Libertarians are lazy

[lew]

Originally Posted by bheld

What the hell do digital cameras have to do with what I was talking about? Jesus Christ, it's like talking to a kid here.

You're the one that brought up digital cameras.



Here, I'll make it easy for you.


Here's your post where you brought up digital cameras. http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...5&postcount=15

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you believe nobody has any social responsibility to do anything?

I don't think anyone should be forced to live up to their social responsibility

But I'm not 100% against riding the line on some issues (like education, which is why I support vouchers instead of the abolishment of public schooling)

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by lew

You're the one that brought up digital cameras.



Here, I'll make it easy for you.


Here's your post where you brought up digital cameras. http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...5&postcount=15

Actually, I brought up digital cameras first

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think anyone should be forced to live up to their social responsibility

But I'm not 100% against riding the line on some issues (like education, which is why I support vouchers instead of the abolishment of public schooling)

What about companies that dump toxic waste into rivers so they don't have to pay for removal?? Don't they have a social responsibility not to poison people to make a quick buck?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by lew

You're the one that brought up digital cameras.



Here, I'll make it easy for you.


Here's your post where you brought up digital cameras. http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...5&postcount=15

Being a smartass isn't helping. Why don't you make it easy on yourself and try to read into main ideas instead of picking apart unimportant examples.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you believe nobody has any social responsibility to do anything?

I believe that people have a "social responsibility" towards others, sure. But I believe it is a voluntary social responsibility. It's not a forced one.


That's, in part, why I'm an anarchist. Anarchy doesn't mean "without order." It means "without rulers." As long as no one is being coerced to being held up to someone else's defintion of social responsibility, then I'm fine with it.


Why do liberals love to force people to agree with their definitions for things like social responsibility, but then hate it when the Religious Right does the same thing?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Actually, I brought up digital cameras first

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm starting to think that this might be close to an answer for how to keep corporations and the government from working so closely together. If we gave back all the individual freedoms to people, but kept corporations paying taxes and shit, they might be at odds more. That's what I want That idea is the only problem I have with the founding documents: they don't do anything to prevent corporations from buying their own legislation

That's why I don't necessarily mind the idea of large corporations having to follow certain environmental rules, paying more taxes, maybe paying a higher minimum wage... I dunno. I'm not pushing for any one of these, and I STILL, no matter WHO is the target don't support unnecessary legislation. Stop passing stupid or unneeded laws, for God's sake

This, however, would encourage smaller companies, more competition (but doable competition, not like trying to compete with walmart) and honestly further the libertarian dream for the average guy, not just Bill Gates.

[lew]

Originally Posted by bheld

Being a smartass isn't helping. Why don't you make it easy on yourself and try to read into main ideas instead of picking apart unimportant examples.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass. I was trying to fucking address your point.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think anyone should be forced to live up to their social responsibility

But I'm not 100% against riding the line on some issues (like education, which is why I support vouchers instead of the abolishment of public schooling)

It's the same thing really though. That's what you couldn't understand.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Why do liberals love to force people to agree with their definitions for things like social responsibility, but then hate it when the Religious Right does the same thing?

Example? I didn't realize there was more than one definition of social responsibility.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Example? I didn't realize there was more than one definition of social responsibility.

The Religious Right would like to ban abortion - citing that it's people's social responsibility to not be fucking without protection, and that we shouldn't be killing babies.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

The Religious Right would like to ban abortion - citing that it's people's social responsibility to not be fucking without protection, and that we shouldn't be killing babies.

First of all, abortions aren't killing babies.

And second, I agree that it's peoples social responsibility not to be fucking without protection unless you are ready to deal with the consequences.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by lew

I believe that people have a "social responsibility" towards others, sure. But I believe it is a voluntary social responsibility. It's not a forced one.


That's, in part, why I'm an anarchist. Anarchy doesn't mean "without order." It means "without rulers." As long as no one is being coerced to being held up to someone else's defintion of social responsibility, then I'm fine with it.


Why do liberals love to force people to agree with their definitions for things like social responsibility, but then hate it when the Religious Right does the same thing?

Social responsibilities can't be voluntary. How is it a responsibility if you're not expected to follow through?

[Scrum]

And since it got lost on the last page i'll ask it again.

What about companies that dump toxic waste into rivers so they don't have to pay for removal?? Don't they have a social responsibility not to poison people to make a quick buck?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

First of all, abortions aren't killing babies.

And second, I agree that it's peoples social responsibility not to be fucking without protection unless you are ready to deal with the consequences.

The Religious Right says that abortions are killing babies.


But others don't have that same "value" or view on social responsibility that you have.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What about companies that dump toxic waste into rivers so they don't have to pay for removal?? Don't they have a social responsibility not to poison people to make a quick buck?

I also ride the line on environmental issues... but really, I don't see it as riding the line since there is no true free market stance on that issue that I have read. I don't think the EPA is worth a god damn, but I do think there should be some assurance that companies cannot dump waste.

And really, I think citizens with information are the best defense against most environmental issues. If citizens KNEW that company X was dumping sewage into a fresh water spring, killing animals and possibly poisoning our water supply, people wouldn't buy from them. That's actually applying free market values to the environmentlist movement of the 60's and 70's.

Environmentalism is one of those things that once you have it, you can't get rid of it (not that anyone necessarily wants to). It's the same with slavery. Without the legislation preventing people from owning slaves, people still wouldn't without MAJOR public redicule.

For that reason, I don't fear easing up on some of the regulations, but we certainly need to know if someone is polluting and shit

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by bheld

Social responsibilities can't be voluntary. How is it a responsibility if you're not expected to follow through?

Not always. I think there can be degrees of it.

Just like if you see someone broken down on the side of a road. I consider it my social responsibility to at least slow down and ask them if they need help. Sometimes I just breeze by.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

And since it got lost on the last page i'll ask it again.

What about companies that dump toxic waste into rivers so they don't have to pay for removal?? Don't they have a social responsibility not to poison people to make a quick buck?

If they want to do that, people will stop buying their products and they will go out of business after taking all the money they saved by not properly disposing of it and getting other jobs in the industry.

[lew]

Originally Posted by bheld

Social responsibilities can't be voluntary. How is it a responsibility if you're not expected to follow through?

That's why I put it in quotes. I don't like that term.