Re: [Libsa] Trump like Hitler?

[Jaco Strauss]

It is hard to understand the Hitler comparisons in relation to Trump's candidacy.

He wants to enforce existing immigration legislation, not unlike his predecessors. (Refer to Bill Clinton's comments)

He also wants to limit the risk poised by radical Islam by instituting a temporary ban on Muslims. Quite extreme, but more in line with Roosevelt than Hitler. (FDR suspended naturalization proceedings for all German, Japanese, and Italian settlers in the US on 8 Dec 1941)

2016-05-31 10:07 GMT+02:00 Schalk Dormehl <schalk....@gmail.com>:

@Leon, again, I'm only pointing out that smoking laws have had their intended effect. This was after all in part Stephens question. 

As for Donald Trump being to libertarians as Hitler are to Jews, that's very extreme. Again, I don't want anyone for president but I don't think Donald Trump's candidate persona is real and I suspect he's less evil than he appears. I think the same thing about Julius Malema's persona, he's not as stupid as he likes to give the impression, but I suspect he is actually far more evil. 

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, property rights are an obvious solution to exposure to many obnoxious behaviors. Even here one could frequently have a Coasean solution to property rights violations rather than using the law against violators.

On 31 May 2016 at 01:05, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

Isn't there some Coasean way to deal with that?

I read the other day that there are some places experimenting with paying young men not to commit crime and, though early days, these programs appear to be highly effective in reducing crime.

Sure one wants to prevent stabbing or being peed on or marinaded in smoke involuntarily but it is not necessarily the case that having a law against it is the best or only way to do so.  I am aware that many libertarians - and left anarchists too - believe that it is never the case that a law against something is the only or best way to solve a problem.  I personally do not rule out the possibility of a law against something being the best or only way - I am in favor of rule of law after all - but I do think people reach for the law as a solution too quickly.  If anything, for the vast majority, it is the default position.

On 31 May 2016 at 00:34, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:

However smokers used to inflict smoke on non smokers. Yet urinators do not urinate on others (at least not at social functions I attend) nor do knife wielders stab. Besides there are laws against stabbing and urinating on others without their consent, and definitely in public.

Liberty exists when nothing is done to others without their consent. Before anti smoking laws smokers would regularly cause me to inhale smoke against my consent. They generally either didn't care or were not aware that non addicts found inhaling their smoke offensive.

Those addicted to stabbing are soon packed off to jail. Should they not be? Should there not be laws against stabbing and urinating on others? If all three are equal should they not be treated equally?

On 31 May 2016 00:18, "Leon Louw (gmail)" <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:

@Schalk

I got the understanding from an early email in the "libertarians for Trump" conversation. Libertarians for Trump is, for me, something like Jews for Hitler, or nuns for promiscuity.

As for smoking, the line that smokers inflict smoke on (unwilling) non-smokers is as irrational as being against urination because some people pee on others, or against knives because some people stab others.

The smoking issues is extraordinarily elementary libertarianism: liberty exists when nothing is done to people or property without consent.

On 30 May 2016 at 21:53, Schalk Dormehl <schalk....@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not sure where you got the idea that I am a Trump supporter. I don't think his persona is real though. I think he'll be a terrible president (as will any other candidate), but he will be interesting.

I recently traveled a bit and I realized that at least in the Netherlands and the UAE smokers still smoke around nonsmokers in situations where it isn't the nonsmoker's choice. Specifically in queues and around small children. I don't have an opinion beyond that he SA gov has in a ham handed and totalitarian fashion increased some people's life expectancy without their consent. If I had my way there would be no dept of health though. I'm simply noting that instead of causing more smoking (as one would expect from our gov) these laws have had their intended effect.

Your position on smoking (tobacco), if I understand it correctly, Schalk, surprises me -- along with you not thinking of Trump as a narcissistic delusional megalomaniac.

Apart from appearing to be sanguine about coercing smokers and tobacco suppliers, you seem to have embraced anti-tobacco propaganda uncritically.

Is what you've written about smoking (tobacco) serious or tong in cheek?

Are you against the libertarian option: freedom to supply and consume tobacco?

(Please don't raise the old twaddle about "passive" smoking, which is subject to the usual prohibition on rights violations).

On 27 May 2016 at 21:15, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you really don't recognize the smoking-nazi foundation of your statement at all ? Ok, let's go back to basics. On what grounds and by whom should people be forced to do things according to your will rather than their own ? I'm talking things that may be detrimental to them and those around them in particular, but which they want anyway, like smoking, eating pork chops, voting, drinking or creating their own currency.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

On 27 May 2016, at 16:43, Schalk Dormehl <schalk....@gmail.com> wrote:

#2 well, foreigners still smoke and (anecdotally) far more than South Africans in environments that affect non-smokers, like outside queues, with minors and in cars with others. Why the government has accomplished it's goal in this regard is a mystery to me. Perhaps because the methods were not draconian but the goal was still aligned with basic respect for each other. 

#3 can I have a 30% update please?

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thumbs up on #1.

On #2, please explain "working incredibly well". I suspect the gas chambers in Germany also worked incredibly well, depending on which side you were on and what your aims were.

For #3, okay, I'll have that requirement specification out by the weekend and started engaging an offshore developer & possible partner for company registration in neutral space.

S.

