Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
1,000,000,000/10 journalism.
Narland, The New United States
Why would we want California back? (TIC) Rural California definitely, but metro/urbana California ideologically and culturally left the rest if the country a long time ago. My druthers wouldn't mind seeing NoCal and SoWest Oregon becoming Jefferson. Metro counties from Silicon Valley/Frisco through LA should be devolved into a Federal Trust until it returns to a republican form of government in fact and process (to be admitted as a territory and then possibly statehood). SoCal plus the hinterlands sans LA and metro areas made into the great state of Reagan. Lake Tahoe and 200 miles extant would become property of Narland Ranch Holdings, LLP for some strange reason. :)
I would rather divide the 9th Circuit Court into at least 3 Appellate Courts where California Judges can inflict their juscraft voodoo on only urban California and leave the other 8 States (and two Territories) to rule for ourselves.
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria
That's a great idea Narland. What many don't realize is that SoCal is pretty moderate to conservative outside of LA. Orange County was the heart of the Reagan Revolution.
The New United States, Rateria
By the way, when I referred to "groups of people" in my spiel on open borders I was not referencing Hispanics or any particular ethnic group, I was warning against the general threat of becoming a welfare magnet.
As Reagan said, Latinos are Republicans, they just don't know it yet. I think a lot of the GOP's failure to attract minorities to our coalition is poor branding and allowing the Democrats to shape the narrative. We don't need to promise special favors and bash whitey to attract ethnic groups - just show that we're inclusive, the Democrats are the real racist party and conservative/libertarian economic policies are far better for everyone. Asians, for example, overwhelmingly voted Republican during the Cold War but we let them drift away.
We need to prioritize outreach and follow the example of speakers like Candace Owens.
Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria
Post self-deleted by Skaveria.
oh no
Okay so somehow I ended up entirely outlawing biological reproduction
I didn't know that would happen
Becuz da gays.
The New United States
Is it really Muh Roads?
Rateria
What would you call a political position that combines elements of nationalism and libertarianism? If you started from a premise that the government only had a few valid roles (military, police, courts) but from that logic, deduced that, if it's a valid role of government, why not have a massive military, police presence, and court system? Just by virtue of having a big military doesn't mean that one necessarily has to use it for anything except defense, and assuming that all the laws in a nation are just and only serve to protect citizens from aggression, why wouldn't one advocate for a massive police force? If a nation has only just laws and only enters into conflicts on just grounds, it would seem to me that having these institutions be as large as possible would be rational. Would you want your military and police to be non-effective? I understand that they could perhaps be corrupted, but that's a fallacy, just because something CAN be corrupted, doesn't mean it WILL be corrupted. That's a preventative measure. The government shouldn't consider preventative measures as valid. Just because I CAN shoot a lot of people with my guns doesn't mean I WILL. The government should be given the same, innocent until proven guilty treatment. Anyways, I was wondering as to what a name for this might be. I don't like conservatarian because it doesn't exactly fit. The aim isn't to conserve any values or morals. The government has no place enforcing morality. The most accurate term I could come up with was "national-libertarianism" but I don't like this because it sounds so similar to national-socialism.
I don't know if you could even call that libertarian being that taxes would be out the wazoo. Sounds kind of like an enlightened military junta to me, assuming they aren't corrupt and stick to what you outlined.
Miencraft, The New United States
Well, if you took all the money a country like the United States spending, on everything like social programs and subsidies and redirected it all into those three areas, you could probably do it without raising taxes. As far as a military junta, if you maintained democracy it wouldn't be. I'm thinking of the Pinochetian regime. The Pinochetian regime didn't care what you did, as long as it didn't threaten the Pinochetian regime. It was in effect, enforced libertarianism, in fact at one point they held elections and the people voted overwhelmingly for Pinochet to continue being dictator for 8 more years over getting democracy, but a dictatorship is a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent they may rule. It seems like the only place they went wrong was suspending democracy.
That ain't libertarian.
Not even close.
Rateria
I feel dismissing issues should reduce the size of the government.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
I guess I could see why you would say that. The government would leave the issue up to people other than themselves, therefore leading to decentralization.
It's Libertarian on two of the three scales on here, economic and personal freedom, but no political freedom. AND I'm saying to fix the political freedoms part of it anyways
If it ain't free, it ain't free. 2/3 ain't free.
In any event, government, because of its special position in a free society where it bends to the will of the people, can never be treated the same as people - it's literally lesser than the people it governs. Government doesn't have the luxury of having rights or benefits in a free society. The system you described is based on the assumption that a government given massive power in a few areas will not abuse that power, and that it is a free society until they do.
