The debate "Are libertarianism and pacifism effective ideologies" was started by
September 14, 2019, 10:22 am.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Ambassador_Chess posted 12 arguments, MightyJackalope posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
Ambassador_Chess, lolopopo, Shrivali_16, MightyJackalope, Agrumentman, YEET, Thinkinghead, Facundo4261Arg and 16 visitors agree.
codyray16 and 9 visitors disagree.
Which is what makes the medical market to incentivizing for entrepreneurs. If we were to deregulate that market we'd allow for far more competition and as a result, a precipitous drop in pricing
what is stopping the Beaurocrat from being corrupt? law, maybe moral values. the point of beuracracy is to double and triple check all the numbers and keep a copy, it prevents corruption. all you have to do is change up beuracracts and they will simply have to bribe 100 people, or as soon as it is uncovered every previous beaurocrat goes to jail, which keeps all of them in line.
as to your private company who monitors other companies, who pays for it? everyone? like a tax? how? the companies? how can you regulate your customer? the customer is always right!
your system does not work. companies will save money, but people will be harmed, consumers will lose confidence, and the economy will go down hill. there is a reason there is no 1st world liberitarian countries.
Nemiroff, I think that a part of WWII was necessary, but much of it could have been avoided. Though, I think that most of the U.S. Civil War was necessary
not but , but by
Beaurocrat can check and control products , but if we will give him more power , he will boodle . I think he can go to judge or say people that it product can be bad . Ok , I agree that this way isn't ideal ( it can increase unhealth products ) , but we also can make private organisations whose can control products. I think we can't make situation better but your ( and my ) way , but my way can save money . Thanks for discussion , I propose you to finish it . Good luck !
"what stops a corrupt Beaurocrat from licensing an unhealthy product?"
laws, oversight, and future elections. what will stop that unhealthy product if there is no beaurocrat to check it at all? (please answer)
you actively avoid judgeing the market and what would really happen if government left it completely alone.
also, what is "government"? is it 1 unified entity? are you calling our fore fathers failures and their contributions, and constiutions have done nothing to bring government under the people? nothing is perfect, but i disagree with your blanket opinion about the government.
Yes , all games need rules . But what can stop , for example , corrupted burokrat to give licence to unhealthy products ? But in 90 % free market ( with minimum control ) , where this burokrat can only recommend / not recommend to buy this product , and companies want to grow their own reputation , people will buy much healthier products , because it good to companies to prove that their things are healthy . I repeat it again : GOVERMENT MOSTLY DOESN'T WANT TO HELP PEOPLE . Your ideas are good , but practice said that it is unreal .
the market is not a natural thing, we made it and it is not as simple as portrayed.
a major underlying principle, supply and demand depends on there being equivalent power between the parties. in medicine, like insulin for example, supply and demand is useless for setting price as the demand is desperate.
likewise, a population without access to opportunity will take whatever working conditions are available, as evident by all of humanity throughout time. the market as is, unchecked, will lead to increased concentration of wealth which will not be healthy for the economy or society long term. weve learned a long time ago that every game needs rules.
I don't trust companies, I trust market . Free market hasn't got any corruption , it conformations only by people's predecence , because it gainfully for market to do what people want .
I mean that people can do what they want only if it don't hinder others .
you said "people should be able to do what they want".
i didnt call you an anarchist, i was responding to your words. unless you can no longer defend your own words... people do grow.
I sid that WW2 wasn't necessary to Germany and USSR , but they made this war because Hitler and Stalin wanted . But I agree , that other countries call upon to involve.
how is this a utopia? can you name 1 unregulated 1st world economy? fortunately my "utopia" is the norm, and your terrifying dystopia is nonexistent. at least not anymore.
i agree the government is not ideal, but thanks to the work of our fore fathers, it is divided and limited. and we can make more improvements. we do have influence in the government. the money is used to trick us, but it is our vote that ultimately decides things. however we have no influence, or even right to investigate, private companies.
you clearly dont trust the government, but do you blindly trust companies?
ww2 wasnt necessary to stop those dictators? after Hitler invaded poland, and prepared to continue, you would have sat there?
I am not anarchist, I am libertarian.
I think your idea is Utopia . You said that markets should be regulated by goverment - but it works ONLY if goverment works for people . Why you think that goverment really lobbying only people's interests ? I don't believe in ideal government.
side note, freedom comes in 2 forms: freedom from, and freedom to.
do you really want to allow people freedom to do anything? freedom to kill, to oppress, to threaten?
the united states itself was built on freedoms from. freedom from persecution, from unreasonable search and seizure, from an unfair judicial system. noone should be allowed to do whatever they want. not people, and not companies.
I agree that civil war was necessary , but WW2 wasn't . It was only necessary to 2 dictators - Hitler and Stalin .
also i disagree liberitarianism is best. a market where companies can do whatever they want may interefere with people doing what they want. liberitarianism may work in an economy made up of many small mom and pop shops where the workers have a similar level of power to employee and the employers depend on the economic health of their employees to also be their customers. like a small isolated town. but in reality liberitarianism is a fantasy.
when you have a large group of people who cannot afford to say no to unfair working conditions, and do not make enough to seek betterment, you have a system heading towards collapse. an example of this was the turn of the century when a truly unregulated market resulted in shit for the workers (sweat shops, child labor, loss of life and limb) and shit for the consumer (milk full of chalk, unregulated foods, unregulated polluting).
i can understand distrust of the government, i can't understand blind trust of greedy corporations. a believe a properly regulated market is the ideal.
your view of the wars seem weird.
civil war was good because if was necessary
ww2 was bad (assumingly because it was deadly)
but the civil war was amongst the deadliest wars of its time, and ww2 was necessary to stop a madman.
both were bad but necessary.
Not necessarily. I think that the United States Civil War was necessary to abolish slavery, for example. While not the war's original/only goal, I do not believe that the abolishment of slavery could have been done diplomatically, or at the very least not it an even close timeframe. Nothing is inherently good or bad, some war is necessary or done for the greater good. Some wars, like WWII, for example, were not good. But, "war" is not automatically bad.
Yes , but do you agree that wars are terrible ?
But, pacifism doesn't work when someone has already begun attacking you; at that point you must defend yourself, whether it be a country or a person.
I think that wars are terrible , so I am a Pacifist . In my opinion , diplomacy is the best way to make influence on your opponents.
Libertarianism based on the capitalism Adam Smith's theory that market has to be free and liberal theory that people have to be be able to do what they want . I think it is the best ideology ever .