NationStates Jolt Archive

Try to find three people who agree on the definition of "libertarian." It's almost impossible. Nobody seems to agree on anything except the most basic points. It might just be the anti-heirarchal nature of the system keeping them from having enough organization to really define anything, but I have another theory.

It's apparently the new Chic thing to be- A trendy form of rebellion against the norm that everybody's doing. About half the people I know call themselves Libertarians, only one in ten actually knows anything about it beyond "legal pot and hookers, and I won't pay any taxes." As far as I can tell, it's continuing to grow entirely from momentum- Let's face it, 1- most people who call themselves Libs are holier-than-thou assholes who think that there's something wrong with you for holding different opinions. Let's face it, 2- Most people, when being told they're less of a person for not fitting some arbitrary social standard, will internalize it, regardless of what it is, just to hope that the "cool" rubs off on them.

Look at Abercrombie, Nirvana's brief and spectacular popularity, bashing Nirvana now, or the "freshman phenomenon"*. They all had some small basis in genuine enjoyment, and a few people might have strongly liked/agreed with these opinions, but most of the time it's really just "I don't actually have an opinion, but it's cool/popular" Quite a few honestly would disagree, but to voice dissention in an unpopular way puts your social standing at risk. You'd be surprised how many people would rather go their whole life living a lie than be ostracized**. When pressed on their opinions for anything mentioned above, a good deal of people will claim either that "you're just not cool enough to understand," or "I don't really care, but x million people can't be wrong."

Also, no two Libertarians can actually agree on just what "Libertarianism" is. The party itself has nothing to do with libertarianism as presented in literature (aside from the fact that, as with Rand, they have such a massive persecution complex that they'd martyr themself if only they could figure out how to nail that other hand to the cross). Hell, Heinlein and Rand Libertarianism have nothing to do with eachother. Chumbawamba, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Neville all call(ed) themselves "Libertarian Socialists," and the only overlap between any of them is that most party Libs won't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

So, in ten years, will people be jumping on the "laughing at Libertarians" bandwagon as quickly and unthinkingly as people are joining them today, will they just be forgotten, or do you think that it actually has some staying power.



*Freshman Phenomenon := Roughly 75% of college freshman, suddenly being introduced to parties with free and plentiful alcohol will try to remain inebriated at all times, not to be dissuaded by giving frequent libations to the porcelain gods. Nearly 20% will consider anyone who drinks/smokes to be scum of the earth and have nothing to do with any of them. The remnants consist largely of those who have been exposed to the atmosphere beforehand, such that they understand it is not fun to get sick but do not mind others. Note that, as with most longstanding popular cultural institutions, it has a cult dedicated to hating it, which in itself has become old enough to continue on momentum of popularity. If this culture spawns a counter-cult, I will consider all my theories on the subject to be automatically validated.

**Ex 1, using the "Vino Veritas" standard- While 8% of folk in my dormitory consider themselves homosexual, about 30%, under the influence, have absolutely no interest in the other gender. When forced to recall, the most common reason is "Dude, no way. He fell down the stairs. I'm hard just looking at that chick that says I blew her off last night," followed closely by "my family/friends/quasi-significant other would never talk to me again."

I'm fond of the basic theory of L- Government exists to protect your rights, and it shouldn't do much more. But as for the actual methods of enacting that, most seem to forget that (and, in the party's case, actively campaign against) important bits- like roads, hospitals, police, and an army- cost money. While, yes, it's possible that competing businesses for importing oil to the united states would keep costs at a reasonable level while cutting down on overhead, the chances of it happening like are damn-near nil.

This reminds me of that tshirt with Thomas Jefferson on it saying "I was a Libertarian before it was cool!"

Libertarianism, just like conservatism and "liberalism" has many dissenting view points that disagree with each other. So what? The Libertarian Party is still in its more infant stages and is thusly growing a base and trying to create a unified party standard, not that it will achieve one seeing as no party has.

Likewise there are Republicans who think abortion should be legal and those that don't, just as there are democrats that go both ways on the issue. And any number of things. Put 3 democrats, 3 republicans and 3 libertarians in a room and you'll find no one really agrees with anyone else outside of some general points.

The Libertarian Party is "cool?!?!?!"

DAMNIT.
I liked them!

The Libertarian Party, in a nutshell believes:

1. If you don't have money, you deserve to starve and die.
2. Any form of government, anywhere, is unconstitutional.
3. The law of gravity is coercive and should therefore be repealed.
4. The world is out to take away your various rights.
5. John Locke was a moderate in his beliefs.

I used to be a member of the libertarian party of wisconsin and was on their mailing list and so forth.

My god a lot of the most vocal people in the group scared the pants off me. 9 out of 10 were way out there as far as conspiracy theories and talking about how the government tanks would be rolling in "ANY DAY NOW".

Granted I support their call for less government and more individual freedoms, but I strobngly disageed with their stances on removing gun controls and privitizing all education. Hot damn did that cause a stir when I disagreed. It was like wacking a wasps' nest.

Now, older and wiser, I am an independent.

The Libertarian Party, in a nutshell believes:

1. If you don't have money, you deserve to starve and die.
2. Any form of government, anywhere, is unconstitutional.
3. The law of gravity is coercive and should therefore be repealed.
4. The world is out to take away your various rights.
5. John Locke was a moderate in his beliefs.

Though it is often referred to as a law it is really the theory of gravity. And #2 makes no sense what so ever.

Though it is often referred to as a law it is really the theory of gravity. And #2 makes no sense what so ever.
Its called hyperbole, using exagerations as a form of humor.

Its called hyperbole, using exagerations as a form of humor.
Yes I'm well aware of what it is.

The Libertarian Party is "cool?!?!?!"

DAMNIT.
I liked them!

Don't worry- I think it'll still be a couple of years 'til people realize that they're cool. Until then, though, hating them'll just make you look crazy.

I wouldn't get too fussed over the definition of libertarianism, it's the same problem with communism, socialism, republicanism, dmocracy etc etc. I do not however like libertarianism (AKA: Jennifer government) because i believe that at heart it only supports big business and those who can afford to pay for all the social services and amenities that we otherwise collectively share. Interesting how the most well known advocates of libertarianism are white and upper/middle class. essentially the most secure community on the planet.

I'm very liberal, which means I agree with the libertarians about government intrusion in our personal lives. But we disagree about taxes and social services,

Meh ... Libertarianism is civil liberties without civic responsibility and that's a dangerous combination.

Meh ... Libertarianism is civil liberties without civic responsibility and that's a dangerous combination.
Which part of civil liberty makes it a bad combination? And, uh, Libertarianism does require civic responsibility. It just isn't compulsory. You can think of that as a civil liberty, if you like.

This is a weak thread, indeed. You've used more hyperbole and sensationalism in one post than I find in an entire issue of Rolling Stone.

I'm laughing so hard at the idea of capitalists being hip. Yeah, right. The rebel factor is sold as an exclusively liberal package. The uberliberal idea of a counterculture pervades everything from antiglobalization to environmentalism.
I'm afraid that this tag is best saved for far-left wing Democrats and socialists/communists. Duh. It's been that way since the 60's.

I think you're pointing this out because any kind of dissent from the two party system is seen as a form of attention-getting.

There are going to be these types of course. I'm a bit older than you (almost 30) and can honestly say that kids your age, no matter how involved, are a bit naive in politics period. You're opinions, and those of your pseudolibertarian friends would probably sound painfully naive to me and my peers. In other words, kids your age will do whatever it takes to be labelled "different", whether it's being conservative (far more trendy as a way to dissent, especially on campuses!) or radically, militantly liberal.

I am well aware of the Libertarian party's platform, and haven't really met anyone in the real world who calls themselves Libertarian who isn't familiar with it. Just here on NS where the kids gather.
I've met far more Republicans and Democrats without any clue as to what they're parties platforms were really all about.

To group my entire party in with your immature wannabe-intellectual high school or college friends is ignorant and offensive.
So is this sensationalist, inflammatory thread.


Look at Abercrombie, Nirvana's brief and spectacular popularity, bashing Nirvana now, or the "freshman phenomenon"*. They all had some small basis in genuine enjoyment, and a few people might have strongly liked/agreed with these opinions, but most of the time it's really just "I don't actually have an opinion, but it's cool/popular" Quite a few honestly would disagree, but to voice dissention in an unpopular way puts your social standing at risk. You'd be surprised how many people would rather go their whole life living a lie than be ostracized**. When pressed on their opinions for anything mentioned above, a good deal of people will claim either that "you're just not cool enough to understand," or "I don't really care, but x million people can't be wrong."

And this was pointless dribble.

I think you came close to creating a damn good post about an interesting topic (the dribble above was closest) to a subject that I've been discussing a lot with my ex-punk/goth/sk8ter/uberliberal friends...
Why counterculture and the rampant drive to be different is harmful to society and politics in general.

Read this book (clickey (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006074586X/qid=1107154337/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1073825-8018326?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)), and come back for something we can all really sink our teeth into. (excerpt) (http://www.harpercollins.ca/rs/excerpt.asp)
Damn, this book is really good for spanking the "different" fetishists!

Just please don't include my political party (how fucking geeky) with anything hip. :rolleyes:

Stuff said.

And yet coming from a nineteen year old college student it actually makes sense. Maybe because you dont see it, but I do. Plenty of folks calling themselves libertarian now. Granted I'm a Republican, always have considered myself one. Not out of rebellion but out of the fact I agree with the foreign policy aspects of it(dont get me started on the domestic policies..cant have your cake and eat it to unfortunately.).

Now what gets me is that you claim to be nearly 30 years old..so I'm bemused as to why someone nearly middle aged gets on these boards and insults a wide range age group. To be called naive about politics in general is similarly offensive and inflammatory but you think your the cats ass dont ya? So tell me Mr. Libertarian, how many high school students/ college students do you hang out with in the first place? Of course you wouldnt know any in the real world if frankly the only interaction you get with another generation comes from NS. But you should have realized that before going on your rant. Surprised you didnt..oh well guess that old saying with age comes wisdom was as full of it as your post was.

And yet coming from a nineteen year old college student it actually makes sense. Maybe because you dont see it, but I do. Plenty of folks calling themselves libertarian now. Granted I'm a Republican, always have considered myself one. Not out of rebellion but out of the fact I agree with the foreign policy aspects of it(dont get me started on the domestic policies..cant have your cake and eat it to unfortunately.).

Sorry. SOunds to me like you've become a Reublican just to dissent from the hoardes of Bush-hating zombie students. You did it to be different.
Doesn't that feel good when someone assumes something so broad?

Now what gets me is that you claim to be nearly 30 years old..so I'm bemused as to why someone nearly middle aged gets on these boards and insults a wide range age group.
Oh lord. It's not insulting. It's true. College students tend to be more idealistic and naive (for lack of real world experience). This is just common sense. Your parents would tell you the same thing, and they'd be right.
It's okay though. I was one of those students some time ago. Now I work and pay taxes like everyone else, so I have a basis for the beliefs I espuse on these boards.
In other words, it's not just guesswork. I'd like to see less taxation (like you) because it directly affects my life. To be called naive about politics in general is similarly offensive and inflammatory but you think your the cats ass dont ya?
That was the point, to return the favor. And yes, I've been told I'm an ass before. Just not a cat's, per se.So tell me Mr. Libertarian, how many high school students/ college students do you hang out with in the first place?
You must think I don't have siblings, cousins, etc. POlenty of kids in college and high school, thanks for asking though. Of course you wouldnt know any in the real world if frankly the only interaction you get with another generation comes from NS. But you should have realized that before going on your rant. Surprised you didnt..oh well guess that old saying with age comes wisdom was as full of it as your post was.
The above was pointless rant. Agaiun, I know plenty.
Again, thanks for assuming.

