NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a Briton who is generally sympathetic to American libertarianism. I'd like it to spread over the Atlantic, although I'd rather it be in a less ideological form that it seems to exist over in the States right now. I agree with their general principles, but there are some cases when I think they have to be a bit more practical. Here are some examples. I'd wonder if any libertarians would like to defend their party's position or offer any comment at all?

Pensions: it seems that they want to just stop giving pension payments like that. Isn't that terribly unfair on people who have paid taxes for years and years and now don't get anything back out of the system?

Guns: the libertarians are even more anti-gun control than Charlton Heston. I believe they even want people with serious mental conditions or criminal tendencies to have gun ownership rights. I would like to compare this to driving: not everyone had an automatic right to drive a car, but they have to pass a test first, as accidents could very easily happen otherwise. Shouldn't a similar logic by applied to stopping certain people from owning guns? On this point, do libertarians have any opposition to government's driving restrictions?

There are other problems that would occur in other countries that I will now go into. One of the things that irritates me about libertarians is that they are so US-centred and yet they preach universal rights. Some of their policies would seem applicable enough in America yet not so elsewhere. Moving on:

In Brazil, several very arrogant landowners have large areas of land that they never do anything with. I always perceive the right to property as descending from the fact that it is the product of one's labour and livelihood, yet that would not occur in such cases. The Brazilian government ruled that if a large piece of land had not been put into use for 7 years, it was no longer the property of the landlord. I think this law is just, yet would libertarians agree? [As a side-note, the enforcement of this law has been terrible, as landlords bribe the police and courts to let them break the law.]

Subsidies: don't get me wrong - I don't like subsidies in general. However, I can see why some countries need them. If you live in an unstable part of the world, where war could break out at any moment, you want to be self-sufficient in things like food and basic amenities and to have a decent armaments industry. If all the farms go out of production due to cheap imports, but then war breaks out 3 years later, you can barely put all the farms back into production quick enough to support the country.

That list may make it seem that I am not so libertarian after all, but believe me that my idea of utopia is when the government does nothing but prohibit killing, stealing, lying and enslavement. Unfortuneately, we don't live in utopia and probably never will do. I don't think U.S. libertarianism accepts this fact. Perhaps, it would spread better across the world if it was a bit more flexible. Europe needs to get out of this neo-socialist conundrum!
On a separate note, have any libertarians published any judgement on the Euro?

I am a Briton who is generally sympathetic to American libertarianism. I'd like it to spread over the Atlantic, although I'd rather it be in a less ideological form that it seems to exist over in the States right now. I agree with their general principles, but there are some cases when I think they have to be a bit more practical. Here are some examples. I'd wonder if any libertarians would like to defend their party's position or offer any comment at all?
Well I'm no American, I'm British too, and I'm certainly no member of the libertarian party but I'll try and help you out. I would probably have agreed with you on most of this until about 9 months ago.
Pensions: it seems that they want to just stop giving pension payments like that. Isn't that terribly unfair on people who have paid taxes for years and years and now don't get anything back out of the system?
So what's the fair solution, continue the theft into the next generation? Govt pension schemes are not insurance policies. There's no govt bank account with my grannies' name on it. The money was not saved for their retirement it was used to pay for *their* grannies' pensions. Why should I be forced to pay for their pensions? I never agreed to. They promised themselves *our* money, not their money, and they had no right to. The real injustice is that they were forced to pay taxes their whole working lives. Why should someone get a welfare cheque just for being old?
Guns: the libertarians are even more anti-gun control than Charlton Heston. I believe they even want people with serious mental conditions or criminal tendencies to have gun ownership rights. I would like to compare this to driving: not everyone had an automatic right to drive a car, but they have to pass a test first, as accidents could very easily happen otherwise. Shouldn't a similar logic by applied to stopping certain people from owning guns? On this point, do libertarians have any opposition to government's driving restrictions?
Govt driving restrictions are unnecessary. Private road owners would either insist that road users can prove their competence or at least get insurance (and competent users would have lower insurance costs).

This is a private property issue. If someone wants to drive on your land you have every right to insist they have qualifications before giving your permission. Similarly, you may insist people be disarmed before they go on your land. Guns were one of the last libertarian issues I was sold on but eventually reason and consistency won the day.