Problem being, merely having the opportunity to abuse that sort of power is exactly why it isn't a libertarian system. As long as the opportunity is there for government to do wrong, there is no freedom because the government is now free to abuse its power. Any government system can only be libertarian if the government has extreme, well-defined limitations on what it's capable of. See: United States, where the national government is only allowed to perform a short list of actions, and everything else is illegal - in theory more than in practice, but that's a different problem.
Essentially, you're just describing military rule. There's nothing libertarian about it.
Narland, The New United States, Rateria
I don't know if you see what's going down on the FCN rmb rn. But...
> The Farmlands is my alt.
> There are not many good people in that region.
> Yes, I joined the Libertatem regional discord today, and left when I saw FCN accounts.
> My main nation used to be Colorado-Kansas
> I'm obviously not welcome back in the FCN anymore.
Just want to make this info known. I'm going to stay here in Libertatem permanently at this point.
Rateria
That's kind of what I was thinking. If you don't have specific limits on the size and scope of government, which are carefully enforced, then government will grow and grow and become needlessly bloated. If you want to make your government's departments as massive as possible, while hoping that we won't lose any liberty, then I would say that I don't think history is on your side.
Why would you want a military larger than that necessary to deter any threats? Why would you want a police force larger than that necessary to maintain order? Why would you want a judiciary larger than that necessary to administer justice?
Miencraft, Rateria
Not larger than necessary, but as the society grows, those three will need to grow as well. I'm suggesting these three be massive enough to handle their functions effectively and not be crippled by the assumption that they'll be corrupted. Change the laws, don't just not enforce the ones you don't like. A large police force with few laws to enforce would be particularly effective at enforcing the few laws there are. A large military that enters very few conflicts would be particularly effective in the conflicts they do enter.
Not really. The military only needs to be big enough that no other country is a threat - the current American military, for example, is so far beyond everyone else on the planet that we could cut its size in half and still conquer the world if we wanted to. A police force would have to expand, literally, as in you'd need more police when there are more people, but that's it. The courts don't need to do anything other than mediate, and you don't need them to be powerful to be able to do that. Look at the way the US Supreme Court is defined in the Constitution. It literally is not allowed to do anything. It just sits there and resolves disputes.
Then some jackass named John decided the Supreme Court is allowed to unilaterally declare laws to be unconstitutional. Because, you know, that's totally not Congress's job or anything.
The government doesn't have such a luxury. A government in a free society can only function if it's crippled by the assumption that it'll become corrupt. Because it will become corrupt. History shows us that's not an assumption - that's a fact.
The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order
I think Trump's zero-sum, protectionist views on trade are juvenile and harmful. BUT, today his trade wars were able to secure a deal moving towards zero tariffs and zero subsidies between the US and EU - a big win for the free market. If the end result of short term tariffs is lower trade barriers overall, then I'm not opposed to this strategy.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria
My thoughts on the military is really just an extension of the big stick policy. When I advocate for a "large" military, I just mean large enough to deter any threat, part of the reason U.S military spending is so high by the way, is because we contract our arms through private industry while other nations like Russia and China make their own arms through government, so we're naturally going to have a higher bill, that doesn't explain ALL of it and I agree that there's a lot of fat to be cut.
Also, when I say I want a large military, I want them HERE, we could close all our international bases for all I care, all I care about is a standing army in country that could respond in times of invasion or crisis.
As for police, we could construct and maintain bureaucratic systems to keep them from becoming corrupted. They also need to be adequately equipped to deal with threats. The times of your local marshal only carrying his trusty revolver are over. We have organized crime and terrorist threats now. Granted, we wouldn't have those threats if we withdrew our military and legalized drugs.
lolwut
That's exactly how things become corrupted. A bureaucracy can never prevent corruption when they're the cause.
Narland, The New United States
Having a governmental institution implies a bureaucracy. You can't JUST have beat cops on the streets without a chain of command. And I assume we get rid of internal affairs as well? That's bureaucratic. The whole reason we need internal affairs is because, amazingly, cops don't rat out other cops, so we need cops for the cops, but that's all a part of the police budget. I understand that as libertarians we recoil from certain words like bureaucracy and regulations, but well regulated police and military aren't a bad thing. When I say I want these things to be large, I don't mean unaccountable, I'm building the accountability structures into the cost. Bureaucracy is literally just the implementation and regulation of these things.
Narland
Bureaucrats are unaccountable by definition. Some faceless government agency appointed by god-knows-who to do god-knows-what is exactly where corruption comes from. There's never going to be accountability there as long as their position isn't constantly being threatened by the people, and bureaucrats never have to face that kind of danger.
Narland, The New United States, Rateria
When I say bureaucrats, I'm just talking about the chain of command. Should literally every government employee be elected? An appointment is just a hiring.
