| HN Mirror

Great. Please allow me to control your bank account so that I can dictate how much you spend on your car, on your health insurance, on your vacation, on your wedding, on your kids, on your personal growth, on your food... each and everything which affects you.

Are you okie? I hear a 'no'. Then why do you think you want government to control how others spend their money? Do you really think someone else knows better than you what to do you with your own hard earned money? And why do you think libertarianism doesn't work? America is a living proof that libertarianism/capitalism works.

Another example: I am an Indian and when I was a kid, I remember how poor our country was. Since India decided to open up the trade in 1991 and adopted some of the libertarian policies, it has flourished. I don't know how old are you but did you hear about India as a vibrant economy 25 years back? So please don't suggest that libertarianism doesn't' work because I have seen it with my own eyes how well it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

"Do you really think someone else knows better than you what to do you with your own hard earned money?"

You're not answering my question. I trust myself, heck you seem smart enough, I even trust you. I don't trust large sections of my country and you don't have a solution for dealing with the people who decide to spend their money irrationally.

You can not call America a libertarian country and wave it like an example. Its far from it and thankfully so. The most economic success this country has seen in the last 25 years was the eight were it was run by democratic leader (you know the tax more spend more people).

Likewise India's success in the last 25 years is great, but its a bit hard to show that as an example when it houses 1/3 of the worlds poor and 42% live beneath the international poverty line.

anamax 6147 days ago

> I don't trust large sections of my country and you don't have a solution for dealing with the people who decide to spend their money irrationally.

I've got news for you. I don't trust YOU to decide how to spend their money or my money.

Yes, people do dumb things with their money. However, they do dumber things with other people's money. And, since the potential damange is greater in the latter case than in the former, that's double-plus ungood.

So what no gov't? No taxes? Every year we just let everyone pay what they think roads/school/defense deserves?

What do you do with large populations of kids can't go to school because their parents don't want to pay for it.

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation

Or when kids break their legs without health insurance.

Or when our parents and grandparents don't have a retirement fund because they saved foolishly.

I fail to see how having a gov't spending our money makes the potential damage worse.

The list goes on.

BrentRitterbeck 6147 days ago

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation?

This happens every day.

Or people die because of lack of food and drug regulation?

This also happens every day.

Or when our parents and grandparents don't have a retirement fund because they saved foolishly?

So does this.

anamax 6147 days ago

> I fail to see how having a gov't spending our money makes the potential damage worse.

Oh really?

When you spend your money on your stuff, you try really hard to get the best value.

When you spend your money on someone else's stuff, you go cheap.

When you spend someone else's money on your stuff, you don't worry so much about cost effectiveness.

Govt spending is someone else's money for someone else's stuff. Do you really think that that's as good as either of the previous two categories, let alone the first one?

No one is suggesting that there should not be government or taxes. What we are advocating for is limited government and minimal taxes.

Think about this for a moment. You think that health care is a right and everyone should have it. To expand this, you can also say that 'food' is a right and everyone should get it. Should government get in to business of taxing people and making sure that food is provided for everyone?

anamax 6146 days ago

> you can also say that 'food' is a right and everyone should get it. Should government get in to business of taxing people and making sure that food is provided for everyone?

More to the point, even if you think that food is a right and tax people to provide it to the less fortunate, should we have "Nationalized Food Service" or a subsidized "public option"? How about a tax on employers that don't provide acceptable "private food service"?

And speaking of this "food right", does it apply to folks who aren't capable of full participation in civil society? I ask because one of the White House advisors on health care believes that health care as a right does not apply to such folks, giving as an example folks with dementia. Would folks with Downs syndrome qualify?

He also thinks that old folks don't qualify.

India became independent from British rule in 1947. It opened up economy in 1991. India has progressed more in last 18 years (from 1991 to 2009) than it did in 44 years (1947 to 1991). You can confirm this with any Indian who is more than 30 years old. [Compared this to US which has been independent since 1788, more than 200 years]

I hope you would agree that poverty can not be eliminated overnight. I am thrilled that India is making progress and I can assure that over the next 50 years, India will also join the rank of developed nations if they continue to adopt libertarian policies.

Anyway, coming back to your argument that you don't think others are smart enough to know how to spend their money. Just because percentage of the population is not smart enough, do you think I should suffer (by paying higher taxes) because of that?

Also, let's for a moment say that government should decide my health care. What's next? They will tell me what to eat as well. Where do you draw the line?

BrentRitterbeck 6147 days ago

Finally, someone thinks like I do! It's amazing to see that people from outside of America think along the lines of preventing government from overstepping its boundary while many Americans, (NOTE: I am American), are happily starting to let the government intervene in their life.

Hmm... from 1991 to 2009 we've had 2 web bubbles. Maybe that had something to do with it?

But you're still ignoring the core issue.

What those two bubbles have to do with India's progress?

Also, I am not ignoring core issue. Your solution is that someone in Washington DC should decide how to spend money and solve problems for people living in a country as big as America and I am suggesting that we treat people like adult and let them take care of themselves and minimize the role of government in our lives.

And when they don't take care of themselves?

And really? you see no correlation between the internet bubbles and India's recent economic growth?