There is no evidence that increased gun ownership leads to increased crime and there is even a hint that it reduces crime. Bear in mind the US is a more violent country and this, not gun ownership, is why they have more crime. They would still have as much or even more crime if they banned guns. If you ban guns then only criminals and govts will have guns. This is clearly an undesireable situation.

Mentally ill people are on average more law abiding than normal folk. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves? Criminals might be forbidden firearms as part of their punishment without violating libertarian principles.
here are other problems that would occur in other countries that I will now go into. One of the things that irritates me about libertarians is that they are so US-centred and yet they preach universal rights. Some of their policies would seem applicable enough in America yet not so elsewhere. Moving on:
The libertarian *party* might be but it's a US party. Of course they'll talk most about the US. Also, the US has a quite libertarian tradition so it's a sensible place to concentrate our efforts.
In Brazil, several very arrogant landowners have large areas of land that they never do anything with. I always perceive the right to property as descending from the fact that it is the product of one's labour and livelihood, yet that would not occur in such cases. The Brazilian government ruled that if a large piece of land had not been put into use for 7 years, it was no longer the property of the landlord. I think this law is just, yet would libertarians agree? [As a side-note, the enforcement of this law has been terrible, as landlords bribe the police and courts to let them break the law.]

The more intellectually honest libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess recognise that not all existing property titles are legitimate. Libertarians defend private property on principle but not necessarily the property rights *as presently defined by govts*. However, I can't agree with the 7 year rule. Either the title is just in which case it doesn't run out or it is unjust in which case it is immediately invalid. As an example you might want to consider a privately owned section of rainforest such as you get in Costa Rica where a private owner simply preserves a natural resource in it's present condition.
Subsidies: don't get me wrong - I don't like subsidies in general. However, I can see why some countries need them. If you live in an unstable part of the world, where war could break out at any moment, you want to be self-sufficient in things like food and basic amenities and to have a decent armaments industry. If all the farms go out of production due to cheap imports, but then war breaks out 3 years later, you can barely put all the farms back into production quick enough to support the country.

A libertarian country will quickly become stable and prosperous. The problem here is statist warring not individual enterprise. If arms and food are required they will be produced. The main reason 3rd world countries cannot produce their own food is because of socialised western agriculture.
That list may make it seem that I am not so libertarian after all, but believe me that my idea of utopia is when the government does nothing but prohibit killing, stealing, lying and enslavement. Unfortuneately, we don't live in utopia and probably never will do. I don't think U.S. libertarianism accepts this fact. Perhaps, it would spread better across the world if it was a bit more flexible. Europe needs to get out of this neo-socialist conundrum!
On a separate note, have any libertarians published any judgement on the Euro?

Why should the govt prohibit anything? The truly consistent libertarian calls for an end to all taxation and statism, regardless of the "official" libertarian party position. Most people assume police protection can only be provided by the state but govt police are only about 150 years old. Private law has a proven successful track record and is much better and more libertarian than state law. At the moment we provide protection and arbitration in the same way the USSR produced food and shoes and the results are evidently the same. Poor quality, inefficiently allocated, expensive law enforcement. You are no doubt highly skeptical of privatising law so try this link

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

especially the articles by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Rod T Long's "Defending a Free Nation" on military defence without the state is also good.

All govt is an evil usurpation. We have too much govt already without importing more from Europe. Free banking (based on gold or silver for example) is the best way to provide currency. Scotland, for example, has a successful history of money supply without govt involvement.

Socialism will always be there while the state exists. As long as there is a centralised system for plundering wealth there will be people willing and able to exploit it. Limited govt has been tried but was found to be impossible. Limited govt is truly utopian, Anarchism at least might work (and there's every reason to assume it will).

