NationStates Jolt Archive

Libertarians believe in freedom, freedom in all cases, freedom at the expense of all else. Economic freedom, social freedom, personal freedom.


Democrats will restrict freedom if (in their eyes) it is detrimental to the general good, or society.

Republicans will restrict freedom if it conflicts with their morality (or religion).


Do you think this sums it up, or is it a partisan skewed version? :p

Honestly, I think this describes the underlying philosophies of both (or all three) ideologies.

Libertarians believe in freedom, freedom in all cases, freedom at the expense of all else. Economic freedom, social freedom, personal freedom.


Democrats will restrict freedom if (in their eyes) it is detrimental to the general good, or society.

Republicans will restrict freedom if it conflicts with their morality (or religion).


Do you think this sums it up, or is it a partisan skewed version? :p

Honestly, I think this describes the underlying philosophies of both (or all three) ideologies.


Meh. That's mostly where they're at right now. I would put it more like this though.

Libertarian:

Economic: Lots of freedoms.
Personal: Lots of freedoms.

Democrat:

Economic: Some freedoms.
Personal: Some restrictions.

Republican:

Economic: Some restrictions.
Personal: Some freedoms.

Freedom of corporations is not economic freedom.
A corporation is not a human being and does not deserve freedom. The freedom of the corporations is actually in direct conflict with the individual economic freedom.

My view on this:
libertarian = freedom for the corporations.
republicans = freedom for the white christians.
democrats = freedom for the minorities.

What the US lacks is a socialist party (which is feedom for the working majority in my opinion).

Freedom of corporations is not economic freedom.
A corporation is not a human being and does not deserve freedom. The freedom of the corporations is actually in direct conflict with the individual economic freedom.

A corporation is a collective of human beings that is defined (rightly or wrongly) as one entity under the law. That collective has just as much right to economic freedom as an individual does.

What the US lacks is a socialist party (which is feedom for the working majority in my opinion).

Wait 40 years or so. The Democrats will most likely become a bona fide socialist party eventually.

A corporation is a collective of human beings that is defined (rightly or wrongly) as one entity under the law. That collective has just as much right to economic freedom as an individual does.
A corporation is a concentration of capital.
Basically, it is a bunch of people (investors) who band together in order to oppress other people (the workers and the consumers) with financial terrorism.
The more they are the more power they have. They are just like an oppressive un-democratic class-based government.
If you say the corporations deserve the freedom to own your house, you must say the government deserve the freedom to own your house as well. Fighting government without fighting corporations doesn't make any sense (libertarians). The corporations will eventually become the government.

Wait... aren't we already there?

Providing jobs is now called oppression, okay then...
And thats why i'm not a socialist

Providing jobs is now called oppression, okay then...
And thats why i'm not a socialist
Work is freedom?
Gulags are freedom?
Arbeit macht frei!

A corporation is a concentration of capital.

That too, yes.

Basically, it is a bunch of people (investors) who band together in order to oppress other people (the workers and the consumers) with financial terrorism.

Yes, of courses it is. :rolleyes: Every CEO wakes up in the morning and wonders how he can find a new way to oppress everyone, I'm sure.

The more they are the more power they have. They are just like an oppressive un-democratic class-based government.

True, in a sense, but you're going a bit overboard.

If you say the corporations deserve the freedom to own your house, you must say the government deserve the freedom to own your house as well.

Seeing as noone ever said anything like that, I think you should go back to your padded cell now.

Fighting government without fighting corporations doesn't make any sense (libertarians). The corporations will eventually become the government.

Suddenly your sense of reality improves, but you still have to interject extremism into the mix, unfortunately.

Wait... aren't we already there?

Yes, and you should probably take this chill pill. You need it desperately.

libertarians claim to believe in freedom as once did republicans and democrats.

but there is freedom and there is freedom

there is the freedom to stop swining your arm where the next guy's nose begins.

there is freedom from stress and mundaneness for all

or there is only the freedom to indenture yourself to mass consumption which is what the coalition of bizzdroids and
holy roller fanatics are really saying when they let corporate economic interests get away with murder while
continuing to micromanage your private life as an individual

libertarians have a pretty sounding name
but as with republicans, democrates and everyone else
caveat emptitor
ask yourself what freedoms do they really support
when they support continuing to use general tax fund revinues to pave streets and highways, thereby defacto subsidising the oil and automotive industries at the expense of other modes of transportation.

republicans and libertarians support the freedom of corporate capitol to get away with murder.
democrates and greens support your personal freedom as an individual.

libertarians are by and large more honest then republicans though,
as being in their possition they have a vested intrest in trying harder,
as do greens.

