David Brubeck has Died.

[Blankbeard]

To most of you libertarian types, the notion that someone wants to "control" other people is like a religious mantra.

It's more of an observation.

You completely overlook/discount the idea that people want their neighbors to act responsibly because irresponsible behavior by their neighbors ends up harming them.

Actually, that's a core idea of libertarianism - People should be free to act as they choose but they and they alone must bear the costs of that action.

Case in point. We are all in favor of letting people have as much sex as they want, But what do you do about someone that makes their sex life into YOUR PROBLEM?

His sex life isn't your problem. His refusal to pay for his children is your problem. And that's only true because you've voted for a huge government with powers not authorized by the constitution. As Rick Santorum put it

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

You voted to be in people's bedrooms. Don't complain about the smell.

If the government followed libertarian principles - scratch that, even if it just followed the constitution - this guy would be deep in trouble. His failure would cause the support of his children would fall on his partners. They'd have an incentive to take him to court. Not just him either, his family and anyone else who chose to support his loser. Word spreads. If he gets a job, his employers garnish his pay. If he shacks up with a new woman, she's making herself potentially liable for his kids. Pretty soon the well is dry. No one will take him in and no one will hire him. He'd quickly find himself in the position of supporting his children or being run out of town on a rail. And the internet makes it easy for your reputation to follow you.

Unfortunately, people like you decided to spread the hurt out to the entire population of states and even the nation. Divided among the population of Wisconsin, this guy costs a few pennies every decade to support. At that cost, he's not worth the trouble of noticing. So the welfare rolls expand by a dozen, he gets a completely unenforceable court order, and my bills go up while my freedom goes down. Thanks, conservatives!

And what on earth possessed that judge to issue such a court order? What power granted by the Constitution allows this? Does the Wisconsin state constitution cover coitus? How would you support that? Will he have to wear a penis cage? Will his parole officer have to check the lock? Who holds the key? Does he have to call that person "Mistress?" Can he have anal sex? Sex with sterile women? Sex with men? Can he masterbate? Can he donate sperm?

Will the penis lock have GPS and notify the court by cell signal if he ejaculates? Only in the presence of vaginal fluid? Will Adam and Eve Adult Toys have to collaborate with Labcorp to make a suitable penis cage? If he fails to comply with the court order, can the state seize his testicles? What if he enjoys this?

And this is compatible with conservative principles?

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

The libertarian solution is to let people control themselves and not to let them force the consequences of those actions on other people. The liberal solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control. The social conservative solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control while griping loudly about the state of society. Only one of those leads to a free society.

[williatw]

To most of you libertarian types, the notion that someone wants to "control" other people is like a religious mantra.

It's more of an observation.

You completely overlook/discount the idea that people want their neighbors to act responsibly because irresponsible behavior by their neighbors ends up harming them.

Actually, that's a core idea of libertarianism - People should be free to act as they choose but they and they alone must bear the costs of that action.

Case in point. We are all in favor of letting people have as much sex as they want, But what do you do about someone that makes their sex life into YOUR PROBLEM?

His sex life isn't your problem. His refusal to pay for his children is your problem. And that's only true because you've voted for a huge government with powers not authorized by the constitution. As Rick Santorum put it

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

You voted to be in people's bedrooms. Don't complain about the smell.

If the government followed libertarian principles - scratch that, even if it just followed the constitution - this guy would be deep in trouble. His failure would cause the support of his children would fall on his partners. They'd have an incentive to take him to court. Not just him either, his family and anyone else who chose to support his loser. Word spreads. If he gets a job, his employers garnish his pay. If he shacks up with a new woman, she's making herself potentially liable for his kids. Pretty soon the well is dry. No one will take him in and no one will hire him. He'd quickly find himself in the position of supporting his children or being run out of town on a rail. And the internet makes it easy for your reputation to follow you.

Unfortunately, people like you decided to spread the hurt out to the entire population of states and even the nation. Divided among the population of Wisconsin, this guy costs a few pennies every decade to support. At that cost, he's not worth the trouble of noticing. So the welfare rolls expand by a dozen, he gets a completely unenforceable court order, and my bills go up while my freedom goes down. Thanks, conservatives!

And this is compatible with conservative principles?

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

The libertarian solution is to let people control themselves and not to let them force the consequences of those actions on other people. The liberal solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control. The social conservative solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control while griping loudly about the state of society. Only one of those leads to a free society.

Would have to say I agree with just about all of this. My views on welfare/foodstamps go like this:

viewtopic.php?t=3327&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.

I would add that if he has kids out of wedlock by different women his wages will be progressively garnished for the cost of the upkeep of said kids. Even if it is only a portion of the true cost borne by the state in taking care of his kids, he would have skin in the game so to speak whether he likes it or not.