I'm an American. Politically I fall somewhere between an anarchist and a libertarian socialist (this may sound like a contradiction of terms, but check out Naom Chomsky if you're curious about it). Libertarianism when it comes down to it seems to be a very concentrated effort on controlled anarchism. However I question if this would really be workable. Before I start rambling, let me clarify a thing or two I'm about to ramble about. Anarchy does not work, by the common American definition. It has essentially taken on the definition provided by those who put down Anarchism. Anarchy is violent, chaotic, and destructive. Anarchism on the otherhand is based on a very high view of human society. So when I say I'm something of an anarchist, I mean I have a strong belief in Anarchism, not anarchy. You'd think this would be obvious. Not where I live. Anyway, now to start my rant. Anarchism MAY be workable. However, I believe this possible only in the sense that there would be no one ruling crown or head of state. Collectives would have to be formed. Democratic decisions may still have to be made. Some sort of sanctions would have to be enforced, even if its just ejecting a person from a commue/collective. Otherwise murder and theft might go unpunished. Anarchism could very quickly become anarchy. I'm no fan of law, but I say this for its utilitarian necessity. Suppose one person kills another. If they are not in some way santioned, their family may take revenge. And then the family of the murder take revenge on the family of the victim. Others might jump in and soon enough the collective is at war. This is counter-productive and demeans the anarchist's goals. However, I believe Libertarianism goes a bit too far and is completely unconcerned with human life. I believe it would allow for oppression of the masses, especially if corporations and capitalists are left to run without controls set by someone. It seem the anarchists who populate the border of Spain and France. There's a corporation there...MonDragon I think, you might want to look up. It's interesting, their set-up. Well that's my rambling. A bit of insight from your brothers across the sea. ; )

I'm not advocating an end to all law enforcement, I'm advocating an end to *statist* law enforcement. Private police, courts and factory prisons based on restitution for the victim.

The reason corporations can run amock at present is because they have a symbiotic relationship with the corporate state. If there were no state the corporations can only persuade and cajole you or offer you higher wages or lower prices. They can't force you to do anything.

Collectives and democracy are for idiots. Noam Chomsky is an asshat. Statelessness does better than statism regardless of whatever level of evil is within people.

I like Libertarians.

If we were a country with PR rather than First-Past-The-Post, it would be tempting to vote for them, too.

Libertovania, thank you for your reply, but I feel that you are taking the unpractical view that I described earlier. Government will never be abolished. Force may be an affront to one's will and liberty, but it is force that reigns on earth and not justice. At the end of the day, might is right. The most we can demand is that force stands on the side of justice and does not intervene beyond that. I am a student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics and I have learnt through my studies that you politics is the least abstract of these disciplines and the practical realities of the world make overly ideological politics [such as anarcho-capitalism] a bad idea. The way a state operates is that there is one source of violence in that territory. You cannot abolish violence and the anarcho-capitalist policies would probably lead to different "protection" people battling against each other for domination. This can be seen in any country where the state has lost power or even in some areas of first world countries where it has [e.g. Sicily in Italy being most obvious, but also the big city ghettos like the Bronx in New York or Tottenham in London or whereever].

Similarly on your reply about a small country in an unstable region; if one country became libertarian, it is perfectly possible that a neighbouring authoritarian country may feel threatened by its new dogma or will perhaps see it as an easy target and will declare war. The small country's libertarian policies may have left it unable to support itself. This could even apply to Britain, as a lot can happen in 10 years of international relations and if an end to farm subsidies bring all our farms out of business, we wouldn't be able to get them back in time for war.

I see your point about pensions and I don't pretend to have a better solution, but it seems that there would be one generation that would be well-and-truely pimped if pensions were suddenly abolished like that and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

Libertovania, thank you for your reply, but I feel that you are taking the unpractical view that I described earlier. Government will never be abolished. Force may be an affront to one's will and liberty, but it is force that reigns on earth and not justice. At the end of the day, might is right. The most we can demand is that force stands on the side of justice and does not intervene beyond that. I am a student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics and I have learnt through my studies that you politics is the least abstract of these disciplines and the practical realities of the world make overly ideological politics [such as anarcho-capitalism] a bad idea. The way a state operates is that there is one source of violence in that territory. You cannot abolish violence and the anarcho-capitalist policies would probably lead to different "protection" people battling against each other for domination. This can be seen in any country where the state has lost power or even in some areas of first world countries where it has [e.g. Sicily in Italy being most obvious, but also the big city ghettos like the Bronx in New York or Tottenham in London or whereever].

Minimal statists are far more utopian and unpractical than anarcho-capitalists. It is in the nature of govt to expand and control, check out "public choice" economics. At the moment everyone here drives on the left and anyone who drove on the right would crash and die. However, if everyone started driving on the right the opposite would happen and the "lefties" would crash and die. Both equilibria are stable. Anarchism would be stable IF we could make the jump. We only need do it once. Ever.

Private protection agencies would prevent govt reforming. Read the link, I think you've failed to understand how private law has worked in the past and would work now. All the examples you've given suffer from a fatal flaw. If someone were to start a private police force in the Bronx or Tottenham they'd be jailed by the govt. The govt doesn't protect them but it does prevent anyone else doing it.