=^^=
.../\...

Wait 40 years or so. The Democrats will most likely become a bona fide socialist party eventually.

Wait 40 years? I think they were 40 years ago. Labor unions (the working class) have always flocked to the Democrats because they pander to these groups by forwarding "feel good" programs at the expense of individuals through taxes and corporations through restrictive policies.

As for taxes....corporations do not pay taxes. They pass that expense over to their customers meaning everytime you buy something, the amount you pay for that item includes the taxes the company pays to local and federal government. Want to know how much less a loaf of bread would cost if the bakery was tax exempt? Less than 50% of what it costs now.

Wait 40 years? I think they were 40 years ago. Labor unions (the working class) have always flocked to the Democrats because they pander to these groups by forwarding "feel good" programs at the expense of individuals through taxes and corporations through restrictive policies.

They aren't socialists yet, though they do have socialist policies. The Republicans do too, though, and I don't think that you could call the Republicans socialists at this point. Democrats at this point still prefer a mixed economy. When they socialize everything in sight and set the tax brackets so that everybody ends up with the same income, then they'll be socialists. So far I haven't seen them do that, though they're moving in that direction. Hence my projection.

They aren't socialists yet, though they do have socialist policies. The Republicans do too, though, and I don't think that you could call the Republicans socialists at this point. Democrats at this point still prefer a mixed economy. When they socialize everything in sight and set the tax brackets so that everybody ends up with the same income, then they'll be socialists. So far I haven't seen them do that, though they're moving in that direction. Hence my projection.

They must be stopped.....

As we saw in the Soviet Union....socialism does not work. It goes against human nature.

Wait 40 years? I think they were 40 years ago. Labor unions (the working class) have always flocked to the Democrats because they pander to these groups by forwarding "feel good" programs at the expense of individuals through taxes and corporations through restrictive policies.

As for taxes....corporations do not pay taxes. They pass that expense over to their customers meaning everytime you buy something, the amount you pay for that item includes the taxes the company pays to local and federal government. Want to know how much less a loaf of bread would cost if the bakery was tax exempt? Less than 50% of what it costs now.

More likely they would keep the price the same and reap the benefits...

Yes, of courses it is. :rolleyes: Every CEO wakes up in the morning and wonders how he can find a new way to oppress everyone, I'm sure.I was not talking about CEOs. Read again please. I was talking about investors.
This is a common mistake made by those who don't want to hear any critizism of capitalism. CEOs and investors are not the same.
CEOs work. Investors don't.

True, in a sense, but you're going a bit overboard.

Seeing as noone ever said anything like that, I think you should go back to your padded cell now.

Suddenly your sense of reality improves, but you still have to interject extremism into the mix, unfortunately.

Yes, and you should probably take this chill pill. You need it desperately.
Actually it was about libertarianism. The libertarians are those who are going overboard.
But it is common to resort to ad hominem and to call the critic mad when you don't want to hear it.

More likely they would keep the price the same and reap the benefits...
I was going to say that.
Libertarians cry about the taxes imposed by the government, but what about the tax imposed by the investors?
At least government's taxes are redistributed.

What's the difference between an oligarchy and a place where everything belongs to one class and where the property is tranfered from father to son?

They aren't socialists yet, though they do have socialist policies. The Republicans do too, though, and I don't think that you could call the Republicans socialists at this point. Democrats at this point still prefer a mixed economy. When they socialize everything in sight and set the tax brackets so that everybody ends up with the same income, then they'll be socialists. So far I haven't seen them do that, though they're moving in that direction. Hence my projection.
You clearly don't understand socialism. Everybody does not have the same income in socialist states.

My son once came to me to ask what the difference was between a Democrat and a Republican.

I told him that Democratic philosophy is based upon the idea that people are basically untrustworthy and therefore need programs and regulations to guide and protect them. They tend to see the Constitution as a set of guidelines and any act not specifically outlawed by it is implicitly allowed.

I told him that Republican philosophy is based upon the idea that people are basically disciplined (or at least have that potential) and therefore do not need so many programs and regulations, that they can find their own way and need no protection. They tend to see he Constitution as a rigid set of rules and any act not explicitly permitted by it is not legal.

