NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a nice proposal for all Libertarians:
What do you think about the following resolution:

Any kind of the governmental intervention in the international trade (export subsidies, duties and other restrictions of free, voluntary agreements between 2 or more nations) shall be punished by common embargo of and exclusion from UN. :D

We also may start to consider a reform of monetary system...I personally like the Prof. Rothbard's proposals and the gold standard^^

Sorry to tell you this, but the Libertarians don't rule the UN. I really don't think putting forward a proposal to expel every nation that raises a tariff is very wise (or legal).

Considering the legality of my proposal:

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.

Quotation from the FAQ, my friend. We're not talking about the real UN, that is becoming more &more the Leage of Nations of the past...

Libertarian and Conservative views are very difficult to get through the UN. But you can be sure that Conservative support is thrown behind Libertarian proposals simply to offset all of the socialist proposals in the UN.

...shall be punished by common embargo of and exclusion from UN.

A UN Resolution cannot ban members from the UN. That is a Game Mechanics Violation, is illegal, and may be punishable with immediate removal from the UN if submitted.

Also, this is plain ridiculous. Nations limit trade in relation to their own nations for protection of their own economies. Banning that is insane, and could drastically harm economies worldwide.

For all non-American members, what's a Libertarian? A liberated arian? :D

Not exactly...rather Donatist that Arian it you really need a religious comparison. Asian and European Libertianism is a bit more conservative than American one (ex. abortion being considered a murder, except few cases, the importance of tradition, moral values emphasized), but economical issues are more or less similar - what is being generally accepted is the idea of the-less-government-the-better (minarchy). By the way, how do you understand a word Libertarian, being an American (I guess)?.
For the other hand, there is a mass with the word "liberal". Non-American meaning is much more ... conservative, ideas based on Locke, J.B. Say (Smith - by most) are regarded as a marrow.

To hersfold: I agree that banning is a bit too much (and not neccessery effective), but import quota do harm economy much more than they help the producers to fight the foreign competition (ex. shadow economy's developing, also fighting the competition is not sth to be appreciated - at least by a Libertian). We should rather guarantee the custumer the possibility of buying cheaper products, allow competition and not disturb! Laissez-passer! I'm the new one here, so I'm not sure - this discussion must have appeared here before.

Libertarians believe in having enormous civil and economic rights. Government is kept as small as possible. The only reason government even exists is to prevent everything falling into anarchy.

Well, that's my understanding of the term, as a non-American high school student who has never followed that particular branch of political theory. I don't agree with it.

Isn't Ted Nugent a Libertarian? I know Howard Stern ran for office as a Libertarian. I don't see how a society can function without income taxes. Like the Global Library, I'm sure highways would be paved with good intentions.

Isn't Ted Nugent a Libertarian? I know Howard Stern ran for office as a Libertarian. I don't see how a society can function without income taxes. Like the Global Library, I'm sure highways would be paved with good intentions.

There are other types of taxes. Sales taxes, for example.

Right. Then instead of Libertarians complaining about their income taxes, they'll be complaining about the $10 soda and $40 sandwich they bought at the local deli.

Right. Then instead of Libertarians complaining about their income taxes, they'll be complaining about the $10 soda and $40 sandwich they bought at the local deli.

It depends on the type of Libertarian. Some Libertarians favor tariffs, others oppose tariffs. That divide applies to many other issues, as well. Some Libertarians support abortion rights, some oppose. It's difficult to predict accurately the behavior of all the members of a party when they are not in agreement on many issues such as immigration, intellectual property, and capital punishment.

Yes, I know. Some even support the legalization of drugs and oppose abortion. It's an interesting group of people, to say the least.

Libertians complain about ALL kind of taxes, also the hidden ones (compulsory assuranse which exists in the UE, inflation taxes and other monetary 'abracadabras') Generally all kinds of state's interventions/limitations/regulations (licences also) are seen with the eye of executor - more or less. Simply, according to laissez-faire doctrine, free market (understood as the system that accepts all kind of volutary agreements unless they limit the freedom of someone else) can solve the problems better than parasitic bureaucrats.

The case of income-tax: it appeared quite recently - during the Napoleonian Wars, was regarded a deed of Satan at that time. Societies could exist without it for nearly the whole history. We just need to re-imagine the role of government (limited to defence, penitential & legal system+diplomacy). Anything else could be run by NGO's and consumerist agendas.
Sale tax (at least it's European equivalent: V-A Tax) appeared as an upgraded TCC (Tax on the Circulation of Capital), 50 years ago, I assume.
I personally oppose abortion (it is simply a murder) & support drugs legalization (BECAUSE don't like joints, simply)- cannot see any contradiction.
To Enn: Maybe you'll try to be more constructive? What exactly don't you like in the concept?