You're attacking the fact that I have principles? You study economics but fail to realise the benefits of competition and defend govt monopoly?


Similarly on your reply about a small country in an unstable region; if one country became libertarian, it is perfectly possible that a neighbouring authoritarian country may feel threatened by its new dogma or will perhaps see it as an easy target and will declare war. The small country's libertarian policies may have left it unable to support itself. This could even apply to Britain, as a lot can happen in 10 years of international relations and if an end to farm subsidies bring all our farms out of business, we wouldn't be able to get them back in time for war.

An armed society with miltias would be a far harder target than most current states. Check out Rod T Long's article. If farm subsidies stopped food might be more expensive but people would are already paying the difference in the taxes which pay for the subsidies. Farming wouldn't stop. Food is always the first thing people buy. The neighbouring authoritarian country would probably be busy trying to justify it's existence to it's subjects. There's no criticism of this kind that wouldn't have applied to democracy 500 years ago.

I see your point about pensions and I don't pretend to have a better solution, but it seems that there would be one generation that would be well-and-truely pimped if pensions were suddenly abolished like that and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

Would you let them starve, or might you donate some money to them? Anyway, it's a problem with the transition, not the system.

Perhaps pension funds could be created out of the proceeds of selling govt property like motorways and council offices.

I'm not advocating an end to all law enforcement, I'm advocating an end to *statist* law enforcement. Private police, courts and factory prisons based on restitution for the victim.

Why is one form of oppression bad and another ok?

The reason corporations can run amock at present is because they have a symbiotic relationship with the corporate state. If there were no state the corporations can only persuade and cajole you or offer you higher wages or lower prices. They can't force you to do anything.

I know. Starvation and selling your freedom are such nice options.

Collectives and democracy are for idiots. Noam Chomsky is an asshat. Statelessness does better than statism regardless of whatever level of evil is within people.

Democracy, for idiots? I didn't know someone could have such contempt for freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm not advocating an end to all law enforcement, I'm advocating an end to *statist* law enforcement. Private police, courts and factory prisons based on restitution for the victim.

Why is one form of oppression bad and another ok?

Voluntary submission to authority is not the same as forced submission to authority. Governments require all people within their borders to adhere to their laws and enforce those laws with violence. Private police would be used as security for neighborhood or other communities and as internal police based on an agreed upon set of rules.

Collectives and democracy are for idiots. Noam Chomsky is an asshat. Statelessness does better than statism regardless of whatever level of evil is within people.

Democracy, for idiots? I didn't know someone could have such contempt for freedom.

Democracy isn't freedom, it's rule of the majority. Freedom is rule of the individual.

Perhaps pension funds could be created out of the proceeds of selling govt property like motorways and council offices.

That is the single most interesting idea I have heard all week. A government could effectively refinance everything into the private sector without losing any of its efficacy, but allowing for greater personal freedom and less government interference.

I'm not advocating an end to all law enforcement, I'm advocating an end to *statist* law enforcement. Private police, courts and factory prisons based on restitution for the victim.

Why is one form of oppression bad and another ok?
Not all law enforcement is oppression. Protection of person and property are legitimate, or do you lube up every day on the off chance you might get raped (you wouldn't want to oppress them by resisting). State law enforcement goes beyond legitimate protection and is paid for with stolen money.

I know. Starvation and selling your freedom are such nice options.
Get a job, hippy.
Democracy, for idiots? I didn't know someone could have such contempt for freedom.

What have freedom and democracy got to do with each other? How is putting your freedom up to the vote of your neighbours an extension of your liberty? Only an idiot would do this. Hence, my contention that "democracy is for idiots".

Voluntary submission to authority is not the same as forced submission to authority. Governments require all people within their borders to adhere to their laws and enforce those laws with violence. Private police would be used as security for neighborhood or other communities and as internal police based on an agreed upon set of rules.


Capitalists require all those who work for them to follow orders and the workers have to work to survive.

Democracy isn't freedom, it's rule of the majority. Freedom is rule of the individual.

"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't freedom. It's rule by the capitalist.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

This thread reeks of dystopia.

This idealistic perversion would make Orwell himself cringe.

This thread reeks of dystopia.

This idealistic perversion would make Orwell himself cringe.
What's idealistic about it? It's solid economic theory backed up with real life historical examples. Why don't you raise specific objections instead of showing off?