If you want to talk about accountability, yes*. You don't have accountability if you don't have the constant threat of the people looming over the government's head.
*The original definition of the United States Senate, ie a group of legislators appointed by state legislatures, is also acceptable - so long as the appointees can't do anything directly and still have to answer to a group of people whose jobs depend on the people liking them.
If they make any type of political decision then yes, but again, literally every one? Police officers are government employees, are we electing our local constables again like it's 1825? We're too big for that now, we have organized crime and terrorism to contend with. The most valid concern with libertarianism is how to keep it from devolving into chaos and anarchy. Unless you're an An-cap, I don't see how we're planning on making a tenable libertarian state, I'm trying to bridge that gap. Without a strong backbone to build off of, we won't be able to have a libertarian state without it devolving into anarchy, the closest we could have is a libertarian-esque state.
Depends on the definition of nationalism.
If you mean the Marxist straw-man definition of institutionalized bourgeoisie militant/military jingoism under the native banner what oppresses the proles from getting other people's stuff, then I call it nonsense. Nevertheless, what do you call a culinary position that combines elements of poison and soup? The answer is poison disguised as soup.
If by nationalism you mean a very liberal, (classical) liberal definition such as advocated by Samuel Rutherford, Noah Webster or John Witherspoon, loosely: The civic virtue practiced by the whole of the nation in responsible self-government (self-governance) that tends to the liberty and equality of everyone within that nation for love of heritage (anti-jingoism) -- then I call it a good combination as this form is an expression of self-government which does not necessitate imposition by a state.
But that is not what comes to mind when the word nationalism is heard by most. America is very fortunate that our nationalism has historically been a focus of the natural right of the States and the People in contractual Federalism and the tension of where to draw the line between confederacy and federation. In contra-distinction many European states, nationalism historically has been unwavering obedience to an oligarchical populist exploitation under a larger native heritage for the purpose uniting all those who share a common nativity -- e.g., Italy. Unfortunately there has been a failure of our educational institution to pass this distinction on to the next gen.
Poor starting premise. Individuals precede the state. No people no state. That which necessitates primacy of the state over the individual, the state happily exploits inevitably.
The most natural/rational premise is to always start with the individual; then his/her family; then their community for whom they apart from any state can employ (and when needs be fire) for situation X if, when or as they (individuals in their capacity as persons, families, and communities) see fit.
They may find innovative solutions that rejects or incorporates differing components of these weighs and means by more appropriate (for them) checks and balances; separations of powers; or organization/organizing heretofore unseen -- innovation and true progress.
A large bored police force is a dangerous thing. To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. To a man with a badge, gun, and arrest authority everyone looks like a perp.
Assuming that a nation does only have just laws and only the noblest of intentions (no nation (being an amalgam of individuals) ever did). Big does not mean efficient and efficacious nor if so, that the military would necessarily be deployed wisely, properly or sufficiently by those in charge.
No, it is in the definition and very nature of power and force. Power corrupts and those in power tend to want more (power and corruption). Force is coercive and exploitative and those who practice force become acclimated to it. These degradations are progressive. The nature of the state is to justify its own existence, defend itself from criticism, expand its authority, and further its controlling interests to the greatest extent possible, even over the citizens it professes to protect and serve.
Large ponderous organizations are hardly ever restrained by the rightness of the People. Large bored militaries (who are well trained to kill people and break things -- it's their job) are even more dangerous than large bored police departments.
Individuals within government should have the same due process rights as everyone else, no more no less. Governments do not have rights, they have powers (duties and responsibilities). When governments fail in their responsibilities (to justly insure the life liberty and property of the People), they have impeached their authority and of necessity need replaced either by dissolution or replacement in whole or in part.It is the only duty of the government to enforce morality, specifically to stop force and fraud being perpetrated against others. Governments that enforce immorality -- theft, murder, slavery, etc are evil and must be stopped. The phrase "one cannot legislate morality" actually means that one cannot change the behaviour of the people merely by passing laws against that unwanted behaviour (without destroying the moral foundation of lawful government that that legislation is based). American prohibition is the text-book example.
Miencraft, Rateria
Post self-deleted by Narland.
I think the best way is to do what Americans, and to varying degree the Swiss, Isrealis, and the Dutch (back when they were a more free republic) have always done -- Train the people to be mature, responsible, and self-interested individuals well equipped in their liberty to provide a product or service for others that best fulfills a sense of purpose and happiness (classical liberal and colloquial definitions). This is different from the concepts that Socialist infiltration of the progressive era and the leftists since the cultural revolution of the 60s have brought to the table -- disdain for those things;
People tend to get the government they deserve. Those who have been taught respect for the rule of Law ((capital L ) not arbitrary laws), work hard, keep their noses clean, and keep it out of other people's business, expecting others to do the same have a leg up on those who do not or cannot. Those who in their self-reliance, freedom, and independence find a sense of purpose and fulfillment are better off than those who cannot be happy unless they are micro-managing/bullying others (who not only make themselves miserable but others as well) than those who have no need for extraneous external governance. Those who in general are taught to be open, forthright, and honest (and thus do not make a habit of lying, cheating, stealing other's life, liberty or property) live in a state of civilization that those who are taught to be sly, obtuse, and dishonest (and thus prone to lie, cheat, and steal the life liberty and property of others) are condemned to live lives of savagery and barbarism. The former prosper, the latter fail.
