What does "libertarian" mean to you?

You might blatham! I would like to see what the 46 ranking criteria they use are though and no one seems to be telling (a copy of the actual report isn't available throught the School's WWW site.)

The Center's lead in on their WWW site isn't encouraging though "In 1998, the Social Work Mental Health Research Center (SWMHRC) became one of eight social work research development centers funded by the National Institute of Mental Health." A school funded through tax dollars teaching people how to be social workers (who generally live off of tax dollars) just might have a bias in how they establish their criteria... lol

"incoming" "firefight" "who has point"? "don't surrender til you see the whites of their eyes" "don't bother to aim, full auto"

fishin

Regardless of source, which I know you'd never use to discount the content of a statement, in Denmark we have another notion of how humans in community might organize themselves, and the negative consequences which the libertarian position seems anxious about, don't appear to come to horrible fruition. There is, admittedly, less of an opportunity for individuals to rise dizzingly high above their neighbors in wealth, but that is surely not merely, or even mainly, a bad thing.

Politicians from all spectrums are an officious lot. When you hear them talk about smaller government, it means there may be a period when government will downsize, only to turn around and grow even larger than it was before. I just wonder what libertarians think of the government snooping in their E mail under the premise that they are protecting everyone from the terrorists.

I don't totally disregard the source! I'm generally more suspicious of social workers promoting social programs that, in many cases, do little more than create more jobs for more social workers especially when the social workers in question are those who are still in school and have no field experience (and my mother is currently a social worker and I completed all the courses to become one but got so disgusted with the internal politics of the field that I never bothered to get licensed..). But, just keep in mind that Social Workers have an agenda to push just as much as anyone else. They aren't all Social Workers for purely altruistic reasons. but.. I digress...

The basic point though, is that even if everyone chooses to surrender some of their freedom to a social state they HAVE surrendered those freedoms. Some may argue that people should do that to further the cause of society as a whole and I have no problem with them holding their views. What I do have a problem with is claiming that that state is somehow "free" or that people maintain the most possible liberties when in reality there is no choice for someone who disagrees with the social state concept - especially one that is born into the social state after those liberties have been given away by consent of prior generations.

When there is no ability to choose left then the freedoms and liberties are already gone. So what is the criteria that was used in their rankings? It seems they used economic equality as a measure but I don't see individual freedom or liberty mentioned anywhere. What is the cost in liberty to attain economic equality?

That is why I'd like to se the actual questions.

This one thinks the government shouldn't have anyone in the realm in their employ to even consider it as a possibility.

fishin

Does not that hold true here as well? That is, were we to live in say, an even more libertarian state, wouldn't those born into it be equally unfree to choose to live under an alternative? It would seem so to me unless you are thinking of something like entropy of freedom.

But the real pudding here seems to me the sort of society which Denmark has produced. It's a very nice place and is without really very many of the social problems which we over here face. Though folks pay VERY high taxes, they fight tooth and nail to maintain their system and libertarian arguments do not gain much foothold in political discourse.

It would only be true if there were no alternative from the libertarian state. Right now there is no libertarian state so there is no alternative for a true libertarian. Beyond that there are states that run the gamut from democratic republics to socialist states to monacharies, marxist, facist and (as close as we get to...) communist states for anyone to choose from.



A part of their sucess comes from their limited size (you don't hear many complaints from Monaco or Luxemborg either!) but beyond that there is also social conditioning that "trains" the members of each society to accept what they have. (Which isn't unique to any location..) I also suspect that most would anticiapte that if the social structres where removed the taxes they pay wouldn't so there is little or no financial incentive for them to consider alternatives nationally. But, some of their actions also result in laws that would largely be considered absurd in the most of the rest of the world. One minor example of some differences; Danish law on abortion (and item constantly raised in terms of "Freedom of Choice" here) is more complicated and restrictive than it is here in the US. While abortions are pretty much "on demand" here, a Danish woman must submit an application to the state and get approval before one can be done and that application has to indicate that she meets all of the state approved criteria for getting one.

What you get goes along with what you give up to get it.

Au1929,
...When I said you missed the point, I meant that after the lucid and thorough definitions given by TW and Blathem I couldn't see how you could have come to the conclusion you did. But that was presumptuous of me. I withdraw that.
...Now as for the question you asked me. I wish you would read the reply I had written just before that. It should clearly answer your question. If I'm not being presumptuous.....If you don't feel like reading, this hint should help; I said a libertarian government sounds nice theoretically, but wouldn''t work practically, because of human nature.

Many roads and other systems have been built by private concerns, usually more efficiently and at lower cost than when done by government. In a libertarian society these things would not go undone, they just would likely not be done by the government. That the government built many of our roads and highways, does not mean that they would never have been built had the government not undertaken the task.

