the government "stealing" off us, how about you "stealing" your education off us, "stealing" our roads off us, "stealing" your protection off us, "stealing" your health care off us.

                Bah.

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, read what I said, "based on consumer demand". Government agencies wouldn't know consumer demand if it slapped them on the face. I do, however, concede that smaller government agencies working together are more preferable than a monolithic state, but all talks of states rights and nullification are met with cries of "neo-confederate" by most statists.

                  That unfettered and uncontrolled capitalism was working through those problems before any regulation came in to allegedly curb them, suggesting that regulation has little effect on it. But you're kind of supporting my point that the state can't hope to curb problems like this - even under our current situation of a large state with numerous regulations, there are eateries with poor conditions. Show me the evidence that the state is helping.

                  I don't want your "education", "protection" and "healthcare" so don't force me to pay for them. Roads I'd be perfectly willing to pay for with tolls, as and when I use them.

 
working