SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 7:55pm

Link

Edit

Linz,

I read the whole article, for which I ought to receive a prize, since after this: "We all want to live in a society which ... cares for those who cannot care for themselves," the rest was a huge chore to read.

For the record, I want to live in a society that leaves me and everyone else alone. If I cannot take care of myself, that is my problem, and no one else's and it's no one else's business either. Those who want to live in the kind of society Don Brash describes are parasites.

I give you high marks for self-discipline, Mr. Perigo. I certainly could not have conducted that interview with the aplomb you displayed. I'm sure I could not have controlled my nausea.

Regi

Post 1

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:25pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Regi. Actually, he speaks very highly of you.

:-)

Linz

Post 2

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 9:25am

Link

Edit

Linz,

Thanks Regi. Actually, he speaks very highly of you.

Just ignore it. After all, I speak highly of you too. Doesn't mean a thing.

Seriously, I should have been put off from the beginning. This is rich, "I guess my greatest concern about the libertarian position arises from the free-rider problem."

What does he think he (or any other politician) is? He and his ilk are the free-rider problem. Or does he suppose he's "earning" his way selling kiwi fruit someone else grows for him? (The world might run out of oil, but at least we'll have kiwi fruit. Good grief!)

Regi

Post 3

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:14am

Link

Edit

As regards the 'free rider' problem, check out the entry in my recent Libertarian FAQ:

http://www.solohq.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtml#PublicGoods

The free rider problem is only an argument for the government running police, defense and courts (and perhaps a few other fairly minor things). That's as far as that argument gets us. But this is simply the Minimal State position advocated by most Libertarians (and Objectivists).

Post 4

Wednesday, September 14 - 7:49pm

Link

Edit

I post here partly to bring attention to the article but also to answer Marc.

The free rider problem is only an argument for the government running police, defense and courts (and perhaps a few other fairly minor things). That's as far as that argument gets us.

That's not the argument for government doing it. I would happily pay for these things in the knowledge that those who couldn't afford it but would like to pay if they could were benefitting from it. I realise their freedom means they are able to work and add something to the economy in which I live, even if I don't benefit directly from their work.

The reason government should look after these is that they involve the use of force and government should have the legal monopoly over this (except for self-defense) such that control of these not wielded by an unaccountable few. The public has to have a means to remove those who look after these services if they are abusing them or acting incompetently.