On 25 May 2016 at 16:42, Schalk Dormehl <schalk....@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Well if the government was taking the money, burning it (or deleting it) would be plan A. This would be the same as a universal income grant and incentivise the hoarding of money to benefit from the grant. 
2. Anti smoking laws in South Africa, while totalitarian, are working incredibly well, those of us rich enough to smoke will live longer as a result, albeit partially against our will. Also our laws about plastic bags having to be priced worked out quite well. As to your question, the unintended consequence of the ANC government seeing the EFF as competition has retarded the complete decolonization of the country. The armed gang's war with the unarmed gang is working out in the peace loving people's favor. I still really wish some shadowy organization like a mining conglomerate would develop stealth and weaponised drones so that the price would drop and community watches could purchase them for more noble purposes.
3. South Africa has an enormous informal sector. While it's impossible to measure it's exact size, but I'm pretty sure most of SA's business activity goes unregistered. So as tax freedom becomes more and more like running the iron man, I'm sure system D is partially picking up the flack. That said, it does worry me, since the technology to scale an agorist business to multinational level safely has yet to be developed. 

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Colin Phillips <noid...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Today is Tax Freedom Day!!!

As calculated by our own Garth Zietsman, and observed each year by the Free Market Foundation, today is the day of the year when the country as a whole is predicted to have generated enough GDP to pay for all of government.

Source

So, today I'm asking this forum the following questions:

1.  If we fixed total government spending at 39.3% of GDP in 2017, what is the best thing for that money to be spent on?  Basic Income Grants?  Roads? Schools? Cars for Zuma's wives?  Some spending decisions are wiser than others - what do you think we could spend more on or less on?
2. Are there any government spending initiatives you have noticed that are unusually well run, compared to the usual government project?  Or any that are unusually bad?
3. The general trend of Tax Freedom Day seems to be creeping upwards by 1.8 days per year.  Are you worried by this?  I am.  What do you think we (all of us individuals) could do to stem this tide?

My answers below.

1. 39.3% feels like a big proportion to me, but if it must be fixed at 39.3%, then I want the money to be spent productively.  
• I like the idea of schools and education in general, but I think the idea Milton Friedman propounded, that of giving each parent a school voucher to be spent on education, is better than directly funding the schools themselves. 
• I also like roads, and hospitals and so forth, and I want these to have funding.  The question is just how that funding should be managed.  If government must spend the money, spending it on healthcare services is not awful.  But I worry that making the hospital more dependent on pleasing government bureaucrats than on pleasing patients might lead to underperformance on health objectives.  In the same way that school vouchers might help fix education, health vouchers might fix the health system.  
  
• My general objection to the Basic Income Grant is that, as Benjamin Franklin didn't say,"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."  The fear is that if the Basic Income Grant can pay X rands per month to each citizen, the next election will be won by whoever promises that this will be increased to 2X rands per month.  If government spending somehow could be frozen at 39.3% of GDP, then my major objection falls away.
• See my answer to 2 below.  I am concerned about crime.  If I could divert resources away from other spending in order to reduce crime, I would do so.
2. My major concern at the moment is concerning crime.  It seems that if we must have government, the primary concern of government must be to maintain a secure environment for the inhabitants of its territory.  It is plainly failing at this task in absolute terms.  
3. I don't see any way to manage the level of government spending without understanding government spending.  By starting conversations about what the right level of government spending should be , with ordinary people, we can "raise consciousness" about the idea that government needs to be managed responsibly and effectively.  It may not be a quick solution, but it might work.

Colin

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Jaco

I did not say Trump is as bad as Hitler. I am not making comparisons of degree. My point is that Trump is so far from libertarian -- unlike, for instance, Ron or Rand Paul, or Reagan -- that it's as anomalous for a libertarian to be "for" him as it is for a Jew to be for Hitler. I could make many other analogies. I mentioned, for instance, a nun being for prostitution. I could add a (white) farmer being for racist expropriation without compensation, a surgeon being for faith healing, a Muslim being for Billy Graham and so on.

Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

If you want to know who has power over you, ask who you cannot criticize.

[Jaco Strauss]

Ironically there were actually Jews who supported Hitler at the time, but that is a little besides the point.

"Ron or Rand Paul, or Reagan" is not in the race, so it is irrelevant how "libertarian" they might be. Gary Johnson is still in the race, but his chance of appointing the next Supreme Court Justice is as good as the Pauls, or Reagan for that matter.

 

Trump is proposing policies such as a reversal of the Climate Change Hoax regulations that is far more libertarian than anything Hillary is advocating. So the question is rather who would be more Libertarian, or better for libertarians, Trump or Clinton? For one thing he might just roll back the PC SJW Feminazi nonsense that would only gain further momentum under Hillary

The Jews had plenty of more agreeable choices than Hitler available to them, similar to nuns having choices other than prostitution. Had they been faced with "death or prostitution", or the Jews with "summary execution or voting for Hitler" the results of your rhetorical juxtapositions might look a little less ludicrous.

J

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Yes, there were Jews who supported Hitler, just as there were blacks who supported apartheid, and there libertarians who support Trump. That's what's anomalous.

"Libertarians for Trump" emerged (here and elsewhere) long before it boiled down to Hillary versus Donald. If I'm not mistaken the first pro-Trump contributions appeared here when Rand Paul was still in the race. A case can even be made that Marco Rubio, a serious contender at the time, has libertarian leanings.

Oh dear, this is exhausting. How about bringing it closer home and debating whether Zuma or Malema are more libertarian, or Amcu versus Numsa, or Putin versus Mugabe? That's how I feel about Hillary versus Donald.

[Humphry Hamilton]

Quite right Jaco. 

 

The main issue is not how libertarian Trump is but that he is anti the establishment (or at least he says he is).  This is why people are backing him, he is promising revolution of sorts.  He may well replace the existing establishment with his own version, which could up being worse.  It’s happened before.