Didn't mean to offend. Merely pointed out that a call to the libertarians probably wouldn't work on its own, while also making a comment on the legality of your idea.
But in any case, this is a difficult concept for me to be constructive about, me being a socialist, not a libertarian. It would take an awful lot to bring me round to libertarian thought.

there was a time when the United States did not have an income tax system. trade tariffs provided the capital needed for government expendiatures. and the only flaw in the system was an embarasing surplus of funds...

I'd support any resolution that reduces trade tariffs. The only reason you couldn't expel people would that it would be against game mechanincs, lose that and you've got yourself an acceptable proposal.

I'd be against any sort of fixed currency system though, the gold standard didn't work and collapsed in the 1920s and the Bretton Woods system didn't work and collapsed in the 1970s. Currencies should be allowed to float freely without government intervention.

To Enn: Socialism is just trendy, main-stream ideology nowadays, especially in Europe (our forum is not guiltless, unfortunatelly). U only need some courage to think more independently and may easily overwhelm this...hm, aberration. The EU is not becoming an economical powerhouse under the rule of your favourites, is it?
I just recommend you few books to be read in leisure time: Begin with Ludvig von Mises, Human Action and August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
Many of the Libertians I know were originally socialists they've seen the ideology through after reading the books above.

To Leg-ends: I promise to fix up my UN proposal and present it ...soon.

As for the monetary issues: Bretton Woods system collopsed 'couse the relation of $ and gold was the fixed one (35$ for 1 ounce, as I remember) no metter the market price, afterwards - simply a nightmere. Even now - in case of the great catastophe no more than 10% of the people could get their money from the accounts - there 'd be no more reserve available in the FRB. As for the crisis of the late 20's - a hoax has taken place: I recommend Rothbard's: "America's Great Depression" (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf).
My assumption is that whenever government put its fingers onto money - monetary crisis appears. I'd accept the system before the IWW, gold was excially the world's common currency, the national money being just a weight units (ex. $ was an ounce of silver).

To Enn: Socialism is just trendy, main-stream ideology nowadays, especially in Europe (our forum is not guiltless, unfortunatelly). U only need some courage to think more independently and may easily overwhelm this...hm, aberration. The EU is not becoming an economical powerhouse under the rule of your favourites, is it?
Confusing Fabian Socialism with real Socialism, I see. While I applaud the moves by the Scandinavian nations towards Fabian Socialism, that chain of political thought is not the same as Socialism.
Oh, and who said that being an 'economic powerhouse' is the best any nation can do? While the economy is important, one must never let it overwhelm humanitarian concerns.

And before you use this nation as evidence - Enn is close to, but significantly different from my true political colours. I would never support an absolute oligarchy, even if it did protect everyone's civil rights above all else.

I generally call socialist anyone who supports re-distributive policies (giving the money someone else toiled for) I must admit, I do not distinguish particular socialist sects. Could you explain what is Fabian socialism? A kind of this Scandinavian welfare-utopia (I assure you the bancrupcy is aproaching)? I only know Hayek was a Fabianist himself in his school time...
As I see it, the only difference between a robber and a socialist politician is that the first considers his deeds as evil that may bring him to jail, the second one (if he's a true beliver of Mr Marx/Keynes & Co.) is sure that his Robin-Hood-like mentality is not only moraly accepted but even desirable! I don't think it's humanitarian to FORCE someone to "support the poor" (I'd rather call it 'feeding the public workers whose main purpose is fighting the pouverty, never win') paying high taxes? I think it's not acceptable - not only from the economic but also ethical point of view.
I understand the need of solving the problem of the poor, but it must be done with the entirely different method.



Would you accept following anti-mercantilist proposal?
1/Any member of the UN would not levy higher tariff than 0.1% of the value of one product and would not put any tariff for the transactions payed in bullion.
2/ Export subsidies and other kinds of the government intervention into voluntary and legal trade between 2 or more nations are banned.

Explonation: The purpose of the proposal is to guarantee a cheap price and a big variety/good quality of products, better service (as a result of stronger competition), supportment of stronger, gold-standard currencies and multilateral technological & intellectual exchange.