We were too big in 1776 for a police state to police everyone's affairs (hence the Revolution) back then when that Tyrant refused local accountability for the customs and mores of the individuals in the community by the civil powers but sought to despotically rule us from outside proper jurisdiction. We are certainly too large now to allow unaccountable officers of the state to swarm our communities and eat out our substance 240 years later. Technically Police are Peace officers as community/public employees. All political powers (this includes police powers) reside in the Citizenry (in the US and according to the Constitutions of every State).
There is no constitutional authority for any State of the union to presume police powers exclusively for themselves apart from that which is delegated by the citizens/residents of that specific jurisdiction for a prescribed purpose. The Progressives have laboriously tried to change the nature of our police departments as civic organizations at the Federal level and state by state since WW2 by legislating into statute special privileges for police departments changing them from public agencies to government (state) agencies much as they did to our public schools earlier on. This is dangerous as it is what distinguishes a free country (citizens are the police and they police the state) from a police state (the government is the police and they state police the people). Regardless, only police who are local and independent of the state and subservient to the civil power can be compatible with Liberty. There was a big movement "Keep your police local and independent" (from the statism) when I was a kid, but the Socialists are a persistent and cowardly lot. I haven't seen the KPLI program in a long while. Oathkeepers is a very different organization (with the same goals) seeking to voluntarily keep the Constitution directly in service to the People.
Liberty is the golden mean between Tyranny and Anarchy (bad sense) and the most amount of Liberty that that people can responsibly handle by their Civic Virtue is all that is needed for a Libertarian state to thrive, when the people are vigilant to guard their sense of self-government. The more self-government the less state that is needed. People who can govern themselves need no state. We are not perfect so there will always be some need of protection from those who fail to not defraud or coerce others, but the more virtuous the people the less that will ever be needed.
Miencraft, Rateria
I still want to know what a good name for a philosophy that combines libertarianism and nationalism would be, the debates have been fun by the way, I only ever post things on here that I know will provoke debate. It's kind of pointless to say: "decriminalize all drugs." in a libertarian message board lol
Rateria
Post self-deleted by Narland.
What you describe can fit within some already existing frameworks: Liberal-Conservatism, Paleolibertarianism (coined by Lew Rockwell iirc), National Liberalism (in the Classical sense); or if you want to coin a term: Skaverianism, Natio-Libertarianism, Libertario-Nationalism, Libnatism, Natlibism ... running out of ideas...
edit: I got Nock and Noszik confused (although Jay Nock is a good author worth reading).
You may find this helpful: Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick;
also: The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law by Randy E. Barnett;
and: Moral Principles and Political Obligations by A. John Simmons
Rateria
Cool, thanks, I like that Skavarianism was an option haha
Rateria
Post by Ilto suppressed by a moderator.
oxymoron for any country that doesn't respect libertarian ideas. And because none exist, it is impossible to be a libertarian nationalist.
Let's not conflate this with patriotism either. Yes, you can be a libertarian and patriot. But not a nationalist, since the idea of nationalism is fundamentally putting your country above everything else, even the individual.
Miencraft, Rateria
I don't mean a hard-line nationalist, I can just use myself I suppose as an example. For years I went by the label "conservatarian" BUT I've come to realize that the policies that I go conservative on are the ones where conservatives and nationalists agree in large part. I don't care about cultural preservation, I want all drugs to be legal and legalized polygamy. I'm pretty radically liberal in terms of civic liberty. I'm also a free trade advocate, and I'm pro-free speech, I'm for free-markets. The ONLY ways that I'm a nationalist is in border control, military, and policing.
Rateria
Stop worrying about labels for everything - let your principles define you.
Miencraft, Rateria
The Hill: "Bannon slams Kochs: 'What they have to do is shut up and get with the program'"
Another reason why Steve 'Tax the Rich' Bannon, who I've stood a few feet away from, is a complete joke. Republicans "getting with the program" is what let Bush destroy the US economy and take us into two costly and demoralizing wars. "Getting with the program" is for the intellectually shallow partisans that view politics as a team sport rather than a chance to better this nation. The Koch Brothers are highly respected, influential and principled leaders of the conservative movement that know what they're talking about, and if they can use their influence to push Congress and the Trump Administration in a more fiscally conservative direction then fantastic. You don't know what you're talking about Sloppy Steve!