Voluntary submission to authority is not the same as forced submission to authority. Governments require all people within their borders to adhere to their laws and enforce those laws with violence. Private police would be used as security for neighborhood or other communities and as internal police based on an agreed upon set of rules.


Capitalists require all those who work for them to follow orders and the workers have to work to survive.

Democracy isn't freedom, it's rule of the majority. Freedom is rule of the individual.

"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't freedom. It's rule by the capitalist.


All this assumes that there is no freedom to set out on your own and start your own business. You may not make as much money as you might working for the big multi-national. On the other hand, you may end up as the next Bill Gates. At least the government (or the social structure you may deem the "anachist" power structure, that you would have take the place of government) would not be setting the agenda. Anarcho-capitalism allows the hard laws of nature, aka the market, which cannot be denied, to control who will succeed.

Voluntary submission to authority is not the same as forced submission to authority. Governments require all people within their borders to adhere to their laws and enforce those laws with violence. Private police would be used as security for neighborhood or other communities and as internal police based on an agreed upon set of rules.


Capitalists require all those who work for them to follow orders and the workers have to work to survive.

Democracy isn't freedom, it's rule of the majority. Freedom is rule of the individual.

"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't freedom. It's rule by the capitalist.

I'm sorry, who was talking about Capitalism? We were talking here about authority and Democracy, not Capitalism, and on top of that, the things you have to say about Capitalism do nothing but reveal your ignorance on the subject.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24


BTW, Buddhist, not Christian, but I am familiar with the biblical quote you are using for a sig, and I wonder if you realize that the www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/43.htm+matthew+camel&hl=en]meaning (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:AOglVJNoPqwJ:[url) [/url] might undercut your attempted point?

BTW, Buddhist, not Christian, but I am familiar with the biblical quote you are using for a sig, and I wonder if you realize that the meaning might undercut your attempted point?

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

Direct advocation of communism.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

BTW, Buddhist, not Christian, but I am familiar with the biblical quote you are using for a sig, and I wonder if you realize that the meaning might undercut your attempted point?

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

Direct advocation of communism.

You really need to learn more about Communism. It may sound silly, but go to the source and read the Manifesto. It's not as much about redistribution of wealth as about the inevitability of a collapse of statist Capitalism.

This thread reeks of dystopia.

This idealistic perversion would make Orwell himself cringe.
What's idealistic about it? It's solid economic theory backed up with real life historical examples. Why don't you raise specific objections instead of showing off?

Real life historical examples? Name one laissez faire capitalist society please.

It's idealistic because it assumes that all people are content holding the property rights of others above the human rights of themselves. Not everyone is an econocrat, you know.

The models economists use are inherently idealistic.

This thread reeks of dystopia.

This idealistic perversion would make Orwell himself cringe.
What's idealistic about it? It's solid economic theory backed up with real life historical examples. Why don't you raise specific objections instead of showing off?

Real life historical examples? Name one laissez faire capitalist society please.

It's idealistic because it assumes that all people are content holding the property rights of others above the human rights of themselves. Not everyone is an econocrat, you know.

The models economists use are inherently idealistic.

Britain under Thatcher or The U.S. in the late 1800s. Neither was amazingly great because there were some unfortunately impediments (which are difficult at best to avoid) to the smooth operation of anarchic Capitalism.

This thread reeks of dystopia.

This idealistic perversion would make Orwell himself cringe.
What's idealistic about it? It's solid economic theory backed up with real life historical examples. Why don't you raise specific objections instead of showing off?

Real life historical examples? Name one laissez faire capitalist society please.

It's idealistic because it assumes that all people are content holding the property rights of others above the human rights of themselves. Not everyone is an econocrat, you know.

The models economists use are inherently idealistic.

Britain under Thatcher or The U.S. in the late 1800s. Neither was amazingly great because there were some unfortunately impediments (which are difficult at best to avoid) to the smooth operation of anarchic Capitalism.

No...Britain under Thatcher was far from a laissez faire capitalist society, despite the Prime Sinister's best efforts. The US in the late 1800's would definately be closer, but that seems to serve more as a warning against attempts at it, unless you're a John Wayne fan anyway.

No...Britain under Thatcher was far from a laissez faire capitalist society, despite the Prime Sinister's best efforts. The US in the late 1800's would definately be closer, but that seems to serve more as a warning against attempts at it, unless you're a John Wayne fan anyway.