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives could be explained in much the same way.

They must be stopped.....

As we saw in the Soviet Union....socialism does not work. It goes against human nature.


As we saw in the Great Depression...capitalism does not work.

Or do you think the New Deal and all that welfare state stuff was the incorrect response?


I do not think the Democrat party will ever become true socialist, however. Any more than the Republican party will become Neo-Nazis. In this two-party system, both must remain semi close to the middle.

Libertarians are the exception, since they are socially liberal while economically conservative.

Interestingly though, the Repubs and Dems have swapped most of their ideologies from a hundred years ago, due in large part to the Southern Dixiecrats jumping ship and joining the GOP, and the Democrats picking up the unionists and city folk to compensate.

libertarian = freedom for the corporations.
republicans = freedom for the white christians.
democrats = freedom for the minorities.

What the US lacks is a socialist party (which is feedom for the working majority in my opinion).

Libertarians also support freedom for, well everyone. They are anti-drug law, anti-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action...basically, they just want the government out of their lives. You could say they're a step up from anarchy.

And I think there is a difference between freedom and power. For instance, when you say freedom for white christians, that really means power to the white christians to impose their morals on everyone else.

Libertarians also support freedom for, well everyone. They are anti-drug law, anti-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action...basically, they just want the government out of their lives. You could say they're a step up from anarchy.

And I think there is a difference between freedom and power. For instance, when you say freedom for white christians, that really means power to the white christians to impose their morals on everyone else.

That's fine, but if the goverment was out out everybodies lives, who would stop the enrons, the worldcoms, the savings and loans, the junk bonds.

What is also scary is bardanacks desire to privatise the police.

Libertarians believe in freedom, freedom in all cases, freedom at the expense of all else. Economic freedom, social freedom, personal freedom.
Well I do like being Libertarian, and your portrayal of them, even if it may contain some bias (But I like Libertarian bias! :p)

On a more serious note, however: Do you believe in placing any restrictions on corporations to prevent corruption/fraud, and secure workers' rights? How about privatizing groups like the police or education?

Honestly, I do believe in some restrictions on corporations, but as few as possible - keep the market as free as it can, while curtailing corruption and securing worker's rights (But we shouldn't be overzealous with it like some Democrats).

And I'm not *so* Libertarian as to privatize enteties like the police and educations - those I think should still be part of the government

That's fine, but if the goverment was out out everybodies lives, who would stop the enrons, the worldcoms, the savings and loans, the junk bonds.
I keep seeing this mistake over and over. The Libertarian party is not pro-corporation. The Libertarian party is pro-capitalism. The LP actually wants to strip most of the laws and protections that corporations are curently using to shield themselves from taxes and consequences of business decisions/actions. Enrons would not be able to exist for long under a Libertarian economy.

Or do you think the New Deal and all that welfare state stuff was the incorrect response?
It was the wrong response. WWII got us out of the Depression, not jacking taxes up on the rich 70% and spending money like crazy.

I was going to say that.
Libertarians cry about the taxes imposed by the government, but what about the tax imposed by the investors?
At least government's taxes are redistributed.

What's the difference between an oligarchy and a place where everything belongs to one class and where the property is tranfered from father to son?
Tax imposed by investors is simply additional expense added onto a product. This is a bad analogy because:
1. Investors cannot take my money by force whereas the government can.
2. Investors cannot raise the cost of their product to levels that people are unwilling to pay, because then they will either do without that product or they will find a cheaper distributor.

If the corporation charges $10 each for the widgets they manufacture, it's a good deal. I will buy one because that widget is worth as much or more to me than that $10 was. If they suddenly "tax" their product to the point that it costs $20, I might not buy it depending on how much I valued my money in comparison to it.

The important thing here is that any taxes or fees brought about by a private enterprise are entirely voluntary and can only be received by contract. They can't FORCE me to pay them anything if I have ordered no service in return.

I keep seeing this mistake over and over. The Libertarian party is not pro-corporation. The Libertarian party is pro-capitalism. The LP actually wants to strip most of the laws and protections that corporations are curently using to shield themselves from taxes and consequences of business decisions/actions. Enrons would not be able to exist for long under a Libertarian economy.

All right.

How does a Liberterian Goverment handle WorldCom then?