Now run along kid, you bother me.

And yet coming from a nineteen year old college student it actually makes sense. Maybe because you dont see it, but I do. Plenty of folks calling themselves libertarian now. Granted I'm a Republican, always have considered myself one. Not out of rebellion but out of the fact I agree with the foreign policy aspects of it(dont get me started on the domestic policies..cant have your cake and eat it to unfortunately.).

Now what gets me is that you claim to be nearly 30 years old..so I'm bemused as to why someone nearly middle aged gets on these boards and insults a wide range age group. To be called naive about politics in general is similarly offensive and inflammatory but you think your the cats ass dont ya? So tell me Mr. Libertarian, how many high school students/ college students do you hang out with in the first place? Of course you wouldnt know any in the real world if frankly the only interaction you get with another generation comes from NS. But you should have realized that before going on your rant. Surprised you didnt..oh well guess that old saying with age comes wisdom was as full of it as your post was.
Calm down. You're not helping your cause.

And this was pointless dribble.

Drivel ... not dribble.

Drivel ... not dribble.
You didn't get teh youth funney? :p

You didn't get teh youth funney? :p

Just bein' deliberately obtuse. :D

Just bein' deliberately obtuse. :D
Hey, that's not your style! You're always one of the few nice ones here.

Hey, that's not your style! You're always one of the few nice ones here.

Yeah, well, I gotta get my fun in sometimes! :fluffle: :fluffle:

To quote George Carlin...

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is "Libertarian." People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable and, to the uninitiated, dangerous. Actually, it's just one more bullshit political philosophy."

That being said, I agree with a lot of the Libertarian party platforms, or am at least indifferent to them...except for privatizing education. Not only am I against that idea, but the day you convince 51% of voters anywhere to follow through with this idea, is the day hell freezes over.

I used to see libertarians as extremist republicans, sort of like socialists are extremist liberals. But now I understand the truth. Libertarians are pot smoking extremist republicans. I usually aggree with them sort of, usually in less of an extremist sense, but i despise their drug ideas and their stance on educaton. beyond that, they are a useful political element. Unlike commies.

I used to see libertarians as extremist republicans, sort of like socialists are extremist liberals. But now I understand the truth. Libertarians are pot smoking extremist republicans. I usually aggree with them sort of, usually in less of an extremist sense, but i despise their drug ideas and their stance on educaton. beyond that, they are a useful political element. Unlike commies.

I generally count myself as a libertarian and I don't smoke pot... though I do agree with their drug policy.

To quote George Carlin...

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is "Libertarian." People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable and, to the uninitiated, dangerous. Actually, it's just one more bullshit political philosophy."

That being said, I agree with a lot of the Libertarian party platforms, or am at least indifferent to them...except for privatizing education. Not only am I against that idea, but the day you convince 51% of voters anywhere to follow through with this idea, is the day hell freezes over.


School voucher programs are gaining popularity all over the place. Now, school vouchers are a long step from privatization, but at least they introduce market forces(badly needed in the US primary education system) into education

Saddly, maybe I am the oldest codger on this thread -is that good/bad? I live in a college town and listen to everyone that graces the bar. It seems to me that the originator of the thread has some important observations beyond his understandable angst. I've never heard Libertarianism brought up more than in the last two years (it is a trend). Oddly, it is from middle/upper young that divorce it/don't know it's rather radical Right past. Hey, that's okay...in an uninformed way. Doesn't this speak of a focused frustration of politics as normal? Sounds to me like people latching onto a label in order to form a perfect party...baby steps? Libertarians beware, these folk do not follow the star of La Rouche (sic?) or conspiracy. I think most will drop the label...but, why they are choosing to define themselves as a third party is real. Hell, Bring back the Bull Moose! This is, in my opinion, more than a fad...it is a desire to change the 'Parents' politics. -Really annoying, by using the 'Libertarian' flag...but that will sort itself out. -so sez, El Pato.

Libertarianism is now the philosophy of choice for many high school and early college kids that don't really understand much about it yet anyways. In that sense, it is the "chic" party. Many people join without really looking into/thinking about it. Of course, that is true of any political party, but the Libertarian party is the new fad. Many of these same people read "Atlas Shrugged" and, unable to see through the fact that there isn't a single realistic character in the book, jump on the Rand bandwagon.

Most grow out of being followers and eventually come to their own conclusions - some stay fairly Libertarian, some do not.

That being said, I agree with a lot of the Libertarian party platforms, or am at least indifferent to them...
That's basically where I am. I disagree less with the Libertarian Party than with any of the others.

I hope it remains "chic" that way one of the candidates can begin to put pressure on the national committees. I think that most people are indendent by a great preponderance. In other words the majority do not hold to the concepts 100% of their party. I would venture to say that most libertarians that are registered as such know more of their parties platform than democrats or republicans.I also feel that if you lay out most of the issues that most Americans are indeed libertarian and there are certain issues that they disgree with. There are 2 issues that I strongly disagree with the libertarian party on but that is far less than the other 2 parties so I align myself with the libertarian party.

Libertarianism is now the philosophy of choice for many high school and early college kids that don't really understand much about it yet anyways. In that sense, it is the "chic" party. Many people join without really looking into/thinking about it. Of course, that is true of any political party, but the Libertarian party is the new fad. Many of these same people read "Atlas Shrugged" and, unable to see through the fact that there isn't a single realistic character in the book, jump on the Rand bandwagon.

Most grow out of being followers and eventually come to their own conclusions - some stay fairly Libertarian, some do not.
Fortunately for us voting LP members, the party is growing. We have one national office holder, Ron Paul of Texas, and many more state and local office holders than we did a decade ago. When will it be a real third party? It already is in some places. When will it be a real third party nationally? I don't know. Probably when people realize a vote for any third party candidate isn't wasted.

The Libertarian Party, in a nutshell believes:

1. If you don't have money, you deserve to starve and die.
2. Any form of government, anywhere, is unconstitutional.
3. The law of gravity is coercive and should therefore be repealed.
4. The world is out to take away your various rights.
5. John Locke was a moderate in his beliefs.

There are libertarians who believe these things.... but I think most of the ones I have associated with tend towards radical socialism. I didnt like the libertarians at all. Its as much a religion as the DNP or the Greens.

I must be more cynical. I believe all parties are "chic" in that people who join them rarely do for informed, rational reasons. All parties are the mob, and are only effective if they can brainwarp the masses into joining their label. Libertarianism is not more unique in this than any other party, and it's certainly not more popular or trendy.

Bush is trendy. Fundamentalism is trendy. Terrorism is trendy. Left versus Right is trendy, and Libertarianism doesn't fit in with the Black and White dichotomy of simplistic 2-party politics.

Maybe people are becoming Libertarians for no other reason than they're not Democrats or Republicans. Frankly, considering how the most vehement Democrats and Republicans are babbling psychotics begging for a baseball bat bash to the brain, that shouldn't be surprising either.

I would venture to say that most libertarians that are registered as such know more of their parties platform than democrats or republicans.

Ah, the age-old "Obviously, those who go my way are more informed than the others."

Based on the "Libertarians" I know, I would say that your venture would be grossly in error, especially when you consider how many high school/young college kids join because it is the "thing to do."

Ah, the age-old "Obviously, those who go my way are more informed than the others."

Based on the "Libertarians" I know, I would say that your venture would be grossly in error, especially when you consider how many high school/young college kids join because it is the "thing to do."
Party membership really consists of voting and funding. If you support the party, it's by more than just proclaiming to be a "Libertarian". You need to vote, campaign, and donate to the candidates to consider yourself a party member.

Now the adherence to the libertarian philosophy is a different matter. I find it difficult to imagine how many young people can really understand what it means in a practical sense. Besides, you really need to be a socialist when you're young, if for nothing else than to get it out of your system.

Party membership really consists of voting and funding. If you support the party, it's by more than just proclaiming to be a "Libertarian". You need to vote, campaign, and donate to the candidates to consider yourself a party member.

Wow, now you sound like a fundamentalist church. "If you don't proclaim us upon high and give us lots of money, you don't get to be part of the crowd."

In all seriousness, though, I have no wish to be a "party member." Political parties are a tool of the powerful to control the weak and uninformed.

I must be more cynical. I believe all parties are "chic" in that people who join them rarely do for informed, rational reasons. All parties are the mob, and are only effective if they can brainwarp the masses into joining their label. Libertarianism is not more unique in this than any other party, and it's certainly not more popular or trendy.

Bush is trendy. Fundamentalism is trendy. Terrorism is trendy. Left versus Right is trendy, and Libertarianism doesn't fit in with the Black and White dichotomy of simplistic 2-party politics.

Maybe people are becoming Libertarians for no other reason than they're not Democrats or Republicans. Frankly, considering how the most vehement Democrats and Republicans are babbling psychotics begging for a baseball bat bash to the brain, that shouldn't be surprising either.

Well put.

As a "libertarian" with a small "l" who uses the label because it actually fits my political beliefs (liberal on social issues, free-market on economic issues) rather than adjusting my beliefs to fit the label as some Libertarians and many Democrats and Republicans do (I use the words "some" and "many" in terms of absolute numbers here, not necessarily percentages), I have to take issue with the idea that everyone who calls themself a libertarian is just doing it to be "hip" or "trendy." Some of us really do want civil liberties and a less economic regulation, and it's just that simple.

It's apparently the new Chic thing to be- A trendy form of rebellion against the norm that everybody's doing.
Libertarianism is not new. It used to be called classic liberalism.

Wow, now you sound like a fundamentalist church. "If you don't proclaim us upon high and give us lots of money, you don't get to be part of the crowd."

In all seriousness, though, I have no wish to be a "party member." Political parties are a tool of the powerful to control the weak and uninformed.
That's not really tone I wanted. I do think there is a difference between just proclaiming oneself to be libertarian, and the understanding of what it means to do so. Voting for pro-libertarian candidates is probably the single biggest key to demonstrating that knowledge. And if you're going to vote for them, it doesn't hurt to put up a sign in the yard or kick a few dollars into the campaign.

You are one hundred percent correct about voting straight tickets just because that's your party. Have you ever heard the phrase "Yellow dog Democrat"? That's a phrase with quite a history down here. I would hope LP members are smarter than that.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Yellow dog Democrat"?

No. Is there a story behind it? I like stories, especially ones that make fun of politicians. =)

Meanwhile, I'm an independent voter. In the last election, I voted for Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian candidates - among those elections with listed political parties.

No. Is there a story behind it? I like stories, especially ones that make fun of politicians. =)

Meanwhile, I'm an independent voter. In the last election, I voted for Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian candidates - among those elections with listed political parties.
It's not a big story. I probably built it up too much, in fact. The way Democrats voted for a long time in the South led some to say they'd vote for a yellow dog if it were on the Democratic ticket.

I generally count myself as a libertarian and I don't smoke pot... though I do agree with their drug policy.
:eek: OMG! NO WAY!!! There couldn't possibly be someone who would support ending drug prohibition that doesn't use currently prohibited drugs, could there?!?



/I'm not sure why people have so much trouble with this concept.

Ah, the age-old "Obviously, those who go my way are more informed than the others."

Based on the "Libertarians" I know, I would say that your venture would be grossly in error, especially when you consider how many high school/young college kids join because it is the "thing to do."