Rateria
Yes!
The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Muh lord. :'0
Muh Roads, Rateria
Welcome back Lord Roads
The New United States, Muh Roads, Rateria
As I've said many times before, we need to abolish 90% of the federal regulatory state, cut all corporate welfare and unconstitutional spending (Departments of Energy, Labor, Education) and privatize any necessary functions of government, phase out all entitlement programs and abolish the income tax. The work of Reagan and Trump is only the beginning - this will return the US to 5%+ growth and stem the tide of socialism once and for all!
Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Skaveria, Ancapistaniana
True Progress is the abolitionism of Socialism. That Statists can still commandeer the term Progressive for such horrid regress failure after failure in the 20th Century alone boggles the mind. True Progressivism should be the practice of Liberty not its destruction. Harshtarg# FakeAdvertizing
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
Why stop at constitutional spending? The military is constitutional, but it can still be shrunk greatly.
Pevvania, Narland, Rateria
How about we take all of our spending, and PUSH it somewhere else? - Patrick Star probably
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Ancapistaniana
I agree. We can scale military spending back to 2000 levels and still maintain our status as global superpower. The Post Office is also constitutional but notoriously, disastrously mismanaged - needs to go, like almost everything else!
Miencraft, Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Post self-deleted by Narland.
Should i add a star to my Flag above the palm tree?
Rateria
No and you should make sure the stripes and that canton are the same width.
Rateria
S
Thank you
Rateria
should i change My gov. To Republic or United States. Or keep the same
Vote Here. https://www.strawpoll.me/16201351
WWE superstar Kane just won a Mayoral race in Tennessee. Trump has appeared at wrestling events, pretty soon our government is just gonna merge with the WWE and President Vince Mcmahon will announce all future elections will be determined via a ladder match.
Pevvania, Rateria, Venomringo, Ancapistaniana
LET'S SETTLE IT IN THE RING
BROTHERRRRR
Rateria, Skaveria
Undertaker/Kane 2020
Rateria
I say we go even further than that, we need to get rid of 100% of the governmental regulatory state, and we need to abolish all taxes and all government spending
The free market has been shown time and time again to improve the lives of people, and is obviously much more moral because it isn't tyrannical, and anything that gets in the way of the free market is only hindering the progress of humanity
Republic Of Minerva
Still better than how we do things now
Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Although I shall be criticizing you, even severely, please do not take this amiss. I mean your organization no harm. Quite the contrary. My two children, in their early twenties, are both new drivers. I would suffer more than I can tell you if anything were to happen to them as a result of drunken driving. I am thus a supporter of yours. I am on your side. Please take what I say as no more than friendly amendments to your plans and proposals. Some of the following critiques may sound harsh, but friends do not mince words with each other in life-and-death situations, and I would like you to consider me a friend of yours. We may disagree on means but certainly not on ends.
Expansion
First, you must expand your scope of operations. While drunk driving is of course a major calamity on our nation's roads, it is far from the only one. There are quite a few others, even besides the "big three" of speed, weather conditions, and driver error.[1] What difference does it really make if our children and loved ones die in a traffic fatality emanating from drunkenness or any of these other conditions? Happily there is no need to change even the MADD name if you adopt this suggestion. Only instead of the first "D" standing for "drunk" it could refer to "death," as in Mothers Against Death Drivers. All of these things alcohol, drugs, speeding, malfunctioning vehicles, badly engineered roads, weather conditions, whatever are threats to our families' lives. Why single out any one of them?
A possible defense of the status quo is to borrow a leaf from the economists and defend the present, limited, status of MADD on grounds of specialization and division of labor.[2] True, no one organization can do everything. Better to take on a limited agenda and do it well than to take on too much and accomplish little or nothing.
But this insight applies only when to take on additional tasks is to dilute the focus of an enterprise. If you truly oppose fatalities only from the single cause of alcoholism, well and good. MADD as presently constituted then needs no broadening of vision. But if your goal is decrease the senseless roadway slaughter of innocents which stems from any cause, which I strongly suspect is the case, then to include the contributions from other sources does not weaken the mission; on the contrary, it fortifies it.
Privatization
My second suggestion is far more radical. Please hear me out. There are very important matters at stake. True, the highway fatality rates have been declining in recent years.[3] But 41,480, the number of people who perished as a result of improper automobile use in 1998, for example, is still far too high. Desperate circumstances require radical solutions.