Capitolism is not devoid of corruption and the self-correcting anaology does not fly for me.....

All right.

How does a Liberterian Goverment handle WorldCom then?

Capitolism is not devoid of corruption and the self-correcting anaology does not fly for me.....
Simple, the chief agents of WorldCom are directly responsible for the damages incurred in the execution of business. Corporations lose their status as a separate entity, and it reverts to a collection of people. Those people are directly responsible for what happens in the course of business. There's nothing in the world that can stop bad people from being bad, but a Libertarian system would at least take out the tax incentives to cheat, and remove the protections that more often than not protect the very criminals who instigated the mess in the first place.

If the corporation charges $10 each for the widgets they manufacture, it's a good deal. I will buy one because that widget is worth as much or more to me than that $10 was. If they suddenly "tax" their product to the point that it costs $20, I might not buy it depending on how much I valued my money in comparison to it.

The important thing here is that any taxes or fees brought about by a private enterprise are entirely voluntary and can only be received by contract. They can't FORCE me to pay them anything if I have ordered no service in return.
Which is all well and good for products that you don't particularily need, but when a corporation jacks up the price on food, medicine, clothes, homes, etc., you have to pay the extra or starve/get sick/be homeless/whatever else. And don't tell me that the "free market" would magically offer up competition with a lower price: if the competition sees someone raise the price, they'll do so as well to make more money. Corporations, by their nature, exist solely to concentrate wealth in the few at the top. They aren't benevolent or malevolent, it's just what they do. Hence, without regulation, they would benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Corporations:
A corporations is just a group of hardworking, FREE enterprising people with a technology or product they would like to distribute in exchange for money. The government monopolizes thousands of buisness oppurtunities and has done the worst damage to the enviroment than an oil industry has. Corporations hire voluntary workers wishing to produce goods and offer their labor hours in exchange for currency to trade for other luxury items, and food.

Enviroment:
In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.

Basics:
So Libertarians believe in a high level of personal freedom and economic freedom and tolerate social and economic diversity. They believe in very small federal government and a self-governing society of confederated states.
Classical Conservatives believe in a moderate level of economic freedom while limiting some personal rights in the interests of moral decency. They believe in small effecient federal governments.
Western Liberals(Democratic Socialists) believe in an average level of personal freedom and almost no private enterprising freedoms. They support large, powerful, and controlling federal governments. Liberals want large welfare states and are all about taking things by force*cough*taxes
Neo-Conservatives(Founders of Neo Conservativism were actually ex trotskyites) believe in large and powerful federal governments. They believe in a low amount of private enterprising freedom and want the government to subsidise and control the economy and large industries. They also offer a low amount of personal freedoms. NeoConservatives want large welfare and warmonging states.

keep in mind the evolving nature of any of these human-created states;
it remains to be seen which is most "effective" but it only seems natural that one would, eventually, come out on top, as any convergent system ultimately would, with either one single dominant system or just the ol' endless cycle of alternating systems that swing back and forth, ad infinitum...

Libertarians believe in freedom, freedom in all cases, freedom at the expense of all else. Economic freedom, social freedom, personal freedom.


Democrats will restrict freedom if (in their eyes) it is detrimental to the general good, or society.

Republicans will restrict freedom if it conflicts with their morality (or religion).


Do you think this sums it up, or is it a partisan skewed version? :p

Honestly, I think this describes the underlying philosophies of both (or all three) ideologies.

Actually, Libertarians belong in an entirely seperate category from Democrats and Republicans, because while Democrats and Republicans ipso facto agree on the fundamental principle behind laws, Libertarians take a very different view.

Each party basically believes in the concept of maximizing freedom as the number one priority of any just government. Where Libertarians split from Republicans and Democrats is that unlike the other two parties, who take a more Lockean approach to laws (namely that laws are often a way to increase freedom, rather than limit it), Libertarians follow John Stuart Mill's logic that any law by definition impinges on freedom. As such, in order to maximize freedom, they must minimize the number of laws and the number of areas into which the law intrudes. As such, a Libertarian will traditionally be adamantly against such things as drug regulation, abolition of abortion, or immigration laws, as they limit the freedom of people to do things. Of course, on the flip side, it also means that they are in favor of abolishing things like minimum wage and overtime work laws, business oversight and regulation, and institutions like the Federal Reserve, because they also limit freedom, specifically the freedom of the market to come up with the optimum solution on it's own.