I stated that those that are "registered" as in voters so children in school and most teenagers are not "registered" and therefore do not qualify in my statement.:)

Fortunately for us voting LP members, the party is growing. We have one national office holder, Ron Paul of Texas, and many more state and local office holders than we did a decade ago. When will it be a real third party? It already is in some places. When will it be a real third party nationally? I don't know. Probably when people realize a vote for any third party candidate isn't wasted.
Ron Paul is technically a Republican.

I stated that those that are "registered" as in voters so children in school and most teenagers are not "registered" and therefore do not qualify in my statement.:)

Graduating high school students and young college students are generally at, near, or most often past the age of 18, are they not?

Graduating high school students and young college students are generally at, near, or most often past the age of 18, are they not?

So then you are equating that because they are 18 they are indeed registered voters? Or merely capable of registering?

I didn't know it was chic or hip or cool to be a libertarian. I guess I'm cool now. :cool:

BTW, in case this hasn't been made clear, there's more to it that the Libertarian Party. I am a registered member, but I don't rely the party to describe my politcal idealogy. Imagine if the concept of democracy was thouroughly confused with the Democratic party.

Ron Paul is technically a Republican.
Only for caucus purposes.

So then you are equating that because they are 18 they are indeed registered voters? Or merely capable of registering?

The majority of students I know are registered. Basically everyone, in fact, except my boyfriend, who won't do it.

Even if it is "chic" to be Libertarian, it's better than blindly voting for Nader. There really are a lot of people who believe that there are only three parties, and Libertarian isn't one of them. Now, really, who's the sheep?

It's not as though all of the Democrats and Republicans in the world thought long and hard about their beliefs and then independently made up a name for their beliefs. You have to do a little bit of following. I think that we can say for sure that the Libertarians aren't just following their parents. Based on what I've observed about religious beliefs, that says a lot.

Libertarianism isn't some new fad. In a sense it was the ideal of the founding fathers, with the exception of their slave-owning, bible-waving tendancies. Libertarianism is the antithesis of collectivism, we want economic and social freedom at the same time. Our philosophy is a little like the one described by Arthur Birling in J.B Priestly's "an inspector calls", during his "a man has to look after his own" speech. Indeed I always thought that people saw libertarianism as an old-man ideology, a kind of "get off my land" philosophy.

As for its actual popularity among the young, it seems to me that a lot of young people these days are declaring themselves not libertarians but collectivists, proudly sporting their ridiculous Guevara merchandise and preaching against the "evils" of capitalism.

Libertarianism doesn't seem like the popular fad at all from what I can see.

As for its actual popularity among the young, it seems to me that a lot of young people these days are declaring themselves not libertarians but collectivists, proudly sporting their ridiculous Guevara merchandise and preaching against the "evils" of capitalism.

Libertarianism doesn't seem like the popular fad at all from what I can see.
That's what I thought. I'm not omniscient, but my sense is that any growth among young capitalist libertarians is dwarfed by the ever-expanding mass of young idealogical socialists (to differentiate from the casual socialist) and outright communists. I hope I'm wrong.

That's what I thought. I'm not omniscient, but my sense is that any growth among young capitalist libertarians is dwarfed by the ever-expanding mass of young idealogical socialists (to differentiate from the casual socialist) and outright communists. I hope I'm wrong.

Being in the "young" group, I can tell you that I have seen infinitely more people who think they understand "capitalist libertarianism" than those who are "idealogical socialists."

Being in the "young" group, I can tell you that I have seen infinitely more people who think they understand "capitalist libertarianism" than those who are "idealogical socialists."
Hmm, most young people I've met were self-described anarchists. Mostly they just wanted to throw bricks at policemen.

Being in the "young" group, I can tell you that I have seen infinitely more people who think they understand "capitalist libertarianism" than those who are "idealogical socialists."

I've seen more kids sporting Che Guevara shirts than I have Ayn Rand shirts or P J O'rourke shirts. Come to think of it I've never seen either of those on a t-shirt.

I've seen more kids sporting Che Guevara shirts than I have Ayn Rand shirts or P J O'rourke shirts. Come to think of it I've never seen either of those on a t-shirt.

T-shirts aren't "cool". However, I have heard more people trying to spout Ayn Rand than Che Guevara (who I honestly have never heard of).

T-shirts aren't "cool". However, I have heard more people trying to spout Ayn Rand than Che Guevara (who I honestly have never heard of).

You've never heard of him, but you've probably seen his face. It's everywhere. Try a google image search for "che guevara face" or something, you'll probably recognize it.

You've never heard of him, but you've probably seen his face. It's everywhere. Try a google image search for "che guevara face" or something, you'll probably recognize it.

Ok, so I have seen it. Now, what makes you think that even half of those with the face on a t-shirt have any clue whatsoever who the guy is?

Ok, so I have seen it. Now, what makes you think that even half of those with the face on a t-shirt have any clue whatsoever who the guy is?

My point was that socialism and its propaganda seem to have more of a presence in today's youth, not that they necessarily understand the implications of their philosophy. A bunch of those people, while not understanding the actual politics or even the background of their shirt-mascot, might know that che was a communist, and think communism was something cool.

My point was that socialism and its propaganda seem to have more of a presence in today's youth, not that they necessarily understand the implications of their philosophy. A bunch of those people, while not understanding the actual politics or even the background of their shirt-mascot, might know that che was a communist, and think communism was something cool.

I have yet to meet a single person, at either college I have attended, who felt that communism was something cool. I have, however, met no small number who thought Ayn Rand was God.

Gee, maybe it's a localized phenomenon.

I have yet to meet a single person, at either college I have attended, who felt that communism was something cool. I have, however, met no small number who thought Ayn Rand was God.

Well that genuinely surprises me. I've really been getting the impression lately that today's youth were hardcore collectivists.

A 'chic' party? More like a 'kewl' party amongst the young ones. Or more actually, just a joke party if you ask me. And we should be glad for that. Its a joke of a philosophy too. If not one I find funny.

The personal freedom thing, I am all for. Other then the guns... maybe. Americans wanting guns IS a mass character flaw, and for their own safety, it'd be best if they were NOT indulged. But sure, let them smoke pot or whatever they want. No prob there. And freedom from religion'd sure be nice. Total freedom of speech would be good too. I loathe censorship of any kind. Let the verbal swords be drawn and draw verbal blood says I. If people have long toes, then they shouldn't be surprised if they get stepped on. (Or crushed into pulp.)

But their economic ideas are completely counterproductive to what they claim to want. They want a total free market, but if you want one, you can't play by jungleball rules. Else it will devolve into a corporate police state faster then you can say HalliburtoMcCocaCola. Big bussiness have more money then anyone, and without rules to restrict them they'll stomp out any competition.

They also have a rather annoying logic when it comes to jobs and taxes.

If there aren't any jobs, then mininum wage should be lowered so the employers can take more workers. Ooookay... And how are there workers going to pay their bills then? Minimum wage is barely enough to live on as it is.

And then the tax thing. They want no taxes, but they obviously want a military to defend themselves, which costs taxes and costs about 400 times as much as a social security system would cost. Amazingly, they sometimes seem to want a privately funded police system... Okay... great, the police is in employ of McDonalds now. Just what civilisation wanted.

Ignorance. Actually one of those things that makes me ponder the value of democracy. Most people are ignorant about how countries really work. So why would they be good at collectively making decissions about them.

Maybe the right to vote should be earned. Obviously it should be something that can be freely earned to everyone who wants to make the effort. (though you know, making it extremely hard for religious fundamentalists to get a vote might be nice.) But if it was an earned right rather then a given one, maybe the world would be a nicer place. Intelligent informed people making decisions, now that'd be nice.

Ah, I'm so embittered.

I think the problem here isn't whether kids are being trendy or whatnot by affiliating themselves with any form of political idealism.
It's natural to "shop around", and in doing so, they'll take the typical consumerist option, as they do with anything (just like adults do)...
They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd.

Nobody wants to be seen as another "gear in the machine" or "brick in the wall". If that means finding something new (even if it's not really new), then they'll flock to it.
Of course, a lot of people are disgusted by the previous 2 elections and have become increasingly jaded by the two parties currently in power.
Libertarianism is a great alternative. It's nothing radical (although they might not know that) as all of the LP's platform issues can be found in one of the other two parties. Just not in both.

Who cares anyway? Maybe we'll gain some new members. So be it.

The internet is far more chic. It doesn't devalue it's purpose.

If there aren't any jobs, then mininum wage should be lowered so the employers can take more workers. Ooookay... And how are there workers going to pay their bills then? Minimum wage is barely enough to live on as it is.
If their workers don't have jobs, how are they going to pay their bills?

Don't just pass on propaganda. It hurts everyone.

A 'chic' party? More like a 'kewl' party amongst the young ones. Or more actually, just a joke party if you ask me. And we should be glad for that. Its a joke of a philosophy too. If not one I find funny....
[cut short]
...But their economic ideas are completely counterproductive to what they claim to want. They want a total free market, but if you want one, you can't play by jungleball rules. Else it will devolve into a corporate police state faster then you can say HalliburtoMcCocaCola. Big bussiness have more money then anyone, and without rules to restrict them they'll stomp out any competition.


Free-market Capitalism is no joke. It's almost solely what sets the capitalist western world steaming ahead of everybody else.

By the way, big business only outdoes competition if their products are genuinely popular. If people became dissatisfied with such products, these companies would loose customers and another company would seize the market leader position.

A 'chic' party? More like a 'kewl' party amongst the young ones. Or more actually, just a joke party if you ask me. And we should be glad for that. Its a joke of a philosophy too. If not one I find funny.

The personal freedom thing, I am all for. Other then the guns... maybe. Americans wanting guns IS a mass character flaw, and for their own safety, it'd be best if they were NOT indulged. But sure, let them smoke pot or whatever they want. No prob there. And freedom from religion'd sure be nice. Total freedom of speech would be good too. I loathe censorship of any kind. Let the verbal swords be drawn and draw verbal blood says I. If people have long toes, then they shouldn't be surprised if they get stepped on. (Or crushed into pulp.)

But their economic ideas are completely counterproductive to what they claim to want. They want a total free market, but if you want one, you can't play by jungleball rules. Else it will devolve into a corporate police state faster then you can say HalliburtoMcCocaCola. Big bussiness have more money then anyone, and without rules to restrict them they'll stomp out any competition.

They also have a rather annoying logic when it comes to jobs and taxes.

If there aren't any jobs, then mininum wage should be lowered so the employers can take more workers. Ooookay... And how are there workers going to pay their bills then? Minimum wage is barely enough to live on as it is.

And then the tax thing. They want no taxes, but they obviously want a military to defend themselves, which costs taxes and costs about 400 times as much as a social security system would cost. Amazingly, they sometimes seem to want a privately funded police system... Okay... great, the police is in employ of McDonalds now. Just what civilisation wanted.

Ignorance. Actually one of those things that makes me ponder the value of democracy. Most people are ignorant about how countries really work. So why would they be good at collectively making decissions about them.

Maybe the right to vote should be earned. Obviously it should be something that can be freely earned to everyone who wants to make the effort. (though you know, making it extremely hard for religious fundamentalists to get a vote might be nice.) But if it was an earned right rather then a given one, maybe the world would be a nicer place. Intelligent informed people making decisions, now that'd be nice.

Ah, I'm so embittered.

I've heard that the Republicans want to kill all faggotts cuz Jesus Christ hates them.
I've also heard that the Democrats want us to fuck animals and pork little boys in their butts.

Anyone can do this. It's not fair to base a partie's ideals on hearsay... unless you're ignorant enough to base a party on it's most militant members.
All of the above sounds rediculous and overblown. Sound familiar?
I'm tired of posting this link, but it's apparent that the LP's detractors are not familiar with the platform, or it's goals and plans of action (not all, at least Dempublicents seems to have her head on straight).