[Blankbeard]

The world is so complex and people are so varied that it is impossible to centrally plan anything.

See, if that were true, it would be impossible to plan anything. Again, virtually every business employs central planning! What is impossible is centrally planning something as complex as an economy for any reasonable number of people.

I see you scanned the article, but grasping what it means is not something that is given just because the words are read.

I keep seeing this brought up here in one form or another. Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they don't understand. People do have honest disagreements.

Look, I am not scoring points or winning or losing an argument, I just thought you might want to digest the fundamentals of Austrian economics and pointed to an article that would nicely give insight into something you may not have explored, but it will take contemplation. Good luck on whatever you do with it.

Best regards

Yeah, I'm familiar with them and generally supportive. Again, there's a lot of good stuff on Mises, but like anyone else, you have to evaluate the arguments they make.

Maybe take your own advice. Read what I wrote and think about it. Think about small towns. The mayor and maybe the town council make nearly all of the important decisions. This is central planning and it works (fairly) well. Scale that up to small town and things become different. Large town have more trouble planning. Small cities almost never successfully plan. I've never seen anything more than momentary success on larger scales.

I'm not just typing posts because I want to argue. I'm making points that I think are well supported and worth discussing.

[mvanwink5]

Blankbeard,
First you seemed to imply value is not subjective but objective. Then you give some examples that are outside of the assumptions that the marginal utility theorem requires, so it seemed that you did not understand the context that marginal utility theorem assumes. Like I said, I am not here to argue or make points. If you say you understand it and the Austrian economics, that is what you think, it just did not seem that way to me. You are good at arguing your point and state things well generally, and I agree with much of the things you say, but it does not seem to me that you have digested the economics. I would recommend spending more time on it if you have that luxury or get their daily newsletter. Just giving my point of view and trying to be helpful. Sorry if it wasn't.

Best regards

[Blankbeard]

Wait, I don't want to discourage anyone from participating in a thread. I hope that you will continue to do so.

I am not an expert in any field of economics or anything else (for purposes of this forum, I don't even claim to be an expert in the field I work as an expert in. ) so please regard my comments as expressions of opinion, hopefully backed by some level of evidence. I'll continue reading the source you posted as well as the ones I usually read.

I apparently jumped a bit too hard too quickly so let me back up and apologize. Sorry for any offense. Hopefully we can go forward and have a good discussion.


Edit: Oh, one thing I do want to point out:

Then you give some examples that are outside of the assumptions that the marginal utility theorem requires, so it seemed that you did not understand the context that marginal utility theorem assumes.

I didn't refer to marginal utility theory If you feel like expanding on how marginal utility theory impacts this, I'd be interested in hearing it. If not, that's ok too.

[mvanwink5]

Blankbeard,
I am not blowing smoke trying to pull your chain. I read Human Action 45 years ago, and I still remember having to read the dictionary side by side. It was worth reading that huge book though. Man Economy and State by Rothbard was another, and easier reading, but not less insightful. Without the theory you will be down blind alleys thinking things that sound reasonable but aren't. You won't learn it on forums arguing points, you will have to go to the books for it. There is no other way around it. I am glad I did it when I was young.

Truly, best regards

[Blankbeard]

Would have to say I agree with just about all of this. My views on welfare/foodstamps go like this:

viewtopic.php?t=3327&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would add that if he has kids out of wedlock by different women his wages will be progressively garnished for the cost of the upkeep of said kids. Even if it is only a portion of the true cost borne by the state in taking care of his kids, he would have skin in the game so to speak whether he likes it or not.

That is interesting. Anything that couples responsibility and control and moves them closer to the people affected is a vast improvement over our current system.

[mvanwink5]

Funny thing is that it took me 45 years to realize that value really, really is 100% subjective and the profound significance of that. I blame that stultifying dumbness on having started out with Ayn Rand, but this is not a race.

[Blankbeard]

Funny thing is that it took me 45 years to realize that value really, really is 100% subjective and the profound significance of that. I blame that stultifying dumbness on having started out with Ayn Rand, but this is not a race.

Don't hold out. What is the significance? Particularly, what is the significance for the transmission of statements of preference? What does that have to do with central planning?

Do we need an example scenario? Say, 50 people on an island, Mr Big declares himself the leader and decides to allocate certain numbers of people to fishing, foraging, shelter building, and working on rescue. All shelter is communal and food is divided equally. Initially, people follow Mr Big because he claims to be an expert of survival and an experienced central planner.