Democrats and Rebublicans fundamentally disagree with this approach, because they tend to see the notion that law by definition impedes on freedom as an absurdity. After all, if you are in a system of government where the only assurance that you won't get shot and mugged is a) you have enough money to buy bodyguards to protect you, or b) trusting to the rationality of other people, most people would say that you're not living in a very free society: you're living in an anarchical state of nature society, and the state of nature is not usually very fun or free. Where they disagree, however, is over which side of the social contract theory the fall on.

Republicans tend to fall on the Hobbesian side of the social contract. The basic premise behind most Republican philosophy (and mind you, this isn't the "all people should be free" doublespeak they talk about, it's the actual operating premise their actions seem motivated by) is that humans, if given the chance, will naturally abuse any power given to them. In that sense, they agree with the Founding Fathers. Where they disagree with the Founding Fathers is to assume that the best solution to this problem is to use governmental power to ameliorate this natural tendency. The first way they do this is to directly limit certain actions: outlawing certain illicit substances, banning abortion, and other forms of social regulation. The other way is to provide them with incentives to behave. This is why Republicans like to let the market run as free as possible: if people have obligations to meet to themselves, they tend to a greater extent not to cause problems with the social order. As such, by imposing some form of law, Republicans feel that they maximize freedom.

Democrats, on the other hand, take a more Rousseaunian approach to government. Unlike the Founding Fathers, Democrats are more trusting of people, and generally assume they're sensible enough to operate on their own without the overbearing will of the government forcing them too. Where they agree with the Founding Fathers is that because of this inherent rationality, Democrats don't think it necessary to have a lot of social laws in place. While abortion, ingestion of harmful substances, etc. might be wrong, they are at least tolerable to the social order, and moreover people are better off when they figure such things out for themselves, and not when the Leviathan tells them so. But on the other hand, when Democrats look at the market, they see a massive tool of social oppression. CEO's might not deliberately look for ways to oppress the masses, but if their job is to maximize efficiency, and efficiency dictates that people get stomped on to raise the monthly earnings-to-share ratio, then the effect is just the same. As such, Democrats feel that the best way to maximize freedom of people is to regulate the market to prevent said masses from getting squished in the gears of industry.

I keep seeing this mistake over and over. The Libertarian party is not pro-corporation. The Libertarian party is pro-capitalism. The LP actually wants to strip most of the laws and protections that corporations are curently using to shield themselves from taxes and consequences of business decisions/actions. Enrons would not be able to exist for long under a Libertarian economy.

No, but in the period closest to Libertarian ideals, the Gilded Age, the risk was not from Enron; it was from Standard Oil, a company that didn't need to mooch off the government because it could buy it out if need be. That's kind of the equivalent of taking away a taser from a child and giving him an RPG instead.

It was the wrong response. WWII got us out of the Depression, not jacking taxes up on the rich 70% and spending money like crazy.

I believe things turned around in America before we entered WWII. Due in large part to FDR's programs. I suppose you think that 25% of the country was unemployed cause "they were lazy" right?

Or is war the proper response to economic troubles? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Simple, the chief agents of WorldCom are directly responsible for the damages incurred in the execution of business. Corporations lose their status as a separate entity, and it reverts to a collection of people. Those people are directly responsible for what happens in the course of business. There's nothing in the world that can stop bad people from being bad, but a Libertarian system would at least take out the tax incentives to cheat, and remove the protections that more often than not protect the very criminals who instigated the mess in the first place.

Problem: Tax cheating is one thing. Bilking investors is something else. If a company like worldcom has reach across the world, how do you prosecute.

Finally, Liberterian politicians are free from corruption? They will never offer favors?

It's a rosey picture you paint, but I really can't see it happening.

A corporation is a concentration of capital.
Basically, it is a bunch of people (investors) who band together in order to oppress other people (the workers and the consumers) with financial terrorism.
The more they are the more power they have. They are just like an oppressive un-democratic class-based government.
If you say the corporations deserve the freedom to own your house, you must say the government deserve the freedom to own your house as well. Fighting government without fighting corporations doesn't make any sense (libertarians). The corporations will eventually become the government.

Wait... aren't we already there?



Congratulations, you are an idiot. Financial terrorism? Where do you get this crap? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and actually read Marx. Communism will never work, and he knew it. Socialism is intended for small groups, not nations.