Please educate yourself before overstating your argument by reading a little book that explains it all--

What It Means To Be a Libertarian (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553069284/qid=1107202453/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1073825-8018326?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

And by the way, Ayn Rand is to Libertarianism as Marx is to Democratism.
She was an OBJECTIVIST who refused the Libertarian party for most of her life on the grounds that it was just too compromising... in other words, centrist, for her radical tastes.

I'd say socialism is seen as more hip in Britain. Any form of Libertarianism is generally just seen as whacky.

The personal freedom thing, I am all for. Other then the guns... maybe. Americans wanting guns IS a mass character flaw, and for their own safety, it'd be best if they were NOT indulged.
By disarming the populace, what allows the people from making any attempts at a revolution lest the government become tyrannical?

And on guns falling into the wrong hands: criminals are always going to have firearms, be it legally or illegaly (probably the latter). At least have the common sense not to restrict firearms to law-abiding citizens

And here's a little snipet from the Cato Institute, concerning Switzerland, which has rather lax gun control:
Switzerland, through its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime


And then the tax thing. They want no taxes, but they obviously want a military to defend themselves, which costs taxes and costs about 400 times as much as a social security system would cost.
Wow, you really have no idea of how libertarianism works. Many of us simply want LESS taxes, NOT no taxes at all.


Ignorance. Actually one of those things that makes me ponder the value of democracy. Most people are ignorant about how countries really work. So why would they be good at collectively making decissions about them.

Maybe the right to vote should be earned. Obviously it should be something that can be freely earned to everyone who wants to make the effort. (though you know, making it extremely hard for religious fundamentalists to get a vote might be nice.) But if it was an earned right rather then a given one, maybe the world would be a nicer place. Intelligent informed people making decisions, now that'd be nice.
I laugh at your elitism in this snippet - you are the ignorant one here

Try to find three people who agree on the definition of "libertarian." It's almost impossible. Nobody seems to agree on anything except the most basic points. It might just be the anti-heirarchal nature of the system keeping them from having enough organization to really define anything, but I have another theory.

It's apparently the new Chic thing to be- A trendy form of rebellion against the norm that everybody's doing. About half the people I know call themselves Libertarians, only one in ten actually knows anything about it beyond "legal pot and hookers, and I won't pay any taxes." As far as I can tell, it's continuing to grow entirely from momentum- Let's face it, 1- most people who call themselves Libs are holier-than-thou assholes who think that there's something wrong with you for holding different opinions. Let's face it, 2- Most people, when being told they're less of a person for not fitting some arbitrary social standard, will internalize it, regardless of what it is, just to hope that the "cool" rubs off on them.

Look at Abercrombie, Nirvana's brief and spectacular popularity, bashing Nirvana now, or the "freshman phenomenon"*. They all had some small basis in genuine enjoyment, and a few people might have strongly liked/agreed with these opinions, but most of the time it's really just "I don't actually have an opinion, but it's cool/popular" Quite a few honestly would disagree, but to voice dissention in an unpopular way puts your social standing at risk. You'd be surprised how many people would rather go their whole life living a lie than be ostracized**. When pressed on their opinions for anything mentioned above, a good deal of people will claim either that "you're just not cool enough to understand," or "I don't really care, but x million people can't be wrong."

Also, no two Libertarians can actually agree on just what "Libertarianism" is. The party itself has nothing to do with libertarianism as presented in literature (aside from the fact that, as with Rand, they have such a massive persecution complex that they'd martyr themself if only they could figure out how to nail that other hand to the cross). Hell, Heinlein and Rand Libertarianism have nothing to do with eachother. Chumbawamba, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Neville all call(ed) themselves "Libertarian Socialists," and the only overlap between any of them is that most party Libs won't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

So, in ten years, will people be jumping on the "laughing at Libertarians" bandwagon as quickly and unthinkingly as people are joining them today, will they just be forgotten, or do you think that it actually has some staying power.



*Freshman Phenomenon := Roughly 75% of college freshman, suddenly being introduced to parties with free and plentiful alcohol will try to remain inebriated at all times, not to be dissuaded by giving frequent libations to the porcelain gods. Nearly 20% will consider anyone who drinks/smokes to be scum of the earth and have nothing to do with any of them. The remnants consist largely of those who have been exposed to the atmosphere beforehand, such that they understand it is not fun to get sick but do not mind others. Note that, as with most longstanding popular cultural institutions, it has a cult dedicated to hating it, which in itself has become old enough to continue on momentum of popularity. If this culture spawns a counter-cult, I will consider all my theories on the subject to be automatically validated.

**Ex 1, using the "Vino Veritas" standard- While 8% of folk in my dormitory consider themselves homosexual, about 30%, under the influence, have absolutely no interest in the other gender. When forced to recall, the most common reason is "Dude, no way. He fell down the stairs. I'm hard just looking at that chick that says I blew her off last night," followed closely by "my family/friends/quasi-significant other would never talk to me again."

I'm fond of the basic theory of L- Government exists to protect your rights, and it shouldn't do much more. But as for the actual methods of enacting that, most seem to forget that (and, in the party's case, actively campaign against) important bits- like roads, hospitals, police, and an army- cost money. While, yes, it's possible that competing businesses for importing oil to the united states would keep costs at a reasonable level while cutting down on overhead, the chances of it happening like are damn-near nil.



First of all, libertarianism isn't a "new fad" per se. It was made popular during the anticommunist movements in the 50's and 60's. Second of all, there is no "definition" just like you can't define any political party. It is simply a platform of fundamental beliefs that people inside of the party happen to share. I myself am a Libertarian and the Treasurer of Campus Libertarians at the University of Arizona. I joined the party because of their "live and let live" stance. They're all about going back to the fundamentals that our country was founded on. Restore our rights... patriot act, marijuana, unjustified taxes, etc. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Libertarianism seems to have become the hot topic on these forums of late. That's all I have to say.

Oh and to the maker of this thread, libertarianism is NOT a party. It's the libertarian party, get the names straight, dammit

Meh ... Libertarianism is civil liberties without civic responsibility and that's a dangerous combination.Not *my* form of Libertarianism! (And the rest of NZ's).

For me, being a Libertarian is personal freedom coupled with equal personal responsibility. You have the freedom to do what you want (provided it isn't an act of force against another) but you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

In fact, your description fits leftism or liberal thinking: "We'll make drugs legal, but don't worry if you fuck yourself up, because we will fund your healthcare."

Conservative: "We won't let you take drugs, but you have responsibility for your finances."

Liberal: "Personal Freedom, Little personal responsibility"
Conservative: "Little personal freedom, Personal responsibility
Libertarian: "Personal freedom, personal responsibility"

So I'm now guaranteed to have at least 90% of the forum arguing with me :D

So I'm now guaranteed to have at least 90% of the forum arguing with me :D

Nope, I think I pretty much agree with you. As a libertarian, my stance is "you can buy your pot and crack legally and you can pay for your healthcare too". Social and economic freedom in one. Of course, with a free economy comes responsibility - if you waste your money, you don't get more from other people's tax.

So I'm now guaranteed to have at least 90% of the forum arguing with me :D
And you'll be garunteed my support in the 10% arguing with you

I've heard that the Republicans want to kill all faggotts cuz Jesus Christ hates them.
I've also heard that the Democrats want us to fuck animals and pork little boys in their butts.

Anyone can do this. It's not fair to base a partie's ideals on hearsay... unless you're ignorant enough to base a party on it's most militant members.
All of the above sounds rediculous and overblown. Sound familiar?
I'm tired of posting this link, but it's apparent that the LP's detractors are not familiar with the platform, or it's goals and plans of action (not all, at least Dempublicents seems to have her head on straight).

Please educate yourself before overstating your argument by reading a little book that explains it all--

What It Means To Be a Libertarian (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553069284/qid=1107202453/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1073825-8018326?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

And by the way, Ayn Rand is to Libertarianism as Marx is to Democratism.
She was an OBJECTIVIST who refused the Libertarian party for most of her life on the grounds that it was just too compromising... in other words, centrist, for her radical tastes.

Meanwhile, those who claim libertarianism basically because of the fad hold many of those views. Most "libertarians" I have talked to think that the government has no right to tax at all, that corporations won't screw people if they are left completely unregulated, and worship Ayn Rand almost as a God.

That doesn't make them the main bulk of libertarianism any more than fundamentalists are the bulk of Christianity - but it does demonstrate the "fad" aspect of the philosophy.

Libertarianism seems to have become the hot topic on these forums of late. That's all I have to say.
Sure beats the hell out of all of those election-time Republicans vs. Democrat threads... I thought we'd never get a break! :p

That doesn't make them the main bulk of libertarianism any more than fundamentalists are the bulk of Christianity - but it does demonstrate the "fad" aspect of the philosophy.
It's no less of a fad than anarchists (and anarchists and libertarians ARE NOT the same)

Not only am I against that idea, but the day you convince 51% of voters anywhere to follow through with this idea, is the day hell freezes over.Education wasn't always state run, ya know?

Sure beats the hell out of all of those election-time Republicans vs. Democrat threads... I thought we'd never get a break! :p

Ditto.

I've seen more kids sporting Che Guevara shirts than I have Ayn Rand shirts or P J O'rourke shirts. Come to think of it I've never seen either of those on a t-shirt.
Ayn Rand and P J O Rourke are ugly and therefore their faces should not decorate t shirts. Che looks badass whether you're a commie or not.

It's no less of a fad than anarchists (and anarchists and libertarians ARE NOT the same)

I never stated that it was.

Being in the "young" group, I can tell you that I have seen infinitely more people who think they understand "capitalist libertarianism" than those who are "idealogical socialists."God, not in New Zealand (Or at least one college in Wellington!)

Che Guevara seems to be the hero, and half the students in my year loves to rant on about "workers control" and whatever else they read on a bumper sticker somewhere.

I was the only Libertarian in the school (to my knowledge). Even leaning slightly capitalist was defintately un-cool. :rolleyes:

Try suggesting changes to the dole (unemployment benefit) or tax cuts.

EDIT:


I have yet to meet a single person, at either college I have attended, who felt that communism was something cool. I have, however, met no small number who thought Ayn Rand was God. Lol, come over to NZ for a visit. All through my time in high school I was being told that communism is really a good system, just let down by it's leaders.

Education wasn't always state run, ya know?
What does that have to do with anything?

What does that have to do with anything?Some people seem to think that having private education would stop the roation of the earth, freeze up the core and cause the sun to go nova.

It has been private in the past, some would say it was more efficent and better run (I'm not ready for that debate; wrong thread and I don't have the scredes of references I'd need :D )

Some people seem to think that having private education would stop the roation of the earth, freeze up the core and cause the sun to go nova.

It has been private in the past, some would say it was more efficent and better run (I'm not ready for that debate; wrong thread and I don't have the scredes of references I'd need :D )

It has been private in the past - and the vast majority of human beings had no access to it whatsoever. The argument isn't really a matter of whether or not private institutions are more efficient - most are. The argument is the fact that private institutions are not required to educate anyone - especially not a poor kid from the ghetto who is really smart, but has to work a full-time job to help the family finances. Why should we relegate this kid to stay in the same economic status - causing his kids to also have to forego school - forever?

Where is it cool to be libertarian? I've never seen a place where everyone who was cool and young and all that was libertarian. around here there all anarchists...