I agree that lassez faire Capitalism is dangerous if it is not properly implemented. There is a time and a place for it, however. If properly sheparded anarchic Capitalism could be very good for everyone involved. Unfortunately the results of mistakes are very severe, and right now it is simply not worth the risk to attempt to create a working anarchic community.

BTW, Buddhist, not Christian, but I am familiar with the biblical quote you are using for a sig, and I wonder if you realize that the meaning might undercut your attempted point?

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

Direct advocation of communism.

The "camel through a needles eye" describes something difficult. not something impossible. that would seem to undermine your argument....

(And changing to a different Biblical quote will not change that...)

No...Britain under Thatcher was far from a laissez faire capitalist society, despite the Prime Sinister's best efforts. The US in the late 1800's would definately be closer, but that seems to serve more as a warning against attempts at it, unless you're a John Wayne fan anyway.

I agree that lassez faire Capitalism is dangerous if it is not properly implemented. There is a time and a place for it, however. If properly sheparded anarchic Capitalism could be very good for everyone involved. Unfortunately the results of mistakes are very severe, and right now it is simply not worth the risk to attempt to create a working anarchic community.

My "concept society" of choice is very different, but fair enough.

I guess my point is that for the time being at least, the Western mixed economy is the best bet for the highest standards of living.

The "camel through a needles eye" describes something difficult. not something impossible. that would seem to undermine your argument....

I think that explaination was invented to help the rich.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What I like about libertarians:
Their gay marriage stance
Their tax stance
their economy stance

What I don't like:
Their Drug Legalization Stance.

EDIT: Wow, I can't spell today :)

What I don't like:
Their Drug Legalization Stance.

I partially agree. Marijuana should be legalised, but anything harder than that should not.

It is true that when it is outlawed, more people will do it. Perfect examples are teens and prohibition.


With that said, how about a little propaganda?
Move to the region of 'Libertarianism'. Forget that dictatorship you live in now, move to where the government is almost non-existent!

I have been leaning lately toward leftist libertarianism.
My understanding is that such folks would not do away with government pensions, but would give peoplpe the option of investing their pensions in different private funds, which would be insured.
Unlike the right, they would also remove the legislative props (taxes, regulation, tariff) which prop up capitalist enterprise. Let it be truly competitive.

My greatest misgiving is in the dangers of monopoly. I feel that just as government is better when it is on a smaller scale, so is business.

I have been leaning lately toward leftist libertarianism.
My understanding is that such folks would not do away with government pensions, but would give peoplpe the option of investing their pensions in different private funds, which would be insured.
Unlike the right, they would also remove the legislative props (taxes, regulation, tariff) which prop up capitalist enterprise. Let it be truly competitive.

My greatest misgiving is in the dangers of monopoly. I feel that just as government is better when it is on a smaller scale, so is business.Leftist Liberatarianism? That's weird, considering libertarians are usually to the right on most issues... Would that put you somewhere in the middle?

I have been leaning lately toward leftist libertarianism.
My understanding is that such folks would not do away with government pensions, but would give peoplpe the option of investing their pensions in different private funds, which would be insured.
Unlike the right, they would also remove the legislative props (taxes, regulation, tariff) which prop up capitalist enterprise. Let it be truly competitive.

My greatest misgiving is in the dangers of monopoly. I feel that just as government is better when it is on a smaller scale, so is business.Leftist Liberatarianism? That's weird, considering libertarians are usually to the right on most issues... Would that put you somewhere in the middle?

I'm the same, and I find that it means we're not really anywhere on the Left-Right spectrum. A two axis chart like the one used by politicalcomapss allows for greater accuracy of catagorization.

The earliest proponents (or really just theorists) of Capitalism had the same worries about monopoly, and felt that the government could best serve its citizens by preventing the abuses of the Capitalist system such as monopolies and fraud.

After you google "libertarian left" for examples, check out the "World's Sallest Political Quiz" here. (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)



Here are my results:
Your Political Philosophy

According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.

Libertarian [But right on the borderline with left-liberal; the graph didn't copy]
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.

Find out how to get free information about libertarian ideas.


The red dot on the chart shows where you fit on the political map.
Find out more about:

Libertarianism

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 60%.

Scores falling on the centrist border are counted as centrist.

2,803,680 users have taken the quiz so far. Results are renewed after each submission

Libertarian 34.63 %
Left-liberal 19.08 %
Centrist 30.18 %
Right-Conservative 7.30 %
Authoritarian 8.81 %