I'd argue with you more, but everyone knows the special olympics quote. I also don't think I'd be able to change your mind, because you're a fanatic wholely devoted to an idiotic ideal.

Congratulations, you are an idiot. Financial terrorism? Where do you get this crap? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and actually read Marx. Communism will never work, and he knew it. Socialism is intended for small groups, not nations.

I'd argue with you more, but everyone knows the special olympics quote. I also don't think I'd be able to change your mind, because you're a fanatic wholely devoted to an idiotic ideal.

Okay, I have read Marx. Where exactly did he ever say that it only works in small groups? I can think of a few possibilities for why you would say that:

1) Perhaps you are mistaking his take on primitive communism in early agricultural societies for "intended for small groups, not nations."

2) You are mistaking the micro form of communism (which is the individual soviet of a single factory), for the macro form (there would be an entire world composed of soviets.

3) You've never read Marx.

4) You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Let me do a small breakdown of Marx's theory for you: As industry grows in power and ability to control the lives of it's workers and to a greater and greater extent in it's quest for efficiency push them down and down, what we might think of as normal identities (such as national identities, racial identities, or religious identities) will be pushed aside in favor of a single dialectic: the bourgeouis and the proletariat. As history advances, the bourgeouis will push the proletariat further and further, until such a point as the proletariat as a mass forcibly revolt and either succeed or fail in their revolution against the bourgeouisie. However, never anywhere did he say that it would happen only in small groups (indeed, this would be completely counter to the idea of revolt in the first place, as the greatest strength of the proletariat is their mass in numbers), or only in certain countries (he was an internationalist of the first order). The idea that Marx didn't advocate mass revolution or that he didn't believe his own theory is absurd.

Libertarians believe in freedom, freedom in all cases, freedom at the expense of all else. Economic freedom, social freedom, personal freedom.


Democrats will restrict freedom if (in their eyes) it is detrimental to the general good, or society.

Republicans will restrict freedom if it conflicts with their morality (or religion).


Do you think this sums it up, or is it a partisan skewed version? :p

Honestly, I think this describes the underlying philosophies of both (or all three) ideologies.

Not bad for a oneline summary, although I honestly think these two would be better:

Democrats will attempt to limit freedom for certain classes if it will gain them votes from other classes.

Republicans will attempt to limit what certain classes refer to as freedom if they think it will benefit either their concept of security, or if they think it will help the business economy.

I think your statement on the Libertarians is fairly accurate, although I'm not as familiar with their positions.

Actually, Libertarians belong in an entirely seperate category from Democrats and Republicans, because while Democrats and Republicans ipso facto agree on the fundamental principle behind laws, Libertarians take a very different view.

Each party basically believes in the concept of maximizing freedom as the number one priority of any just government. Where Libertarians split from Republicans and Democrats is that unlike the other two parties, who take a more Lockean approach to laws (namely that laws are often a way to increase freedom, rather than limit it), Libertarians follow John Stuart Mill's logic that any law by definition impinges on freedom. As such, in order to maximize freedom, they must minimize the number of laws and the number of areas into which the law intrudes. As such, a Libertarian will traditionally be adamantly against such things as drug regulation, abolition of abortion, or immigration laws, as they limit the freedom of people to do things. Of course, on the flip side, it also means that they are in favor of abolishing things like minimum wage and overtime work laws, business oversight and regulation, and institutions like the Federal Reserve, because they also limit freedom, specifically the freedom of the market to come up with the optimum solution on it's own.

Democrats and Rebublicans fundamentally disagree with this approach, because they tend to see the notion that law by definition impedes on freedom as an absurdity. After all, if you are in a system of government where the only assurance that you won't get shot and mugged is a) you have enough money to buy bodyguards to protect you, or b) trusting to the rationality of other people, most people would say that you're not living in a very free society: you're living in an anarchical state of nature society, and the state of nature is not usually very fun or free. Where they disagree, however, is over which side of the social contract theory the fall on.