Anyway, I'd like to make a small distinction here.. there is a large difference bewteen libertarianism and the libertarian party of america. Basically, if you agree with democrats on social issues and with republicans on economic ones, you're probably a libertarian of some sort. The current lp is drastically radical and sort of dogmatic and blah and such. I dunno. Don't judge all of libertarianism just by their standards though. It's definately possible to be a moderate libertarian.

Some people seem to think that having private education would stop the roation of the earth, freeze up the core and cause the sun to go nova.

It has been private in the past, some would say it was more efficent and better run (I'm not ready for that debate; wrong thread and I don't have the scredes of references I'd need :D )You made the impression that you think the mere fact public education was historically not widespread is in itself a legitimate argument against public education. (unwieldy sentence structure, sorry) Tradition is not a very good argument.

Though it is often referred to as a law it is really the theory of gravity. And #2 makes no sense what so ever.

#2 doesn't make any sense I agree (how can all forms of gov't be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, should really say all forms of gov't are bad).

It is the Law of Gravity though I believe. Its a physical fact that is true (making it a law) like the Law of Conservation of Energy.

P.S. I am a Virginian Democrat and proud of it. Tim Kaine for Governor 2005! :)

Why should we relegate this kid to stay in the same economic status - causing his kids to also have to forego school - forever?Lol, like I said, this will need a different thread. Look at some of the schools you have in some poor areas in the cities. They are probably hardly better than nothing. If you want people to break out of the poverty cycle, we have to stop giving as many handouts and start getting people into jobs.

Granted I support their call for less government and more individual freedoms, but I strobngly disageed with their stances on removing gun controls and privitizing all education. Hot damn did that cause a stir when I disagreed. It was like wacking a wasps' nest.

Now, older and wiser, I am an independent.
i've only ever encountered crazy libertarians.

this one guy who was obsessed with ayn rand tried to tell me that the government was holding a gun to his head and robbing him when it came to taxes, but that a woman who is literally held at gunpoint and raped should have to pay out of her own pocket for the police to investigate and catch the bastard who did that to her. then he said that i was arguing from emotion...

Lol, like I said, this will need a different thread. Look at some of the schools you have in some poor areas in the cities. They are probably hardly better than nothing. If you want people to break out of the poverty cycle, we have to stop giving as many handouts and start getting people into jobs.

Most of the "libertarians" I have spoken to think helping someone get a job constitutes a "handout."

i've only ever encountered crazy libertarians.

this one guy who was obsessed with ayn rand tried to tell me that the government was holding a gun to his head and robbing him when it came to taxes, but that a woman who is literally held at gunpoint and raped should have to pay out of her own pocket for the police to investigate and catch the bastard who did that to her. then he said that i was arguing from emotion...The NZ libz and the states libs are a bit different.

In NZ, under a lib government, legitamate roles of government are:

Police: To protect citizens from internal acts of force
Courts: To facilitate the above.
Defence force: To protect citizens from external acts of force.

Most of the "libertarians" I have spoken to think helping someone get a job constitutes a "handout."Yeah, I think the flavor of the states and the NZ libs are a bit different.

Although there are the abrasive arseholes in NZ too. I should know, I was one of them. ;)

It has been private in the past - and the vast majority of human beings had no access to it whatsoever. The argument isn't really a matter of whether or not private institutions are more efficient - most are. The argument is the fact that private institutions are not required to educate anyone - especially not a poor kid from the ghetto who is really smart, but has to work a full-time job to help the family finances. Why should we relegate this kid to stay in the same economic status - causing his kids to also have to forego school - forever?

There's a common myth among both Libertarians and everyone else...
That the Libertarians are for removing all public funding for education.

FALSE.

Here's the official platform (pay attention now :p ):

Children (especially lower income and minorities) are being cheated out of a better education because in the current system, they are ghettoized to lower-quality public schools. There's so much evidence on this it would be rediculous to overstate my point with facts (just do a lil' Googlin').

This rediculously inefficient current system currently costs approximately $6-8000 per child. These children have no other options except to go to these lowsy public schools, especially not while the government is paying for their pseudoeducation.

6-8000 per child!!!!

The Libertarians support school vouchers. For about $3000 per child to go to the school of the families choosing without restriction.
58% of the 5 million children in private schools went to schools that charged less than $2500. 86% went to schools that charged less than $5000.

With increased competition among private schools, and the benefits of choice, the quality of education would improve for everyone, not just the rich or poor kids. In other words, the Gov has a monopoly on substandard education, all at the bargain price of TWICE as much as a better, private education, at the taxpayers expense (of course).
I don't see how anyone could argue that government run schools are nothing but miniature monopolic institutions where the children of less fortunate families are herded together and given a faux education. Test scores speak volumes for this argument.

Any detractors?

here are some of my views.. can someone tell me if im liberitarian? :p

-The goverment should not give a shit about gays, straights, blacks, whites, atheists, catholics, jews, sikhs, they should all be the flippin same in the eyes of the goverment - citizens, nothing more, nothing less.
-taxes should be a flat x% instead of scaled.
-welfare, social security, medicare, etc should not exist, learn to save your fucking money, for those that contribute to society, the money and more was removed from your check earlier in your life anyway
-drunk drivers should be given the death penalty, execution style in the street(and no, no one I know has been affected by a drunk driver)
-illegal guns can't be fixed by stricter laws on law abiding citizens, but with much, much harsher penalties, lets say, for example, you commit a crime with a gun you obtained illegaly, you get say, 30 years attached to your sentence, so you steal a candy bar with a stolen baretta, you get 30 years and a 100 dollar fine, or whatever.(life in prison shouldnt exist, unless you are going to pay your way, just wasting the states money.)

so... what am I? a warmongering anarchist in favor of capital punishment? or what? :P :sniper:

This rediculously inefficient current system currently costs approximately $6-8000 per child. These children have no other options except to go to these lowsy public schools, especially not while the government is paying for their pseudoeducation.

6-8000 per child!!!!

Yes, I've seen this number before. What those who tout it fail to realize is that there is not actually 6-8000 (or whatever number - all that I have seen are high) on every single child. Public schools provide education for everyone, including special needs children - on whom a good bit more must be spent.

The Libertarians support school vouchers. For about $3000 per child to go to the school of the families choosing without restriction.
58% of the 5 million children in private schools went to schools that charged less than $2500. 86% went to schools that charged less than $5000.

Note that many of these private schools are religion-based, do not teach anything which does not explicitly agree with their particular religion, and proselytize. Do we really want to go down the road of having government funds paying for indoctrination?

With increased competition among private schools, and the benefits of choice, the quality of education would improve for everyone, not just the rich or poor kids.

Not really. In fact, it would be about the same. The poor kids would go to the schools exactly paid for by the government money. Such schools, knowing that most of the parents would not be giving all the fun private donations that most private schools get, would end up *lowering* their standards. The rich kids would go to the nicer, more expensive schools. Nothing would change all that much.

I don't see how anyone could argue that government run schools are nothing but miniature monopolic institutions where the children of less fortunate families are herded together and given a faux education. Test scores speak volumes for this argument.

Funny, I attended public schools. Haven't had a problem yet - and I'm in a very technical field.

Funny, I attended public schools. Haven't had a problem yet - and I'm in a very technical field.
Funny, I attended public schools. I was held back from day one.

Yes, I've seen this number before. What those who tout it fail to realize is that there is not actually 6-8000 (or whatever number - all that I have seen are high) on every single child. Public schools provide education for everyone, including special needs children - on whom a good bit more must be spent.
That's why I included a range. It's just tentative as the numbers actually get much higher from district to district. That's not a plus for the public school argument.
Also, children with special needs should be given enough money to go to any school they wish, including schools that specialize in handling particular mental and physical disabilities (The Boys & Girls Club does a lot of private work for deaf children, I used to volunteer for them).


Note that many of these private schools are religion-based, do not teach anything which does not explicitly agree with their particular religion, and proselytize. Do we really want to go down the road of having government funds paying for indoctrination?
Personally, I wouldn't care if they wanted to send their kids to a Heaven's Gate cult school, if they wished to do so. It may be better than the sham education they receive currently. :p
And it's none of my business what adults do with their own children, educationwise. They teach them all sorts of religious BS as it is. Nothing will ever change in that way. *shrugs*



Not really. In fact, it would be about the same. The poor kids would go to the schools exactly paid for by the government money. Such schools, knowing that most of the parents would not be giving all the fun private donations that most private schools get, would end up *lowering* their standards. The rich kids would go to the nicer, more expensive schools. Nothing would change all that much.
This is all just hypothetical. I can't make promises, but then again, neither can you. All I know is, competition good, monopolies bad. Public schools offer no better alternatives, and it's hard to really imagine a worse school staying open long with better options available.



Funny, I attended public schools. Haven't had a problem yet - and I'm in a very technical field.
As did I. The public school system was such a fucking joke, I dropped out in 9th grade, got my GED over the summer, and graduated with an Associates Degree before my peers graduated with a HS diploma.
What a sham. This has far more to do with your IQ and talent than the glaring success of the public school system.
Feel lucky. I certainly do.

Libertarianism is…in? W00t! I'm cool now!

I have no idea what you're talking about. The only think that is popular are the prepubescent Anarchists/Marxists. Apparently, punk has become popular and now everyone wants to be a little Mao or Che. Of course, they can run out to their local store and support capitalism with their moronic righteous indignation.

I consider myself a Libertarian mostly on economic issues. Reform social security? Hell, I'd rather get rid of it, but a rapid withdrawal would be bad. I'm not 100% sure about the whole pot issues because I'd like to see a guinea pig state and see the effects of pot legalization. And I'm pro-choice. Sorry, a baby is not part of the body you keep screaming about. It is a separate being and thus entitled to some level of protection.

I'm also not one of these Cato institute anti-militarists. I didn't read where you had to be an isolationist to be a Libertarian.

I'd say the groups most opposed to Libertarian thought are:

Communists (class warriors)
Fascists (socialist protectionists)
Buchananites (protectionist isolationists)

BTW, Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, so that might be a tiny little factor. Or it might be a big one.

Personally, I wouldn't care if they wanted to send their kids to a Heaven's Gate cult school, if they wished to do so. It may be better than the sham education they receive currently. :p

Rriiiiiiiiiiiiggggght.

And it's none of my business what adults do with their own children, educationwise. They teach them all sorts of religious BS as it is. Nothing will ever change in that way. *shrugs*

It is your business what the government does.

This is all just hypothetical. I can't make promises, but then again, neither can you.

It is rather well known that, in any capitalist system, especially pure capitalism - the poor get the shitty service that costs less and the rich get the good stuff.

All I know is, competition good, monopolies bad.

Would you advocate competition in the military? Should the US have competing militaries? How about competing police forces in a given town?

Public schools offer no better alternatives, and it's hard to really imagine a worse school staying open long with better options available.

You make the assumption that all public schools are inherently bad. This is unfounded. There *are* alternatives - they just cost money to the parent. Those who can afford it, pay for it.

As did I. The public school system was such a fucking joke, I dropped out in 9th grade, got my GED over the summer, and graduated with an Associates Degree before my peers graduated with a HS diploma.
What a sham. This has far more to do with your IQ and talent than the glaring success of the public school system.
Feel lucky. I certainly do.

I feel lucky because I didn't go to school wherever it is that you were.

Apologies for the lack of attention, Mondays and Thursdays are days from hell when it comes to classes... I'll start from the front, after I use this chance to make a cheap joke...

here are some of my views.. can someone tell me if im liberitarian?

If you conciously consider Ross Perot a saint, then no.

But if you just hold the exact same views as him, without being aware of it, then many Lib's call you one of their own. Then again, quite a few wouldn't.