The radical suggestion I offer is that MADD adopt as one of its major policy planks the proposal that our nation's roadways be privatized. And this includes not only the federal interstate highway system but every byway, country road, city street, and even sidewalk wherever vehicle-related deaths have occurred. Why? There are several reasons.
First, it is not at all true that speed, alcohol, drugs, etc., are ultimately responsible for vehicular death. Rather, they are only the proximate causes. The underlying explanation is that the managers of the roads, those in charge of them, have failed to deal with these problems. The reason Chrysler went broke is only indirectly related to car size, changing styles, competition, imports, the price of oil and gas, etc. This company was bankrupted because its managers failed to meet these challenges. When a restaurant shuts down, it is not due to such proximate causes as poorly cooked food, poor service, bad location, unclean premises, etc. Rather, this circumstance is due to the fact that the owners, operators, managers of the restaurant failed to address these problems.
Second, with a system of private highways and streets, the various owners would compete with one another to provide service for their customers (including, preeminently, safety). Those who failed (e.g., pursued policies detrimental to the "health of children and other living things") would be forced either to change the error of their ways or go belly up. Those who saved lives by better dealing with drunkards, speeders, etc., would earn profits and thus be enabled to expand the base of their operations.
Third, this is precisely the system privatization that vastly outstripped that of the U.S.S.R. in providing computers, cars, clothes, and a plethora of other products and services. Yet, instead of borrowing a leaf from our own success and applying it to highways, we have instead copied the discredited Soviet economic system and applied it to our network of roadways. That is, our highway network is governmentally owned and managed. This is why people die like flies on these roads and suffer from traffic congestion serious enough to try the patience of a saint (which also exacerbates casualties through road rage).
Fourth, the rules of the road that would minimize automobile accidents (this goes for most other valuable economic recipes) do not come to us from on high, imprinted on stone tablets. Rather, they have to be learned, ofttimes by hard and difficult experience. The time-honored and traditional capitalist way of learning is by allowing all entrepreneurs, willing to risk their own money, free rein to do exactly as they please. The ones who hit upon the best way of proceeding earn profits; those who do not either have to copy the successful or fall by the wayside. It is precisely this, the magic of the marketplace, that has brought us our world-class standard of living. But this learning process cannot possibly take place when politicians, bureaucrats, and other members of the nomenklatura class determine the rules of the road, and do not lose an iota of their personal fortunes when they err in this way, or, indeed, are guilty of any other sort of highway mismanagement.
We all deplore highway casualties. But at least when they occur, let us have a system wherein someone in authority loses money thereby. There is nothing that concentrates the managerial mind more. At present, when deaths take place, there is no one in a position to ameliorate matters who suffers financially. Surely we may expect better results from a system that monetarily rewards the successful and punishes those who fail than from one that does neither.
Take a case in point. It is perhaps a truism that "speed kills." Yet the rate of fatalities has decreased after the elimination of the 55 mph speed limit. Some analysts have suggested that it is not the average rate of travel that is determinative but rather the variance in speed. That is, we might all be safer with a slow-lane speed requirement (both minimum and maximum) of 60 mph, a middle lane of 70 mph, and a fast lane of 80 mph than with the present minimum of 40 mph and maximum of 70, typical of many highways. I don't know the answer to this question. But I do know the best way to answer it: unleash a new breed of road entrepreneurs on it. Allow each of them to address this issue as they wish. Then, using the same system we as a society have utilized to improve the quality of cars, computers, and clothes, among other things, we shall find the answer.
Take another example, closer to the concerns of MADD. How best to stop drunk driving? Heavier penalties? More emphasis on driver education? More police monitoring? Rewards for exemplary driving? Payment for joining Alcoholics Anonymous? Again, the same principles apply. Privatize the avenues of vehicular transportation, and rely upon the new owners under the tutelage of the free-enterprise, profit-and-loss system to find solutions.
One of this new breed of highway proprietors, of course, would be MADD. Under such a system, a revitalized and reinvigorated MADD, as an organization, would be able to implement its own policies on drinking while driving, speeding, whatever. It would have to take its chances in competition with all other entrants into this industry, but that is the way of the market system.
At present, in contrast, under a road system that would bring a smile to the face of a Russian commissar, there is simply no managerial role for MADD to play. Compare your situation with that of Ducks Unlimited, Western Wilderness Society, or any other environmental group. They are not relegated to the sidelines in their analogous field, limited to offering advice, and, in a word, begging the powers that be. They can of course do these things. But they can also buy up vast tracts of land (they would have been unable to do this in the U.S.S.R.) and manage them as they please.[4] Why should MADD accept its present inferior status, vis à vis these other groups?