Assume they will only continue to follow him if their needs are met and they feel they are being treated reasonably. Assume no particular political, social, or relevant skill sets. Feel free to introduce some form of money and assume that the island is capable of supporting the group provided they can efficiently use its resources. If you need rare or valuable goods, assume they can exist if you need them. If you feel any of these conditions unfairly bias the scenario, feel free to change them but EXPLAIN WHY IT BIASES, not just that it is biased.

This is a clear example of central planning. Can it work? If not, why is it doomed?

[Diogenes]

To most of you libertarian types, the notion that someone wants to "control" other people is like a religious mantra.

It's more of an observation.

That you keep seeing despite evidence to the contrary. i.e. religion.

You completely overlook/discount the idea that people want their neighbors to act responsibly because irresponsible behavior by their neighbors ends up harming them.

Actually, that's a core idea of libertarianism - People should be free to act as they choose but they and they alone must bear the costs of that action.

A Great theory, and like Shylock's "Pound of flesh" it overlooks the "not a drop of blood" retort. In other words, the theory bumps up against the reality that individual acts often adversely affect people other than the individual. (such as nine children who didn't ask to be born, and the state tax payers who will have to pay the costs to raise them to adulthood, and the costs to society for a fatherless child. )

Case in point. We are all in favor of letting people have as much sex as they want, But what do you do about someone that makes their sex life into YOUR PROBLEM?

His sex life isn't your problem. His refusal to pay for his children is your problem.

And there is obviously an infinite chasm between the one thing and another. And now I am again at the point where I have to say "Are you f****** kidding me? " How am I supposed to reason with an individual that does not recognize even the very most basic of facts? The man's irresponsible sex life is the direct proximate CAUSE of those nine children.

And that's only true because you've voted for a huge government with powers not authorized by the constitution.

And then you want to try to put the blame on me? Again, "are you f****** kidding me? "

You voted to be in people's bedrooms. Don't complain about the smell.

You have cause and effect reversed. The people's bedrooms voted to be in my business. Their hands ended up in my pocket, not the other way around.

If the government followed libertarian principles - scratch that, even if it just followed the constitution - this guy would be deep in trouble. His failure would cause the support of his children would fall on his partners. They'd have an incentive to take him to court.

Again, are you f***** kidding me? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Not just him either, his family and anyone else who chose to support this loser. Word spreads. If he gets a job, his employers garnish his pay. If he shacks up with a new woman, she's making herself potentially liable for his kids. Pretty soon the well is dry. No one will take him in and no one will hire him. He'd quickly find himself in the position of supporting his children or being run out of town on a rail. And the internet makes it easy for your reputation to follow you.

I regard this scenario as nonsensical, and only capable of being conceived by a mind that has little contact with real world experience. Now your name makes sense. Someone too young to have grown a beard or learned much about life.

Unfortunately, people like you decided to spread the hurt out to the entire population of states and even the nation. Divided among the population of Wisconsin, this guy costs a few pennies every decade to support. At that cost, he's not worth the trouble of noticing. So the welfare rolls expand by a dozen, he gets a completely unenforceable court order, and my bills go up while my freedom goes down. Thanks, conservatives!

Yes, it is the fault of the people who have been fighting against it ever since Lyndon Johnson started the system. Again, Are you F****** kidding me?


And now for some typical "sky is falling" caterwauling from an outraged libertarian worried that someone might miss a nut.

And what on earth possessed that judge to issue such a court order? What power granted by the Constitution allows this? Does the Wisconsin state constitution cover coitus? How would you support that? Will he have to wear a penis cage? Will his parole officer have to check the lock? Who holds the key? Does he have to call that person "Mistress?" Can he have anal sex? Sex with sterile women? Sex with men? Can he masterbate? Can he donate sperm?

Once you get over your hyperventilating, I will point out that the judge told him not to "reproduce". The judge didn't tell him not to have sex. Presumably he can still do that. As for where the Judge gets the power to issue such a ruling, it comes from the fact that he can throw the man in prison for cause, and therefore the man can chose to obey the judges extra-legal demand, or the man can chose to be imprisoned by the judges all too legal ruling for cause.

And

Will the penis lock have GPS and notify the court by cell signal if he ejaculates? Only in the presence of vaginal fluid? Will Adam and Eve Adult Toys have to collaborate with Labcorp to make a suitable penis cage? If he fails to comply with the court order, can the state seize his testicles? What if he enjoys this?

And people wonder why the rest of us regard libertarians as naive children. Don't you think that poor strawman has been tortured enough? Sorry to have to interrupt you while you are on a good long running rant, but as I pointed out earlier, you are just making sh*t up now.

And this is compatible with conservative principles?

Not at all, but that's because it emanated from your imagination, rather than conservative principles. (Edmund Burke is a good source to learn about conservative principles. )

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

The libertarian solution is to let people control themselves and not to let them force the consequences of those actions on other people.