Do we really want to go down the road of having government funds paying for indoctrination? You want to see indoctrination?

Try the NZ qualifications system!

From a news bulletin:
"Level One History students were asked to write about Maori issues during the 1960s and 70s, from the point-of-view of a "National MP (NB:Opposition party) not sympathetic to Maori concerns".

Two questions from NCEA seventh form exam:

'The New Zealand government provides 'free' education at state secondary
schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the
free market.'

'Explain why using 'free market' policies causes income inequality.'

I hope you will see what is wrong with this.

Rriiiiiiiiiiiiggggght.
Glad you got teh funney.



It is your business what the government does.
Exactly. But it isn't my business where you choose to send your children or what you do with your money.


It is rather well known that, in any capitalist system, especially pure capitalism - the poor get the shitty service that costs less and the rich get the good stuff.
Ummmm, that's not just relevant to capitalism. Check out history. The poor always get the shitty end of the stick. Period. What society has no poverty? Name one with any form of government. Not available? Right on.
If you think socialism is the solution to poverty, then why does it exist? I know, there's no true socialist countries. Welcome to the club as there's no true capitalist one's either, in the pure sense in which you were referring.
Also, there's always an elite class, even in socialist or communist nations.
Always.
Take for instance the Soviet Nomenklaturas. Allowed to shop in the special stores with the good cuts of meat and designer jeans.
Wherever people organize, it will be in groups... with low and upper classes.



Would you advocate competition in the military? Should the US have competing militaries? How about competing police forces in a given town?
I'm not an anarchist, dear! You know that!



You make the assumption that all public schools are inherently bad. This is unfounded. There *are* alternatives - they just cost money to the parent. Those who can afford it, pay for it.



I feel lucky because I didn't go to school wherever it is that you were.
As I said you should as a middle class white chick.

You want to see indoctrination?

Try the NZ qualifications system!

From a news bulletin:
"Level One History students were asked to write about Maori issues during the 1960s and 70s, from the point-of-view of a "National MP (NB:Opposition party) not sympathetic to Maori concerns".

Two questions from NCEA seventh form exam:

'The New Zealand government provides 'free' education at state secondary
schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the
free market.'

'Explain why using 'free market' policies causes income inequality.'

I hope you will see what is wrong with this.
Holy sh*t.

Holy sh*t.Hardly an outcry here though. *bleat* :(

You want to see indoctrination?

Try the NZ qualifications system!

From a news bulletin:
"Level One History students were asked to write about Maori issues during the 1960s and 70s, from the point-of-view of a "National MP (NB:Opposition party) not sympathetic to Maori concerns".

Two questions from NCEA seventh form exam:

'The New Zealand government provides 'free' education at state secondary
schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the
free market.'

'Explain why using 'free market' policies causes income inequality.'

I hope you will see what is wrong with this.
I'm not a libertarian and I think that is pretty shitty.

Holy sh*t.
I know .. . .

Onto genuinely responding...
Lesse... Jokes, agreement, more jokes...

This is a weak thread, indeed. You've used more hyperbole and sensationalism in one post than I find in an entire issue of Rolling Stone.

...

There are going to be these types of course. I'm a bit older than you (almost 30) and can honestly say that kids your age, no matter how involved, are a bit naive in politics period. You're opinions, and those of your pseudolibertarian friends would probably sound painfully naive to me and my peers. In other words, kids your age will do whatever it takes to be labelled "different", whether it's being conservative (far more trendy as a way to dissent, especially on campuses!) or radically, militantly liberal.

...

I've met far more Republicans and Democrats without any clue as to what they're parties platforms were really all about.

To group my entire party in with your immature wannabe-intellectual high school or college friends is ignorant and offensive.
So is this sensationalist, inflammatory thread.

And this was pointless dribble.


When pressed on their opinions for anything mentioned above, a good deal of people will claim that "you're just not cool enough to understand."

...

Also, no two Libertarians can actually agree on just what "Libertarianism" is. The party itself has nothing to do with libertarianism as presented in literature (aside from the fact that, as with Rand, they have such a massive persecution complex that they'd martyr themself if only they could figure out how to nail that other hand to the cross).
Since you didn't actually post any substance for five more pages, I have to ask something before I can respond. Were you trying to be funny, trying to prove my points, or were you genuinely arguing against me?

My first thought was "nobody could possibly be THAT dense to not see the irony," but this is the internet. And, folks with a genuine persecution complex tend to turn all pissy and irrational just as easily as you apparently did there, so no need to risk accidentally labelling you a joke.

Also, there's another comment for you way down there.
most people who call themselves Libs are holier-than-thou assholes who think that there's something wrong with you for holding different opinions.


More agreement & jokes, agreement from folks who sound like they're on speed, people thinking they disagree and then giving my last paragraph (small text) almost verbatim as their own opinions... Folks claiming they agree and then unparsed posting that might be contradictory if you can make sense of it...

Ahh! Almost a point!
Libertarianism is not new. It used to be called classic liberalism.
Libertarianism isn't some new fad. In a sense it was the ideal of the founding fathers, with the exception of their slave-owning, bible-waving tendancies. Libertarianism is the antithesis of collectivism, we want economic and social freedom at the same time. Our philosophy is a little like the one described by Arthur Birling in J.B Priestly's "an inspector calls", during his "a man has to look after his own" speech. Indeed I always thought that people saw libertarianism as an old-man ideology, a kind of "get off my land" philosophyFor anyone else unclear on the point of the post, my position is not that classical liberalism is new, but rather that it's been given a facelift and is achieving a new popularity which has only a casual relationship with the position itself. Though, I suspect that anyone who'd not get that by now would have just read the first post and replied to it immediately.


More people who might be claiming disagreement, but are giving my point as evidence...
Even if it is "chic" to be Libertarian, it's better than blindly voting for Nader.
...
(More almost-agreement with my OP)
Great name, btw, but...

Blindly supporting one party is better than blindly supporting another? Explain that in terms which don't directly contradict the whole "personal choice, personal responsibility" bit which is apparently the central Libertarian ideal.

Quarnessa, I have no response, but I feel as though I should somehow recognize that you spent your time contributing...


I think the problem here isn't whether kids are being trendy or whatnot by affiliating themselves with any form of political idealism.
It's natural to "shop around", and in doing so, they'll take the typical consumerist option, as they do with anything (just like adults do)...
They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd.I'm congratulating you on making the first post which is coherent and well-written where I'm not sure whether or not it's trying to agree/is agreeing. The theses are "They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd." & "Libertarianism is a great alternative." Whereas mine are They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd." & "Libertarianism is a cool-sounding alternative."

It's basic tenets are great, but they have about as many loud zealots as the two major parties, with about 0.05% as many total members, giving them about 2000x as high a concentration of nutters. Which still says nothing about the ideology as a whole- the concept's been around for a while, and it has merit enough to explain its longevity, it's just getting it's fuckwickets now. Much like Islam.


(A mix of my last (small) paragraph and a few quotes directly from my AIM profile)Live & Let Live is my main philosophy- it's why I briefly identified as a "small-l libertarian."


Oh and to the maker of this thread, libertarianism is NOT a party. It's the libertarian party, get the names straight, dammitErm... in all my checking in the post itself, and all my being obscenely careful to use "large L" and "small l" Libertarian correctly, I added a "party" to the title and forget to edit the whole for grammar. My deepest apologies.


Ayn Rand and P J O Rourke are ugly and therefore their faces should not decorate t shirts. Che looks badass whether you're a commie or not.PJ's smile makes me miss my sledgehammer. Anyone who wore that shirt would notice a marked lack of personal security caused by an excercise of autonomy. This would cause all but the most devoted to rethink the ideology.

Cato InstituteIf it weren't for folk such as these, I might still consider myself a libertarian. The fact that they've apparently gained such power and popularity in the L.P. is what pushed me away- I'd rather not risk learning to respect people with any more of a disconnect from reality than Honored Matre has.

You want to see indoctrination?

Try the NZ qualifications system!

From a news bulletin:
"Level One History students were asked to write about Maori issues during the 1960s and 70s, from the point-of-view of a "National MP (NB:Opposition party) not sympathetic to Maori concerns".

Two questions from NCEA seventh form exam:

'The New Zealand government provides 'free' education at state secondary
schools. Explain why this results in a better resource allocation than the
free market.'

'Explain why using 'free market' policies causes income inequality.'

I hope you will see what is wrong with this.Huh? Wah? Eh?

You said "Hardly an outcry here." How many generations has this party been in power? How the hell else do they apparently have their positions taught as accepted fact in schools?

Great name, btw, but...

Blindly supporting one party is better than blindly supporting another? Explain that in terms which don't directly contradict the whole "personal choice, personal responsibility" bit which is apparently the central Libertarian ideal.
It was more of a stab at the media than a stab at logic. 8)

I'm congratulating you on making the first post which is coherent and well-written where I'm not sure whether or not it's trying to agree/is agreeing. The theses are "They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd." & "Libertarianism is a great alternative." Whereas mine are They'll go for something that differentiates themselves from the crowd." & "Libertarianism is a cool-sounding alternative."
Thanks. If you noticed, I did reread your post and mellow out a bit, even though a few of your statements were a bit too harsh, along the lines of "Republicans are anal" and "Democrats are pussies", but I decided that wasn't your point.
Apologies for the kneejerk reaction. (Eat that up as I'm not much of an apologist.:p )

Huh? Wah? Eh?

You said "Hardly an outcry here." How many generations has this party been in power? How the hell else do they apparently have their positions taught as accepted fact in schools? They've been in for four years. The media loves labour, and slants pretty much all of it to a labour view. *bleat*

Ross perot scares me :)

also, unrelated, but naturally, im pro-choice, although i dont think it wise to get knocked up at 16, your future should not be crushed because you did.

Ross perot scares me :)
God, so agreed.

also, unrelated, but naturally, im pro-choice, although i dont think it wise to get knocked up at 16, your future should not be crushed because you did.
Please don't bring up the A word here, it's a guaranteed hijack. :rolleyes:

Please don't bring up the A word here, it's a guaranteed hijack. :rolleyes:
Hey, who wants to talk about religion? God is a bunch of hokey, if you ask me.

Being in the "young" group, I can tell you that I have seen infinitely more people who think they understand "capitalist libertarianism" than those who are "idealogical socialists."
I think there's a perspective issue here. I will say that the majority of those who call themselves libertarian, don't really mean it. They are what Murray N. Rothbard called "modal libertarians." These people may or may not be registered with the Libertarian Party and may or may not vote accordingly. I think the easiest way to distinguish modal libertarians from "real libertarians" is to ask their opinion of Reagan. Reagan spewed libertarian-conservative rhetoric, but he didn't really mean it. I suppose from your perspective these people are probably just as dangerous as I am, but I don't consider them helpful. I imagine "real socialists" have the same trouble.

I think there's a perspective issue here. I will say that the majority of those who call themselves libertarian, don't really mean it. They are what Murray N. Rothbard called "modal libertarians." These people may or may not be registered with the Libertarian Party and may or may not vote accordingly. I think the easiest way to distinguish modal libertarians from "real libertarians" is to ask their opinion of Reagan. Reagan spewed libertarian-conservative rhetoric, but he didn't really mean it. I suppose from your perspective these people are probably just as dangerous as I am, but I don't consider them helpful. I imagine "real socialists" have the same trouble.
Wow. Stole them wordz rite out my mouth...

