Conquer Club

luns101 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?

...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!

She is from California.....

luns101 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?

...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!

Healtcare, absolutely ... it is cheaper for everyone and better!


The rest... I think if you WORK a fulltime job, you should get paid enough to get at least inexpensive versions. (provided you don't decide you have to have a closet full of $300 outfits and go out to eat every day).


And I think welfare for WORKING people is subsidizing the employer as much as the employee.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

luns101 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?

...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!

She is from California.....

Schwarzenegger is actually going to increase the very registration fees that he criticized Gray Davis for in that newest budget deal. I'd move to Arizona, but we'd probably get kidnapped by Mexican cartel leaders.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:They also are pretty strongly against freedom of association, which while ideologically sensible for their position, shows how they are sort of choosing what they feel is best (not that theres anything wrong with that).

I don't think that there is any established method of measuring freedom. I can argue with them, but I'm not sure how I would go about disagreeing about what freedom means in this country. If you know what I mean? Plus, you are invited to re-do the study for yourself, and see what states you would define as '"free." So it's not really like they are telling you what's what.

I could probably make an argument that the way they measure freedom isn't really very libertarian in a way. Because if a state would adopt new legislature to allow gay-marriage or making pot legal their freedom-index would drop. I'd say that their economic-freedom calculation is libertarian enough, but their social-freedom calculation is a bit off. Which is why I compared it to republican bias since they tend to think the same thing. (i.e. less social freedom but more economic freedom)

It may be a problem that there is something as federal law which influences the thing leading to less legislature being less freedom, but if that's the case these guys are just bad at understanding their own viewpoint.

I didn't say it was, just that it's something a liberal group might put in their own "freedom" index. Although my own opinion on this is no secret, I was not making a value judgment here. I realize that libertarians, though in general they tend to be in accord with what is known as the "religious right", tend not to emphasize this and other similar issues.

Depends on the type of libertarian.

And anyway, you did actually imply that "reproductive rights" and "freedom for gays to marry" were not libertarian ideas by saying that "liberals" would put other freedoms on the list. A true libertarian should focus both on social and economic freedom and would realise that for social freedom they would need government to lay down groundrules and then only enforce those things, leaving the economy to itself.


Then again, I don't like labels a lot.

Healtcare, absolutely ... it is cheaper for everyone and better!

That's because noone is actually a hardcore believer in privatisation.

You can make arguments seemingly against the bias in terms of libertarians in terms of your freedom hijacking as well. If the constituion is a living document, we certainly can make arguments about how to claim it and interpret it.


Its really a bit of a moot point on most of your other stuff. The type of freedom index they are talking about is PhD work of a few years at the very minimum, that type of work comes out of few groups i know of, certainly none of which casually post on a gaming forum.

I don't think the fact that these figures/charts are biased is the big issue, it is that they pretend not to be.

If they were clearly put forward as the Pro-Liberaterian states versus not... instead of referring to "freedom", I doubt anyone would object.

got tonkaed wrote:You can make arguments seemingly against the bias in terms of libertarians in terms of your freedom hijacking as well. If the constituion is a living document, we certainly can make arguments about how to claim it and interpret it.


Its really a bit of a moot point on most of your other stuff. The type of freedom index they are talking about is PhD work of a few years at the very minimum, that type of work comes out of few groups i know of, certainly none of which casually post on a gaming forum.

Oh I don't doubt it. It's sophisticated and very well researched. I don't criticise the research so much as the choice of words and the measures

The weird thing is, the idea actually puts states rights as lower than I've come to expect of libertarians. Perhaps I should read it more as saying that federal law is unimportant as a state can't do anything about it. Indeed, if there was no federal government then this thing would probably approach libertarian ideas much better.

I don't think the fact that these figures/charts are biased is the big issue, it is that they pretend not to be.

If they were clearly put forward as the Pro-Liberaterian states versus not... instead of referring to "freedom", I doubt anyone would object.

Well as I said, the freedom-index makes more sense if there wasn't a federal government. If the constitution was interpreted to be at it's most liberal (i.e. allowing same-sex marriage and drugs) then it would be an accurate representation of more and less freedom. It's just that they seem to ignore that and therefore making a crucial mistake in saying "freedom".

Then again, it's also a bit silly since libertarian philosophy is a bit silly.

Snorri1234 wrote:Then again, it's also a bit silly since libertarian philosophy is a bit silly.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm curious why you find libertarian philosophy a bit silly. Are your thoughts somewhere in line with Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest? (I believe it was Churchill). Or do you find the idea of libertarianism silly compared to other political thought?

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Then again, it's also a bit silly since libertarian philosophy is a bit silly.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm curious why you find libertarian philosophy a bit silly. Are your thoughts somewhere in line with Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest? (I believe it was Churchill). Or do you find the idea of libertarianism silly compared to other political thought?

More of the former. I'll try to think of a way to explain what I mean though.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't think the fact that these figures/charts are biased is the big issue, it is that they pretend not to be.

If they were clearly put forward as the Pro-Liberaterian states versus not... instead of referring to "freedom", I doubt anyone would object.

On that we can agree. Well put.

But they let you plug your own information in. The conclusion is fluid, from one person to the next. Wouldn't biased be finding a conclusion that supports your views, and then calling it good? Even if these guys are biased, they are still giving you the tools to plug your own views in. You can make this into whatever your view is.

Juan_Bottom wrote:But they let you plug your own information in. The conclusion is fluid, from one person to the next. Wouldn't biased be finding a conclusion that supports your views, and then calling it good? Even if these guys are biased, they are still giving you the tools to plug your own views in. You can make this into whatever your view is.

Well, you still have to weigh all the variables they've used. Or add in extra stuff but the views are still measured in "how much regulation". Or at least I think so, you can slide to not counting something but then I wonder whether it means no laws or many laws.

You can use them, but it's way too tricky to really measure then.

luns101 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?

...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!

give it a rest, it isn't a gateway to socialism... plenty of countries have universal healthcare, and they are still healthy democracies... but nice try...-0