TW, the idea of private concerns or state governments constructing an interlocking, continent-spanning highway system is a bit shaky on its face. There might be better arguments in support of your proposition, methinks.



timber

Yet isn't "an interlocking, continent-spanning highway system" constructed by multiple individual entities precisely what Europe has? I think the nations of Europe building road systems that all interlink is directly analogous to the states doing the same here in the US.

It's only logical that if A wants to trade with B and vice, versa, A and B will work together in planning their roads.

I doubt the various European nations consider themselves to be anything other than nations at this point, tw. States, of course, but not in the sense of these United States, subservient to a federal government.

roger - Sorry, but I fail to see your point. That the nations of Europe are not states within a federation is not lost on me, nor does that fact make their partnering in road building any less analogous to the idea of our states doing so.

fishin

I'm rather late with this response, but I slept during the time of the most lively discussion here.

Re. social worker. Do you think, too, military personal should comment, discuss etc e.g. war themes? Teachers educational subjects? ... ... ...

roger

At least we here in Germany are a Federal Republic. (Similar Switzerland and Austria.)

Not analogous at all. The correct analogy would be each Canton of Switzerland, developing it's own highway system. Possible, of course. Economical, I doubt.

roger

From "encyclopædia britannica":

"Classifying states as federal, regionalist, and unitary

Classifying a particular state as federal, regionalist, or unitary may at times be difficult.

The United States and Switzerland are clearly federal states, although the role respectively of states and cantons has shrunk much since World War I: all of the above-mentioned characteristics of the federal state are present in their constitutional systems. Canada is also a federal state, despite the fact that at least one of the formal marks of perfect federalism is absent from its 1982 constitution: the provinces' powers, not the central government's, are enumerated. But the provinces' powers are vast, and the guarantees for the provinces' independence and rights anchored in the constitution are particularly strong. For the same reasons Australia too can be considered a federal state. The Federal Republic of Germany is federal in all respects. Yet the legislation of the Bund, the central government, extends over so many matters that it is questionable whether Germany is not in fact a regionalist state. The question is even more open as regards India. The Indian federal constitution spells out a long list of important subjects over which the states and territories that compose the union have exclusive jurisdiction. But the constitution gives the central government the power to legislate on any subject?-including the ones reserved to the regional governments?-if it deems the matter of national importance. In addition, the central government has direct powers of control over the regional governments: e.g., the national Parliament can dissolve the legislative council of any state or territory. Similar remarks can be made with respect to the federal structure of many Latin-American states. The formerSoviet Union was, by constitution, a federal state; but, apart from the question of the "nominal" value of at least certainparts of its constitution, the constitutional role entrusted to the Communist Party had such unifying effects on the whole system that the Soviet state could probably be defined at best as a regionalist state.

Italy and Spain are states with regional governments. These, by constitution, are endowed with legislative and administrative powers in certain areas (the courts are all national). Italy, however, is perhaps the best example of howa regionalist state may closely resemble a unitary one. The constitution grants limited powers to the regions. Parliament has extended these limits by devolving additional matters to the purview of regional legislatures. But regional laws must respect general principles laid down in national statutes, and in practice little room is left for reallyautonomous regional legislation. The regions, moreover, are not financially independent. Thus, all in all, they might almost be considered a branch of the system of local governments, together with communes and provinces, rather than a distinct, third level of government.

Great Britain and France are unitary states. Northern Ireland had special autonomy within the United Kingdom until restrictions were introduced to cope with the emergency situation in that region, and Scotland and Wales would have had special autonomy but in referendums their people rejected the devolution plans offered by the British Parliament. Had the plans been accepted, Great Britain would have become in part a regionalist state, though Parliament, under a flexible constitution, might, in theory, have later repealed the grant of autonomy. France in 1982 established by statute elective regional governments (régions) as part of a more general reform intended to make the system of localgovernments less dependent on the centre. Régions have fewer powers than the Italian regions, but their role may grow with time."

Booman
Yes I read most of what has been written and what I said I still believe. In theory it has some merit but so does communism and a pure democracy but none of the systems could ever work. Because they disregard the human element, which never follows the dynamic. Our present system is not perfect but than what is?
As for the way I responded to you just chalk it up to a bad day. Sorry.

Yes I do. I never said Social Workers shouldn't comment or be consulted. They obviously should have an input but that doesn't mean that their input should be the only input or should be given more weight than others.

People tend to poo-poo the comments made by military personnel as the military advancing their own agenda (especially when it comes to major systems purchases..) as that vast and irreverent "Military-Industrial Complex" seeking to advance or preserve their programs. Why not apply the same scrutiny to what social workers have to say?