Republicans tend to fall on the Hobbesian side of the social contract. The basic premise behind most Republican philosophy (and mind you, this isn't the "all people should be free" doublespeak they talk about, it's the actual operating premise their actions seem motivated by) is that humans, if given the chance, will naturally abuse any power given to them. In that sense, they agree with the Founding Fathers. Where they disagree with the Founding Fathers is to assume that the best solution to this problem is to use governmental power to ameliorate this natural tendency. The first way they do this is to directly limit certain actions: outlawing certain illicit substances, banning abortion, and other forms of social regulation. The other way is to provide them with incentives to behave. This is why Republicans like to let the market run as free as possible: if people have obligations to meet to themselves, they tend to a greater extent not to cause problems with the social order. As such, by imposing some form of law, Republicans feel that they maximize freedom.

Democrats, on the other hand, take a more Rousseaunian approach to government. Unlike the Founding Fathers, Democrats are more trusting of people, and generally assume they're sensible enough to operate on their own without the overbearing will of the government forcing them too. Where they agree with the Founding Fathers is that because of this inherent rationality, Democrats don't think it necessary to have a lot of social laws in place. While abortion, ingestion of harmful substances, etc. might be wrong, they are at least tolerable to the social order, and moreover people are better off when they figure such things out for themselves, and not when the Leviathan tells them so. But on the other hand, when Democrats look at the market, they see a massive tool of social oppression. CEO's might not deliberately look for ways to oppress the masses, but if their job is to maximize efficiency, and efficiency dictates that people get stomped on to raise the monthly earnings-to-share ratio, then the effect is just the same. As such, Democrats feel that the best way to maximize freedom of people is to regulate the market to prevent said masses from getting squished in the gears of industry.

No, but in the period closest to Libertarian ideals, the Gilded Age, the risk was not from Enron; it was from Standard Oil, a company that didn't need to mooch off the government because it could buy it out if need be. That's kind of the equivalent of taking away a taser from a child and giving him an RPG instead.

Really excellent post. Very well said! Essentially, all three parties have different interpretations of what the phrase "to be free" means. Yes?

I believe things turned around in America before we entered WWII. Due in large part to FDR's programs. I suppose you think that 25% of the country was unemployed cause "they were lazy" right?

Or is war the proper response to economic troubles? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I'm saying we weren't really out of the Depression until WWII started. It wasn't as bad as the rock-bottom years of the early 30's, but it was nowhere near where it was before the Depression or after the war.

I was not talking about CEOs. Read again please. I was talking about investors.
This is a common mistake made by those who don't want to hear any critizism of capitalism. CEOs and investors are not the same.
CEOs work. Investors don't.

1.) Fine. My apologies. I'm sure the investors wake up every morning and try to think of how they're going to oppress people today. :rolleyes:

2.) I'm fine with criticisms of capitalism. I have some very serious concerns about capitalism myself.

3.) Investors generally do indeed work. They find profitable companies and provide them with capital using money they have generally earned from other sources of income. Of course, there are some people who were born wealthy and just let their money build up in lucrative accounts while they enjoy the spoils of a life of luxury, which I think is ridiculous and wasteful and wrong.

Actually it was about libertarianism. The libertarians are those who are going overboard.

1.) Huh? They aren't going anywhere. They can't even get into power on any kind of large scale. Quite frankly that's because their policies are rather impractical at this point.

2.) Libertarians are not pro-corporation. They generally see corporations as an abuse of capitalism, as I do.

But it is common to resort to ad hominem and to call the critic mad when you don't want to hear it.

You are correct. I don't want to hear it. The valid criticisms that you most certainly do have are couched in such a way as to make you look like a moron. You are not a moron, and you are usually much more objective and rational from what I've seen, so it is both annoying and disappointing to see you post something so strongly biased. You took some valid arguments and stretched them to the point where they were no longer reasonable.

...
My view on this:
libertarian = freedom for the corporations.
...


You may be surprised by what Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian U.S. Presidential Candidate, has to say about corporations and free trade. Check out a position paper on his campaign website about Free Trade at: http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php

"Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi-governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade the kind that fosters peace does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. ... The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free" -- http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php


What the US lacks is a socialist party (which is feedom for the working majority in my opinion).

The United States has two major left-socialist and right-socialist parties. They can be found on the Internet at http://www.democrats.org/ and http://www.rnc.org/ .

Some republicans aren't socialists so you can't generalize them like you can the democratic socialists in america. Either way we lose and there is nothing we can do about it because of the unfair funds that the two major parties get because they have choked the once small and free people and turned it into a corrupt bureacracy. Vote Badnarik '04!

By the way I am a libertarian in real life I just feel like being cruel to my people at the moment(in my nation)