xRei
"[@Background Pony #0566":](/images/2337552#comment_8986613
[bq])
> Who is being smug here?[/bq]
I like being smug, when I'm in a position to. I'm okay with smugness if it's warranted, but it should probably be earned.
[bq]
> And yes, that is a strawman because you made no effort to present an opposing viewpoint fairly.[/bq]
I'd grant you that, were I debating with a Libertarian. But I wasn't, so far as I could tell. I was just being_*smug_* with someone who already seemed to think like me, so we could be smug together. So sorry to offend you with our mutual smug-ness.
[bq]
> "If X can be privatized, then why not Y?" [...] you merely assume that some goods and services are fundamentally different from others. It's the "public goods" myth.[/bq]
See, if I was truly trying to be smug, I would now ask you to prove to me why certain goods shouldn't be treated differently than others. At least here in America, the current situation is that we do differentiate in some cases, so if you are suggesting we change that, then it's now my turn to smugly sit back and wait for you to prove why we should make a change to our existing economic policies. You_*are_* the one making the positive claim for change at that point. That is, if you are indeed making that claim.
I think it would be a false dichotomy to suggest that a good can only be treated as one or the other anyway. Or that our policies can't arbitrarily treat one as different. In some cases, it does. The question ought not to be whether a good can be public, or private, but whether we are better off with it being one way or the other, for a given definition of 'better'. If the argument is that it ought to be one because of principal, that goes into what I did say in my earlier comment. If you think things will be 'better' if everything is treated as a private good, then feel free to go vote at the booth and we'll wait and see what happens.
If the argument is more than that, please feel free to explain why privatizing everything will be 'better', especially given that there are plenty of other countries with mixed economies and high tax rates that are doing just fine. If the goal is a healthy, happy society, some degree of socialism seems to give us that. I'd be interested to know if there are any Libertarian paradises out there which demonstrate that pure Libertarian ideology can produce a thriving populace.
[bq]
> Either actually do your research[/bq]
I have.
[bq]
> or simply say you disagree with libertarian thought[/bq]
I do.
[bq]
> "debunking" a strawman is cringeworthy.[/bq]
I wouldn't say I was 'debunking' anything. At worst you could say I was demagoguing, at best, being 'smug' as you put it. I don't think there was anything in what I said that suggested I was trying to present some kind of be-all end-all destruction of Libertarian ideology; because it wasn't. But it is often good enough to shut up most of the whiny Libertarians who themselves know little of their own ideology. Maybe that isn't you, but then, you weren't the intended target of my smugness in that case.
[bq]
> why are you making such a fuss over an ancap picture and downvoting it?[/bq]
What's the point of the downvote button if not for someone to downvote things they don't like? Seriously, I never understand this perspective. Is it there only to bring attention to things which break ToS? No, that can't be.. there's already a 'Report' button for that. So, what then? Is it only for pictures of a_*type_* I like but whose _*quality_* I didn't like? That seems arbitrary. As arbitrary as me downvoting this image, for whatever reason I want. Or for no reason at all. _*That's what the button is there for_
[bq]*
> If you don't like it then ignore it: that's the policy for this site.[/bq]
If the mods want to come and remove my comments because I have opinions about the subject matter they are free to do so at any time. Until that time, I think I'll continue sitting here and being smug. :)
[bq]
> Who is being smug here?
I like being smug, when I'm in a position to. I'm okay with smugness if it's warranted, but it should probably be earned.
[bq]
> And yes, that is a strawman because you made no effort to present an opposing viewpoint fairly.
I'd grant you that, were I debating with a Libertarian. But I wasn't, so far as I could tell. I was just being
[bq]
> "If X can be privatized, then why not Y?" [...] you merely assume that some goods and services are fundamentally different from others. It's the "public goods" myth.
See, if I was truly trying to be smug, I would now ask you to prove to me why certain goods shouldn't be treated differently than others. At least here in America, the current situation is that we do differentiate in some cases, so if you are suggesting we change that, then it's now my turn to smugly sit back and wait for you to prove why we should make a change to our existing economic policies. You
I think it would be a false dichotomy to suggest that a good can only be treated as one or the other anyway. Or that our policies can't arbitrarily treat one as different. In some cases, it does. The question ought not to be whether a good can be public, or private, but whether we are better off with it being one way or the other, for a given definition of 'better'. If the argument is that it ought to be one because of principal, that goes into what I did say in my earlier comment. If you think things will be 'better' if everything is treated as a private good, then feel free to go vote at the booth and we'll wait and see what happens.
If the argument is more than that, please feel free to explain why privatizing everything will be 'better', especially given that there are plenty of other countries with mixed economies and high tax rates that are doing just fine. If the goal is a healthy, happy society, some degree of socialism seems to give us that. I'd be interested to know if there are any Libertarian paradises out there which demonstrate that pure Libertarian ideology can produce a thriving populace.
[bq]
> Either actually do your research
I have.
[bq]
> or simply say you disagree with libertarian thought
I do.
[bq]
> "debunking" a strawman is cringeworthy.
I wouldn't say I was 'debunking' anything. At worst you could say I was demagoguing, at best, being 'smug' as you put it. I don't think there was anything in what I said that suggested I was trying to present some kind of be-all end-all destruction of Libertarian ideology; because it wasn't. But it is often good enough to shut up most of the whiny Libertarians who themselves know little of their own ideology. Maybe that isn't you, but then, you weren't the intended target of my smugness in that case.
[bq]
> why are you making such a fuss over an ancap picture and downvoting it?
What's the point of the downvote button if not for someone to downvote things they don't like? Seriously, I never understand this perspective. Is it there only to bring attention to things which break ToS? No, that can't be.. there's already a 'Report' button for that. So, what then? Is it only for pictures of a
[bq]
> If you don't like it then ignore it: that's the policy for this site.
If the mods want to come and remove my comments because I have opinions about the subject matter they are free to do so at any time. Until that time, I think I'll continue sitting here and being smug. :)