Debate Archetype: Libertarianism and Regulation
A quick debate so we can skip having the same one over and over again
50% Snark, so don't take much too seriously
Yellow-Bar: Less Regulation!
Blue-Bar: But pollution is bad!
Yellow-Bar: Well of course people need to follow the law, including those protecting the environment!
Blue-Bar: But regulations ARE the law!?! What are you talking about?
Yellow-Bar: I mean regulations that try to make people be good rather than prohibit harm to others.
Blue-Bar: Um... But actions don't exist in a vacuum. Those that benefit some cause harm to others. Not necessarily in equal amount mind you, but how is it wrong to make people proactively counter-balance that harm?
Yellow-Bar: It is only bad when you make people do good that is distinct from their harm. Thus forcing people to do charity with taxes to make up for some nebulous level of pollution is a form of enslavement while simply forcing them to pay for the level of pollution they cause as they cause it is OK
Blue-Bar: You'll always have people who cause more harm than good. EIther because they can't afford to counterbalance the damage they do or because they try to get around the law and are punished in a fashion that does not repair damage. How do you make up that gap if all you do is have those that behave well "break even"?
Yellow-Bar: That's what charitable organizations are for. Free people will choose to help others and undo that harm if they weren't being forced to do so already by an inefficient government to make up for the bad actors who aren't pulling their weight.
Blue-Bar: And yet historically, this hasn't been sufficient. The most Libertarian societies have still had massive poverty and excesses.
Yellow-Bar: But we are waaaay wealthier today. Society just wasn't ready for free individuals living in harmony until... (hold on.... hold on...) NOW! (or maybe tomorrow if this doesn't work out)
Blue-Bar: What does this have to do with regulation again?
Yellow-Bar: We need less of it in order to become wealthy enough to provide charitable support to those who are in poverty!
Blue-Bar: But I thought we were just now wealthy enough to do that. Doesn't that include WITH the regulation? And didn't we get here WHILE we had the regulation?
Yellow-Bar: Post-Hoc ergo Proctor-Hoc fallacy. We ARE wealthy enough (Would have been there in the early 70s if it hadn't been for FDR.), we are just too cranky because of the regulation. If we trust people make their own decisions and stop being preemptive about forcing folks to live the way we want them to, the results will be a lot better.
Red-Bar: Hey guys! What's up? Sorry I missed the discussion, I've been off bombing foreign countries so we can force them to take up democracy. Then I needed to torture a few suspects. Turned out we had the wrong guy; don't worry, it was a foreigner (and a Muslim, so I'm sure he was guilty of something) Actually never mind, I'll just listen to the wire-tap later and get the important details. The important thing is that Yellow-Bar and I agree on all the important stuff.
- knocienz's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
And you left off
Purple Bar: (Watching all the intentional misunderstandings and comical stereotyping and trying to decide whether to laugh or cry)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
huge oversight
Purple is America!
It is the economy, stupid.
Black bars? -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Figured I'd let you do it (nt)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
The only reason
my bar is black, is because I have been in mourning for the Democrats who seem to have lost their way. ( some say it's a spinal problem )
I think progressives should be just that. If that means turning away from some of the old liberal memes, go for it. Change the dialogue.
It is the economy, stupid.
It'd be nice to keep ideology separate from party
I'd like to be able to tell the conservatives who have truly abandoned the Republicans vs those who will hold their noses vs those who think everything is FAAAANTastic!
I left off the purple bars (and black bars)
Because they tend to either avoid the conversation or play one of the two parts.
BTW, when in doubt, laugh.
Seriously, there is some really interesting thought processes that occurred during this. When I was forced to talk Yellowbarese, I could understand and had more sympathy for the perspective. (I can't do that for Redbarese. Or rather, I can, but it really creeps me out and by placing myself in such a rigid thought process, I feel downright claustrophobic)
Smiles
It gets easier with practice :-D But some of it is still creepy though . . .
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Plurality of my coworkers fall into yellow-bar territory
I've actually got plenty of practice at it. Of my coworkers, I'd say about 40%+ libertarian, just under 40% conservative and 20% liberal (tossing moderates into their respective buckets)
Of course 90% despise Bush.
The coworker with whom I discuss politics with the most is very libertarian and we are able to come to agreement on most issues. Probably because we usually spend the first 10 minutes of every debate agreeing on how insane the current batch of Republicans are and how telecom immunity is the most ridiculous thing ever.
This would be fun to do
with our posters' names. Are we thick-skinned enough to take it? hmmm.
Might have to be a richer topic though.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm sure that John can take it. ;-)
Seriously though, the reason I left it in bar nomenclature is that I see a variant of this conversation played by many different individuals. For example, the Corporate Social Responsibility is really the same conversation as this one (and by same, I mean in a mathematic equivalency sense. Anybody that could come to an agreement on one could come to an agreement on the other)
Oh that was me??
ha. ;)
Anyway, I think PF said it best in the first post.
peace...
Inspired by you
And then archetyped up a bit.
Not enough you for you to sue for defamation or demand royalties. :-)
And you might note my answer to PF's comment.
I can do me (pick one)
Non-committal statement on issue.
Overly academic, nuanced position.
Kill rich people.
Discussion on semantics.
Federalism!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...