If you were female, I'd be asking for a number. :fluffle:

I have yet to meet a single person, at either college I have attended, who felt that communism was something cool. I have, however, met no small number who thought Ayn Rand was God.
Perhaps it's convinient for you, but Randroids don't like to be called "libertarians" and those who label themselves as libertarian don't deify Rand. Objectivism is a strict philosophical athiest cult. I don't belong to it.

i've only ever encountered crazy libertarians.

this one guy who was obsessed with ayn rand tried to tell me that the government was holding a gun to his head and robbing him when it came to taxes, but that a woman who is literally held at gunpoint and raped should have to pay out of her own pocket for the police to investigate and catch the bastard who did that to her. then he said that i was arguing from emotion...What are you tring to say about this one guy? Are you saying he's crazy? Please specify what you're trying to say.

Perhaps it's convinient for you, but Randroids don't like to be called "libertarians" and those who label themselves as libertarian don't deify Rand. Objectivism is a strict philosophical athiest cult. I don't belong to it.
Okay. I'm considering phone sex if you put on a high voice. :p

But seriously, exactly! And I thought I was the only Libertarian who doesn't care much for Ayn's radical Objectivism, and thinks it's very outdated and ideological.

So glad to find out tonight that I'm not alone. There's someone else who is a member of the party (not the undefined philosophy) who gets it.

Blah blah blah... Libertarian = new fad... etc... etc..

I would have to agree with the statement that Libertarianism as a new fad is localized. I know for a fact here in my high school many of the kids are... let's see...

1. Communists
2. Socialists.
3. Anarchists.
4. Left-Wing Communists*
5. Uber-Liberals
6. I hate Bush and he is Satan.

Pick one of any six of those options and you have just described about 80% of the school populace. Numbers don't add up? Don't worry, it's the 'chic' thing to be an anarchist, uber-liberal, Communist, etc. all at once!

*Left-Wing Communist you say? Well don't you know about the Right-Wing Communists? I mean, come on now!

It's mind-boggling. A kid next to me in one of my classes carved left-wing communist into a piece of paper. I made note to him that there is really no need to add left-wing to that (It's like calling someone a heterosexual straight guy or a homosexual gay guy) and he started talking about Hitler and right-wing Communism... :confused:

It's obvious nobody understands libertarianism here (besides libertarians themselves)

Okay. I'm considering phone sex if you put on a high voice. :p

But seriously, exactly! And I thought I was the only Libertarian who doesn't care much for Ayn's radical Objectivism, and thinks it's very outdated and ideological.

So glad to find out tonight that I'm not alone. There's someone else who is a member of the party (not the undefined philosophy) who gets it.
To be honest, I've never read any of these things that people associate with libertarianism. I've read the party's platform, and that's it. I make it a point to receive as much information that opposes my beliefs as possible. That way I know that I'm not a propaganda-spewing drone. The truth deserves more than that.

here are some of my views.. can someone tell me if im liberitarian? :p

-The goverment should not give a shit about gays, straights, blacks, whites, atheists, catholics, jews, sikhs, they should all be the flippin same in the eyes of the goverment - citizens, nothing more, nothing less.
-taxes should be a flat x% instead of scaled.

I would add that taxes should be substantially less. Humans should never tolerate double digit tax rates.

-welfare, social security, medicare, etc should not exist, learn to save your fucking money, for those that contribute to society, the money and more was removed from your check earlier in your life anyway

Total agreement, but I've long understood that it's very difficult to argue against these traditional socialist institutions. Regarding social security, try telling 60 year old that you don't owe them shit (unless of course, you do owe them).

-drunk drivers should be given the death penalty, execution style in the street(and no, no one I know has been affected by a drunk driver)

Now you're talking crazy. Currently, in the US, penalties for drunk driving are severe, even when the BAC is not very high. I don't know what would motivate you to support making them even worse. I can assure that doing this would do more harm than good to the surviving population. Drunk drivers get too much credit for the mayhem that exists on our highways. I sober tail-gatter is far more dangerous to other motorists than a careful legally drunk driver.

-illegal guns can't be fixed by stricter laws on law abiding citizens, but with much, much harsher penalties, lets say, for example, you commit a crime with a gun you obtained illegaly, you get say, 30 years attached to your sentence, so you steal a candy bar with a stolen baretta, you get 30 years and a 100 dollar fine, or whatever.(life in prison shouldnt exist, unless you are going to pay your way, just wasting the states money.)Again, you're trying to solve alleged problems with even more sever penalties. Such laws are already in place to a great extent. Recently a judge (in New Mexico, I think) was forced to sentence a man to 55 years in prison for selling drugs. Mandatory sentencing laws required the judge give him 5 years for the first count and 25 years each additional count because the man was wearing a gun when he sold 3 joints to cops.

so... what am I? a warmongering anarchist in favor of capital punishment? or what? :P :sniper:
You're hardly an anarchist.

It's obvious nobody understands libertarianism here (besides libertarians themselves)

Unfortunately true.

BTW, Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, so that might be a tiny little factor. Or it might be a big one.Care to back that up?

Gladly.

First, Buchanan denies that Hitler had any evil plans for the West. We all know that is bullshit. He said Hitler was a genius in A Republic, Not An Empire. Raise the red flag for that one!
He also believes that what happened was none of our business, even if it is mass murder. Gotta love isolationism!

I need not go over the whole Demjanjuk defense crap.
He also believes that the SS were victims of Hitler just like the Jews. Let me tell you something here. That argument might work if he was a dissenter in a drafted army, but the SS men were college educated, met "standards" of appearance, and generally believed whatever Hitler said. In short, these guys were the fanatics. Anyone as fanatic about national socialism as they were does not need to be treated as someone who gassed because of their background.

Maybe comparing the German POW camps to Nazi camps might raise a brow. If not suspicious, it is moral relativism.

And who can forget the claims of some big "Jewish conspiracy" for every Middle East action done by the United States. The only people who believe in "Jewish conspiracies" are anti-Semites, much like those who believed that Jews owned all the media and banks 80 years ago in Germany.
Add that to the Holocaust-denier vocabulary accusing Jews of being obsessed with the Holocaust, etc.

I think the man is a scumbag. But this thread isn't about Pat, it is about the false statement that Libertarianism is now cool.

Care to back that up?
I've been so with you up 'till this post. You mean you don't know?
Let's just hint toward the KKK.

*shivers*

Glad you got teh funney.

=)

Exactly. But it isn't my business where you choose to send your children or what you do with your money.

When we talk about vouchers, we are talking about government money - tax money. It is definitely my business (and yours) where tax money goes.

Ummmm, that's not just relevant to capitalism. Check out history. The poor always get the shitty end of the stick. Period. What society has no poverty? Name one with any form of government. Not available? Right on.

But why exacerbate the problem?

If you think socialism is the solution to poverty, then why does it exist?

There is no "solution to poverty." However, reducing poverty, as with most problems, takes a much more middle-of-the-line approach. Reducing poverty means that we have to help the people get out of poverty. Meanwhile, pure socialism would simply cause everyone to be poor. The trick is to find that happy middle ground. I don't think anyone has found it yet.

I'm not an anarchist, dear! You know that!

So you admit that, in some areas, competition is *not* good.

Perhaps it's convinient for you, but Randroids don't like to be called "libertarians" and those who label themselves as libertarian don't deify Rand. Objectivism is a strict philosophical athiest cult. I don't belong to it.

Wrong. Every "libertarian" I know is a Randroid. You may not label yourself as such, but many do. Don't pretend to know every person who labels themselves as such.

I've been so with you up 'till this post. You mean you don't know?
Let's just hint toward the KKK.

*shivers*
I'm generally skeptical of charges of racism and I really haven't read Buchanan's offending material. I have seen him on TV, heard him on the radio, and read his articles on antiwar.com, lewrockwell.com, and from the American Conservative. While I don't always agree with him, but he seems a fairly reasonable person. He's certainly more of a nationalist and a protectionist than I care for, but I've not witnessed anything I would consider racism. But if anyone cares to share whatever incriminating material he's produced, I'm all eyes.

Wrong. Every "libertarian" I know is a Randroid. You may not label yourself as such, but many do. Don't pretend to know every person who labels themselves as such.

This libertarian has not even read Rand.

This libertarian has not even read Rand.

This libertarian has read Rand, but is most definitely not a Randian or Randroid or whatever they call them now.

Most of the "libertarians" I have spoken to think helping someone get a job constitutes a "handout."

depends on who is doing the helping.

individuals or groups voluntarily deciding to help others(for whatever e.g. jobs, charity, anything) is fine and should be encouraged

The govt forcing me to fund it so that it can decide whom and how it wants to "help" is not fine.

Huge differance.

This libertarian has not even read Rand.

Neither has this one. Then again, I'd be classified as a 'soft' libertarian, in that I favor some government intervention and regulation. Also, I don't know more than a few libertarians who would really qualify as outright objectivists, so I don't think the whole "randroid" commentary really applies.

Is Libertarianism just a "chic" party?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to find three people who agree on the definition of "libertarian." It's almost impossible. Nobody seems to agree on anything except the most basic points.

That is because the Libertarian party endorses people to feel at liberty to voice a differing opinion to any other human on this so called human labled place called earth.

The Libertarian Party is "cool?!?!?!"

DAMNIT.
I liked them!

Ditto.

depends on who is doing the helping.

individuals or groups voluntarily deciding to help others(for whatever e.g. jobs, charity, anything) is fine and should be encouraged

The govt forcing me to fund it so that it can decide whom and how it wants to "help" is not fine.

Huge difference.

Ditto that.

It's all about not initiating force on others and owning yourself (and all the responsibilities associated with ownership).

depends on who is doing the helping.

individuals or groups voluntarily deciding to help others(for whatever e.g. jobs, charity, anything) is fine and should be encouraged

The govt forcing me to fund it so that it can decide whom and how it wants to "help" is not fine.

Huge differance.

Last time I checked, we have a representative government. If you don't like the direction your tax dollars go - vote for people who will change it. You cannot claim that you are being *forced* unless someone is forcing you to remain a citizen of this country and forcing you to cast your vote for people you don't agree with.

Meanwhile, some of us recognize that the plight of others does have an effect on all of society.

Meanwhile, none of what you said here has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not helping someone to get a job constitutes a "handout." It is either a handout or it is not - where it comes from makes no difference.

Last time I checked, we have a representative government. If you don't like the direction your tax dollars go - vote for people who will change it. You cannot claim that you are being *forced* unless someone is forcing you to remain a citizen of this country and forcing you to cast your vote for people you don't agree with.


On the contrary, if the number of voting libertarians is a minority, the government is forcing them to surrender their finances. If you don't pay your taxes, you get sent to prison.

On the contrary, if the number of voting libertarians is a minority, the government is forcing them to surrender their finances. If you don't pay your taxes, you get sent to prison.

Wrong. They are just as much a part of the government as anyone else - minority or not. If you don't like what your government is doing, it is your duty to either attempt to change it or get the hell out of the country. However, claiming that you are being forced is idiotic. It's like me jumping into a pool and then whining that the pool forced me to get wet.

Wrong. They are just as much a part of the government as anyone else - minority or not. If you don't like what your government is doing, it is your duty to either attempt to change it or get the hell out of the country. However, claiming that you are being forced is idiotic. It's like me jumping into a pool and then whining that the pool forced me to get wet.

Emmigration is expensive, and in some cases impossible. As a member of the populace, one person or group of people is not able to choose if they are taxed or not.

If someone were to give voluntarily to the government and then complain about it, then yes, your similie would be appropriate. However, individuals can't change government or taxation. As a member of the population, you're not allowed to refuse to pay tax, even if you don't plan to use any of the services it's set to provide. It's like being pushed into a pool by everybody else and then complaining about it, actually.