Conclusion
Two final points. There are those who will dismiss these suggestions as the ravings of a lunatic. They will throw up all sorts of obstacles and objections: the specter of having to place a coin in a toll box of every home you pass by in the street; of having your house surrounded by private road owners who deny access and egress; of crazy road owners who would demand weird behavior, such as forcing everyone to travel in reverse gear. However, there is a wealth of published material refuting these and all other criticisms of private highway ownership and management.[5] Before giving in to the "nattering nabobs of negativism," you owe it to yourself to at least familiarize yourself with this literature.
Last but not least, why have I written an open letter to you, MADD, and not taken up my case with the authorities? For one thing, private organizations such as MADD are what have made this country great; government bureaucrats, operating way past their capacities, have always brought us down. For another, those presently in charge of our roadways are not just part of the problem; they pretty much are the problem. When and if a Nuremberg-type trial is ever held for those responsible for thousands upon thousands of unnecessary traffic fatalities, these are the very people who will be prime candidates for occupancy in the dock.
MADD has a passion for saving lives. This, indeed, is what MADD is all about. That puts this organization head and shoulders above all others concerned with preserving life on our highways. But more needs to be done. Far more. It is time for a radical departure from previous activity, in order, paradoxically, to build on previous good work. It is time for highway privatization, with MADD taking a lead role in this initiative.
https://mises.org/library/open-letter-mothers-against-drunk-driving
Who the hell's gonna read this
Hopefully MADD, and hopefully you, I posted it because it was really intuitive and interesting, we may of course have different opinions on the matter
I would have though this article would be particularly appreciated in a region that is for economic freedom
vote on my new flag please http://www.anonvote.com/strawpoll/bq8079uh
What's your most socialist/big government political opinion?
The New United States, Rateria
I don't mind, and support in many cases, localities and states prohibiting substances and moral-wrongs that are particularly grievous to society (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc.).
I imagine most libertarians would consider that to be a "big government political opinion."
Rateria
The welfare state. I beleive in a minimal social safety net.
Rateria, Unrestrained Idealism
i am hank hill i sell propane and propane accessories
Living Freedom Land, The New United States, Rateria, San Carlos Islands, Ancapistaniana
No private prisons; prisons fall under law and order, which is a valid role of government.
Einsiev, Rateria, The States Of Balloon, Jadentopian Order, Unrestrained Idealism
I believe education to also be a valid role of the government.
Rateria
I believe government has only two valid roles, protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, and to settle disputes between citizens so things don't devolve into Hattfeild vs McCoy style fueds. Anything else is a privilege. It's a privilege to be educated, not a right.
Rateria
Govt should cover the cost of tampons/pads. The whole, "they're a luxury item, not a necessity" shtick is completely BS. I don't know a single woman who does not need either product.
I'm also just as anti-big corporation as I am anti-big govt if that counts.
Rateria
Wait, so government should cover the cost of anything that's a necessity? What about food? Clothing? Medicine?
Pevvania, Rateria
Yeah, fair point.
Rateria
Eh, I've got a bit of time, let me expand a bit.
I'm a bit iffy on the issue, but at the very least, I do believe in them being free/subsidized for low-income women in the same way I support at least some form of food stamp program.
Probably should have explained it a bit better.
Rateria
i fixed the X on my flag
Rateria
I don't mind having the police protect me, so long as they do just that.
Pevvania, Rateria
It's an abomination, humanity would be much better off if we were to get rid of it all together
Pevvania
That is the opposite of what that question was about.
Rateria
Oof, okay yeah, I guess I was a bit tired and didn't read it right
Rateria
do you know what chocon is ?
Skibbadabba do
As said above, there are plenty of necessities paid for privately that should be paid for privately. Put the federal government in charge of distributing tampons and soon enough you'll have an epidemic of angry menstrating women.
And I think the food stamp program is no longer necessary. It's plagued by waste (don't quote me on this but I think Cato said something like 20% of food stamp funds are wasted or misallocated), many people using the program use it to buy expensive and unhealthy foods, and we have much more of an obesity problem in this country than a hunger problem.
And as I've said many times before, I think if we fixed many of the existing problems of government intervention (taxes on poor people, sugar and other ag subsidies that inflate the cost of food, the minimum wage, the numerous problems with as a whole, occupational licensing and other government regs) we wouldn't need welfare.
The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Ancapistaniana
100% Anti-socialist at State, Federal, and Special govt levels. The only big in government should be the big in self-government. If the word government cannot be freely interchanged with the word governance the concept is flawed.
At individual and family levels of government, I am mine own beneficent dictator and my children are wards of my beneficence. Communities (small town, gated community, Antarctic colony of Penguinistas, etc.) have their special needs and requirements that may or may not need extraordinary governance. Barring natural catastrophe, this is almost always a moral flaw rooted in civic/civil indolence and/or immaturity.
