Can any Libertarians help me understand these concepts?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Falcon63, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're failing to even acknowledge what I said. If you sue a private road owner, the road owner will gain it back off the backs of all the users. Plus build in a profit.


    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!

    ICBC has always allowed private companies to compete with the frills and the gravy but not with the basic insurance. I said that I believe and I also said that private can't compete. Bitter rightwingers keep them in business because they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well. Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.


    The risk of not being able to sue successfully sounds the death knell on the whole idea. The libertarians wouldn't have any power to make it better.



    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat. So here's the way it would really work: You drove into my pothole because you weren't driving with due care and attention. Fix your own car!
    And if you don't like them apples, take me to court. I obviously can't fix a pothole that occured overnight (within the last week) immediately when it becomes a road hazard. And if people expected me to pay damages on their cars every time the stupid louts drove into one of my potholes, I wouldn't last in business until tomorrow. That should tell you that you wouldn't have anybody to sue either!

    Unless you get yourself a socialist 'no fault' system and then , ....... well you know. (see above)
     
  2. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're failing to even acknowledge what I said. If you sue a private road owner, the road owner will gain it back off the backs of all the users. Plus build in a profit.


    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!

    ICBC has always allowed private companies to compete with the frills and the gravy but not with the basic insurance. I said that I believe and I also said that private can't compete. Bitter rightwingers keep them in business because they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well. Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.


    The risk of not being able to sue successfully sounds the death knell on the whole idea. The libertarians wouldn't have any power to make it better.



    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat. So here's the way it would really work: You drove into my pothole because you weren't driving with due care and attention. Fix your own car!
    And if you don't like them apples, take me to court. I obviously can't fix a pothole that occured overnight (within the last week) immediately when it becomes a road hazard. And if people expected me to pay damages on their cars every time the stupid louts drove into one of my potholes, I wouldn't last in business until tomorrow. That should tell you that you wouldn't have anybody to sue either!

    Unless you get yourself a socialist 'no fault' system and then , ....... well you know. (see above)
     
  3. Libertarian ForOur Future

    Libertarian ForOur Future New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't fail to acknowledge it, it's just not how it would work. If all of the roads are privatized, you would be making money from the consumers that are driving on your road. If you jack up the prices, people will stop driving on the roads and look for cheaper alternatives. It's human nature to find the cheaper alternative.

    I'm fairly aware of what 'no fault' insurance is. I'm also aware that even the ICBC won't cover damage occurred by potholes in the road (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Burnaby+driver+protests+ICBC+pothole+policy/7927375/story.html). Socialism doesn't always work. When it comes to damage on the roads, why should the individual, who is paying for good and/or service, should be accountable for it when it fails them?

    Private companies can compete when they are given the opportunity. When you mix in with corrupt politicians only passing legislation that only benefit the certain few, of course the market is going to look bad. Then they turn around and say how bad the market is and how government needs to continue to step in and fix the issue, it's a double edge sword and one, especially in the US, I'm not buying anymore.

    If we want to talk 'what is', then we can talk about the three forms of socialism that is failing right now. Social Security has become a slush fund for the government. There isn't any money in the social security trust fund, all that is there is a bunch of pieces of paper with 3 letters written on all of them, 'IOU'.

    Medicare is going to either go bankrupt or create an bigger deficit, with ACA. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/. To coin the phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Same with Medicaid: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardkrooks/2012/07/10/medicaid-expansion-under-the-affordable-care-act-what-happens-when-states-refuse-to-enlarge-this-coverage-to-its-residents/.

    Being able to hold someone accountable is better than having your insurance tell you 'Sorry bud, you're SOL'.

    In the case of the article I made above, this is what happens when socialism meets with corruption and the consumer foots the bill. Had the police closed off the exit and not allow folks to enter, those damages would've been far less. Instead, all of those folks will have to fork out the bill for someone else's negligence.

    And there's no such thing as a 'utopia'. Not in a communist, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, conservative, liberal, or any other word/phrase folks want to use, nothing's perfect and you will never have your utopia. Once you come to that reality, you begin to set reasonable measures that can be as close to it as possible, not never quite getting there.
     
  4. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So government has no accountability for the people it kills through negligence and bad road design and overzealous law enforcement. So, some smart entrepreneurs step in and help spread the the cost of the risk so that the people aren't destroyed by that negligence and overzealous enforcement. If a private company were to get away with what you let government away with, you'd be screaming bloody murder about the evils of capitalism. Oh wait, you already do.

    As in road systems that kill and main hundreds of thousands of people every year? Yeah, that works "very well." Not sure for whom, but it works well for someone. Probably EMT workers. They keep busy.

    They are? Social Security hasn't put aside a penny since it was founded. The system is bankrupt. A screaming success for politicians who had billiions more in taxes to spend on boondoggles. A screaming success story for the older generations which got lots of government benefits which they'll force their children and grandchildren to pay. Assuming, of course, that the children and grandchildren don't change their minds about paying the debt that they are inheriting.


    If we believed people turned honest, we'd be like you and consider government to be a wonderful thing full of saintly politicians who have only our best interests at heart when they write statutes and build roads.
     
  5. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Eh, this is chicken and egg (and im saying this drunk at 6am). The problem isnt that we don't have enough gold it's that we PRINTED too much money.
     
  6. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Right, and there could be also be a silver, nickel, or copper standard, or a combination thereof. Taking the dollar, the world reserve currency, off a metal standard in 1971 allowed for the development of state, local, and federal ponzi schemes, magical mystery bonds, derivitives, and other creative bankster nonsense.

    If Greece repudiated its crushing debt burden, defaulting on its loans, and issued a metal-based drachma, it might become an international banking haven and the world's new reserve currency.
     
  7. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed.

    There are only a few ways to fix this now at this point though.

    1.) Buy enough gold to back the current money in circulation ( impossible imo )
    2.) Pick a fight with another weak country with known massive gold reserves and just take theirs. ( just tossing this one in for fun )
    3.) remove trillions upon trillions of dollars from the economey. Wiping out massive amounts of wealth. ( no one wants to see that either )

    For people who want to revive the gold standard, these are really the only options. Pick one.
     
  8. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Who benefits and who loses with this paper standard that you seem content with?
     
  9. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who says I like the paper standard fiat currency? I just dont think that going back to the gold standard is the answer.
     
  10. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You dont need to go back to a gold standard. Just remove taxes on the gains and deductions for the losses of gold. Without taxes on gold, people can keep their savings in gold, thus giving them the benefit of the gold standard for their saved wealth and hedge against inflation. When they withdraw then can withdraw in cash, and then they can spend that, while keeping the rest of their money tied to gold. Government wont allow it, they love to steal their inflation from gold holders as "gains", and reduce its price against the dollar because of this and other regulations. Remove them, and people can opt in or out of a gold standard type system. Would be great for seniors on fixed incomes.

    (Not jewelry though of course)
     

Share This Page