After having nine children with six different women, don't you think that ship has long sailed? Again, are you f***** kidding me?

The liberal solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control. The social conservative solution seems to be to spread the consequences among as many people as possible and then use that as an excuse for more control while griping loudly about the state of society. Only one of those leads to a free society.

I am thinking that further discussion with you is going to result in a lot of commentary along the lines of "Are you f***** kidding me? "

I fear you are all too serious in your distorted world view. All in all, I believe you have given a completely non-serious response to a legitimate question. (Just as you did regarding the spread of drug addiction. )

[Diogenes]

Would have to say I agree with just about all of this. My views on welfare/foodstamps go like this:

viewtopic.php?t=3327&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Instead of the existing welfare/food stamp system I have an alternative. Any one, who receives any type of government largess, be it welfare/food stamps/ lives in government paid housing, who is of working age lets say 18-65. This person is required to work at least 35 hours a week at no less than minimum wage. Instead of a welfare check, he/she must work 8 hours a day five days a week paid minimum wage at least. If he can't find private employment the government will find something they can do for pay. He/she may find themselves fixing potholes, sorting garbage at the waste treatment plant, picking apples on a farm, or whatever the gov finds for them to do. If he doesn't show up for work no pay. If he turns 18 lives in a household that receives government benefit (is not a full time student) he has 6 months or so to find work, if not work will be found for him or he has to leave the residence. To qualify for food stamps same deal no work no food stamps. If one is in prison and is deemed low risk, he/she can work on work release same deal minimum wage.

I would add that if he has kids out of wedlock by different women his wages will be progressively garnished for the cost of the upkeep of said kids. Even if it is only a portion of the true cost borne by the state in taking care of his kids, he would have skin in the game so to speak whether he likes it or not.

And I think this is a reasonable idea.

[MSimon]

The addiction to control is the most pervasive and dangerous addiction known to man.

It either goes largely unremarked or from time to time is praised greatly. Unless of course the controls are being applied to you.

Very few object to control on general principles.

I'm an addict myself. But my desires are not grandiose. I like controlling electrons. People I generally prefer to leave alone unless they volunteer.

The thing about business and control misses one point. It is voluntary.

[Diogenes]

The addiction to control is the most pervasive and dangerous addiction known to man.

It either goes largely unremarked or from time to time is praised greatly. Unless of course the controls are being applied to you.

Very few object to control on general principles.

I'm an addict myself. But my desires are not grandiose. I like controlling electrons. People I generally prefer to leave alone unless they volunteer.

The thing about business and control misses one point. It is voluntary.

And how does any of this explain what to do about nine children in the taxpayers pocket?

Where do you draw the line for freedom?

[MSimon]

The addiction to control is the most pervasive and dangerous addiction known to man.

It either goes largely unremarked or from time to time is praised greatly. Unless of course the controls are being applied to you.

Very few object to control on general principles.

I'm an addict myself. But my desires are not grandiose. I like controlling electrons. People I generally prefer to leave alone unless they volunteer.

The thing about business and control misses one point. It is voluntary.

And how does any of this explain what to do about nine children in the taxpayers pocket?

Where do you draw the line for freedom?

Since so few are interested I draw the line around me. I have no hope of masking a dent in the larger scheme of things.

Most everyone favors a partial set of controls. The ones they are partial to.

I try to avoid getting too involved. As soon as you let out "not these controls" people start thinking "OK - a man on my team - we have these controls for you".

So where do I draw the line? Around the government. I'd like to shrink it. You abhor welfare. I abhor the DEA. Perhaps we could get together. Or not.

[Diogenes]

The addiction to control is the most pervasive and dangerous addiction known to man.

It either goes largely unremarked or from time to time is praised greatly. Unless of course the controls are being applied to you.

Very few object to control on general principles.

I'm an addict myself. But my desires are not grandiose. I like controlling electrons. People I generally prefer to leave alone unless they volunteer.

The thing about business and control misses one point. It is voluntary.

And how does any of this explain what to do about nine children in the taxpayers pocket?

Where do you draw the line for freedom?

Since so few are interested I draw the line around me. I have no hope of masking a dent in the larger scheme of things.

Most everyone favors a partial set of controls. The ones they are partial to.

I try to avoid getting too involved. As soon as you let out "not these controls" people start thinking "OK - a man on my team - we have these controls for you".

So where do I draw the line? Around the government. I'd like to shrink it. You abhor welfare. I abhor the DEA. Perhaps we could get together. Or not.

We have no influence over governmental policy, we are just discussing principles in theory. Whether we can trade indulgences is not really applicable to this discussion.


I am asking what, in theory, should be done (if anything) about a man who has nine unsupported children?


How does a Libertarian answer this question?