Any voluntary group that wants to live their ways in their own community, I am for. No quarter asked, none given. If you do not like their ways stay away and move someplace that is better to your liking. Just do not expect me or anyone outside your community to pay for the cost your misgovernance.
Pevvania, Rateria
chocon these nuts
Rateria, Rufinius
What are you guys' top five favorite movies?
Rateria
Fave work of Literature on Screen
Lord of the Rings (Entire Tilogy -- except the producers didn't include the last most important fight -- the Battle of the Shire. What good does it do to troop half-way across the world to rid the world of despotic evil if you do not fight to remove its lingering effects once home?)
Fave Anime
Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind or Princess Mononoke
Fave Documentary Film Series
How Then Shall We Live?
Fave Historical
Amazing Grace
Fave Humorous
Groundhog Day or Idiocracy
Fave Serious
Blade Runner -- tossup between Final and Director's Cut
Rateria
My most big government opinion is that I think some basic infrastructure necessitates the proper operation of the free market. I also think the government should gently lead in the field of space. And I support border security including the wall.
Aside from the above, and the obvious requirements for a minarchist state, cut it all.
Miencraft, Rateria
Let's not let government ruin space too. I support SpaceX's ventures far more than NASA (despite the nepotism.)
Rateria
I do too, but I'm just not sure space can be conquered without the funds, energy and infrastructure of NASA and the federal government. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but would anyone here seriously argue that the moon landings shouldn't have happened because they were government ventures?
Rateria
The conservative/MAGA/libertarian right needs to start counter-protesting white nationalist groups. Even though 99% of the right is, I believe, non racist and perfectly fine people, we need to start walking the walk and showing America that we are opposed to both political extremes (even though the so-called 'far right' is largely irrelevant and far smaller than the far left). I think it's possible to protest racism without virtue signaling.
Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Jadentopian Order
Miencraft, Rateria, Skaveria, Jadentopian Order
Personally I hesitate to protest Nazis because I'm not sure who is actually a Nazi or who's just being tarred as one. Plus I hesitate to be on the same side of a protest as antifa.
Here's how it'd probably go down:
I show up with my freedom loving compatriots, have to choose a side of the protest to be on because that's often how these things go, two sides of a deviding line, If we wanna protest Nazis, we go to the antifa side, they see our Gadsden flags, think we're the enemy and attack us, we'll undoubtedly be forced by law enforcement to the other side, we go over there, and now we look like Nazis. Honestly if the "Unite the Right" rally was indeed just emcompassing of any right wingers that just so happened to include Ethnic Nationalists, I'd probably just stand away from them with some conservatives, but if it's just gonna be Nazis and Antifa then there's no point in going.
Pevvania, Rateria
On the topic of the alt-right and nazis:
I'm certain I've mentioned it plenty of times, but I absolutely despise both groups. One of the people that died in Charlottesville on the day of the riots was a coach at my brother's hockey leauge.
If you want to protest racism/white nationalism/whatever other evil ideology, don't feel compelled to pick between Nazis and Commies, take a stand on your own. Gather a group of like-minded individuals and peacefully protest. It's sad that after 400+ years of racism in America, we still have to deal with these issues, but it has to be done.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
The only reason humanity landed on the moon was due to the Space Race, which fostered competition between nations. But as soon as it died down, so too did the space program, and it shows due to the 40 or so years of inactivity on that front. Corporations have incentives to continue where the government left off. Starting up space mining programs could be very lucrative in the long term, in the short term selling information based on discovery where NASA can't go is also worthy of support.
Rateria
Whats sad is that some people even view racism as commonplace. No, it isnt going to go away totally, but we can all take steps to peacefully combat it. Also, I agree with your views of both sides, theyre absolutely filthy groups.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
The white supremacist crowd is indeed repugnant, but let's still reject the mainstream media narrative of a widespread issue and recognize that their numbers are small and vastly overrepresented by the media. The left, in their desperate quest to tie Republicans to white supremacy, have given these people a platform. They are emboldened not because Trump is in the White House, but because the Democrats want to keep blacks on the mental plantation and are using neo-Nazis to do it. It's pretty sickening if you think about it, but not at all surprising!
Rufinius
Little-known fact about the tax bill: it had a provision creating Opportunity Zones, which gives capital gains tax relief to distressed communities. This idea was promoted by Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan in the 70s and 80s as a way of aiding the black community. Now it's actually a reality. This tax law has a number of accomplishments that have been sought for by our camp for more than 30 years. Huge win!
Jadentopian Order
Currently writing an article on the Obama v. Trump economies, which indisputably, mathematically prove the former's policies were a failure. Stay tuned, it will have plenty of ammunition you can all use against your obnoxious left-wing friends!
nibba
nippa
nilla
nimma
nitta
nikka
hey vote for me.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.