Emmigration is expensive, and in some cases impossible. As a member of the populace, one person or group of people is not able to choose if they are taxed or not.

If someone were to give voluntarily to the government and then complain about it, then yes, your similie would be appropriate. However, individuals can't change government or taxation. As a member of the population, you're not allowed to refuse to pay tax, even if you don't plan to use any of the services it's set to provide. It's like being pushed into a pool by everybody else and then complaining about it, actually.

No, it would be like voluntarily joining a group of people who are going to vote on whether to go into the pool, then getting pissed off when more people vote for jumping in.

You are in this country (if it is the US) because you want to be. If you don't, go to Mexico - it's pretty easy to do. In Europe, you could switch countries easily.

If I go in with the office to order lunch and I get outvoted because they all want pizza, while I want Chinese - I haven't been *forced* to eat pizza.

No, it would be like voluntarily joining a group of people who are going to vote on whether to go into the pool, then getting pissed off when more people vote for jumping in.

You are in this country (if it is the US) because you want to be. If you don't, go to Mexico - it's pretty easy to do. In Europe, you could switch countries easily.

If I go in with the office to order lunch and I get outvoted because they all want pizza, while I want Chinese - I haven't been *forced* to eat pizza.

I live in the UK. I didn't voluntarily join the UK, I was born here. Sure, I could move all around Europe at the drop of a hat, but as far as I know, not a single european country has tax rates that could be considered particularly negligible. No matter where I go, some government is going to want to take my money, and if I'm living in their country, I gotta pay up.

I live in the UK. I didn't voluntarily join the UK, I was born here. Sure, I could move all around Europe at the drop of a hat, but as far as I know, not a single european country has tax rates that could be considered particularly negligible. No matter where I go, some government is going to want to take my money, and if I'm living in their country, I gotta pay up.

You choose to remain in your country, thus you enter into the social contract that says you follow the laws of the country. The same would be said if you moved to another country. Thus, you are not being forced.

You choose to remain in your country, thus you enter into the social contract that says you follow the laws of the country. The same would be said if you moved to another country. Thus, you are not being forced.

But as far as I know, there is no country in the world that will allow me to live untaxed. Thus I am forced.

But as far as I know, there is no country in the world that will allow me to live untaxed. Thus I am forced.

You are only forced if you are forced to be a citiizen of said country.

You are only forced if you are forced to be a citiizen of said country.

Yes, and I am forced to be a citizen of a country, somewhere. Essentially all of the Earth is under the jurisdiction of some kind of government or another, and as far as I know all of these governments demand tax. Wherever I go, I will be forced to pay tax.

Yes, and I am forced to be a citizen of a country, somewhere. Essentially all of the Earth is under the jurisdiction of some kind of government or another, and as far as I know all of these governments demand tax. Wherever I go, I will be forced to pay tax.

Not really. You could live on a boat and be your own entity. There are islands that are still unclaimed. You *could* live without being taxed, but you *choose* not to.

Not really. You could live on a boat and be your own entity. There are islands that are still unclaimed. You *could* live without being taxed, but you *choose* not to.

If I had the money to buy a big enough boat to store a lifetime supply of food and other goods required for life.

In the case of an unclaimed island, if I had the money to fly/sail around the world looking for an uninhabited island, checking that nobody owned it, and then defending it from any force greater than a single person that chose to invade.

If I had the money to buy a big enough boat to store a lifetime supply of food and other goods required for life.

In the case of an unclaimed island, if I had the money to fly/sail around the world looking for an uninhabited island, checking that nobody owned it, and then defending it from any force greater than a single person that chose to invade.

If you wanted it badly enough, you would find a way.

Instead, you'd rather whine that you are being forced to voluntarily be a part of something.

If you wanted it badly enough, you would find a way.

Instead, you'd rather whine that you are being forced to voluntarily be a part of something.

Not to interrupt, but...

What happens if there are millions of people who don't wish to be taxed and move to the unclaimed islands?

Not to interrupt, but...

What happens if there are millions of people who don't wish to be taxed and move to the unclaimed islands?

If there are millions of people who don't wish to be taxed, they should be working through their government to get rid of said tax. Fortunately, most people realize that it takes money to get anything done, and the money has to come from somewhere. In truth, the only people who should be arguing against taxes are anarchists.

To better answer your question, however, the people would move to the island, realize the need for some sort of government system and start one. They would be committed to the "no tax" idea, so the government would be worthless. Then, they would get a clue.

Not really. You could live on a boat and be your own entity. There are islands that are still unclaimed. You *could* live without being taxed, but you *choose* not to.

I've been watching this thread a bit, and it seems that you're coming from the standpoint that the people are there for the government to run a nanny state for the support of the people, as opposed to the government being there for the just the sole purpose of protecting of the people. This is just the impression I'm getting, I don't know if it's intentional or not.

The government's not supposed to be taxing the citizens, it's not supposed to rule or coddle its citizens either. It's supposed to survive on tariffs from goods coming from outside the country, and protect the citizenry from attack and invasion. To survive on just tariffs, it couldn't be nearly as massive as it is today--which would leave it out of most everyone else's business, and allow the rest of us who want to live life by our own terms to do just that.

Now to get there, we'd have to figure out a way to get the average lazy American (I'm one of them) off their asses, and work for things, as opposed to expecting them to be given out, just for existing. You're right, it will take money and time. It doesn't help, though, that the media is on the government's side (at least it is when it can make money off it), as opposed to being a watchdog against the government.

I've been watching this thread a bit, and it seems that you're coming from the standpoint that the people are there for the government to run a nanny state for the support of the people, as opposed to the government being there for the just the sole purpose of protecting of the people. This is just the impression I'm getting, I don't know if it's intentional or not.

Wrong. My stance has always been that the sole purpose of the government is to protect its people. Doing so takes more money than you seem to think.

The government's not supposed to be taxing the citizens,

*shrug* That is your opinion. Find/start/join/change a government so that it does not.

It's supposed to survive on tariffs from goods coming from outside the country, and protect the citizenry from attack and invasion.

I think you should probably study a little basic economics and come back.

If there are millions of people who don't wish to be taxed, they should be working through their government to get rid of said tax.

Correct. Because in the meantime there really are no other options for large groups of people.

Fortunately, most people realize that it takes money to get anything done, and the money has to come from somewhere. In truth, the only people who should be arguing against taxes are anarchists.

That would depend on the type of anarchist. Most anarchists would support some sort of tax. The anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists would probably not support a tax, but neither of those groups are nearly as large as the anarcho-socialists. The "d00d chaos rules" anarchists probably wouldn't support taxes either.

That would depend on the type of anarchist. Most anarchists would support some sort of tax.

That statement makes no sense. Who is doing the taxing if there is no government system?

That statement makes no sense. Who is doing the taxing if there is no government system?

Anarchists generally advocate a classless democracy.

Classless democracy = government.

If there are millions of people who don't wish to be taxed, they should be working through their government to get rid of said tax. Fortunately, most people realize that it takes money to get anything done, and the money has to come from somewhere. In truth, the only people who should be arguing against taxes are anarchists.


Not at all. The private sector gets things done all the time. Wealth can be created and moved around by private enterprise, it doesn't have to be nicked from people by the government.

If the only way for things to happen was for the government to step in and make them happen, western capitalist countries like the US would have been completely destroyed. Countries like the USSR, where everything was done by the government, would be ruling the world.

The opposite is emperically true.

Wrong. My stance has always been that the sole purpose of the government is to protect its people. Doing so takes more money than you seem to think.


Like I said, it seemed to me. It doesn't take all that much money, when we're actually "allowed" to be armed like the constitution says. If we weren't messing with everyone else's business, we'd be saving a bundle, too.


*shrug* That is your opinion. Find/start/join/change a government so that it does not.


It's more than an opinion. I've already found the government--the US government. It's all in the constitution. Yes, income tax was ratified (sort of--we're only supposed to be taxed on income gained from outside the country, but they don't want you to know that), but there are a bevy of programs that are paid for that have no business existing--at least not to be funded from the government. And the system isn't doing the job. The checks and balances are not functioning. The Supreme Court isn't striking down unconstitutional programs.


I think you should probably study a little basic economics and come back.

And you need to do a little brushing up on the constitution and finding out what the government is really supposed to be there to do. Not create jobs. Not support people when they aren't working. Not adjust market rates. Not meddle in the affairs of consenting adults. The US federal government is mostly unconstitutional, as it exists today.

Which particular section of economics should I be looking at in particular?

Not at all. The private sector gets things done all the time. Wealth can be created and moved around by private enterprise, it doesn't have to be nicked from people by the government.


Actually, it's the ONLY way, short of conquest, that wealth is created.


If the only way for things to happen was for the government to step in and make them happen, western capitalist countries like the US would have been completely destroyed. Countries like the USSR, where everything was done by the government, would be ruling the world.

The opposite is emperically true.

Which is why the USSR collapsed. It's collective government couldn't raise revenue to support it, to keep up in the arms race. Government doesn't create wealth. It only absorbs and uses it.

Actually, it's the ONLY way, short of conquest, that wealth is created.



Which is why the USSR collapsed. It's collective government couldn't raise revenue to support it, to keep up in the arms race. Government doesn't create wealth. It only absorbs and uses it.

That was my exact point. Government intervention in the economy is by no means strengthening. It destroys wealth.

That was my exact point. Government intervention in the economy is by no means strengthening. It destroys wealth.

Yup, just supportin' ya. :D

Zaxon, man, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you: The US Constitution was written in the late 18th century. The economic system operating in Western nations at the time was basically mercantilism. Capitalism was just taking its first baby steps, and was totally unlike we know it today. You know 'tariffs'? Those things that you think should be the sole source of revenue for governments? Those are generally credited for causing the Great Depression. Remember that? The Great Depression wasn't too good for the economy. Come on, man, you're from Wisconsin. You should know that one of the reasons why your state is so successful is because of the high quality public education system, which required lots of taxes to build and operate. Ditto for Wisconsin's public health care, one of the most generous and successful in the USA. And remember Wisconsin's pioneering 'welfare-to-work' program? I wonder if that's one of the reasons Wisconsin's poverty rate is increasing faster than at any point in the last fifty years...

Zaxon, man, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you: The US Constitution was written in the late 18th century. The economic system operating in Western nations at the time was basically mercantilism. Capitalism was just taking its first baby steps, and was totally unlike we know it today. You know 'tariffs'? Those things that you think should be the sole source of revenue for governments? Those are generally credited for causing the Great Depression. Remember that? The Great Depression wasn't too good for the economy. Come on, man, you're from Wisconsin. You should know that one of the reasons why your state is so successful is because of the high quality public education system, which required lots of taxes to build and operate. Ditto for Wisconsin's public health care, one of the most generous and successful in the USA. And remember Wisconsin's pioneering 'welfare-to-work' program? I wonder if that's one of the reasons Wisconsin's poverty rate is increasing faster than at any point in the last fifty years...

Believe me, I'm not happy about the VERY high taxes here in WI. The education system is not all that great (hell it takes a seperate principal for each grade in each high school in Madison, and they still can't teach kids), public health care is a sham, and we tend to hire accountants that can't add--we had a nice $1.6 billion defecit pop up due to a misplaced decimal point. Wisconsin is just as screwed up as anywhere else in the US.

Anarchists generally advocate a classless democracy.

Classless democracy = government.

People who call themselves anarchists may advocate this - but, by definition, they are not really anarchists.

Not at all. The private sector gets things done all the time. Wealth can be created and moved around by private enterprise, it doesn't have to be nicked from people by the government.

So you are one of those people who think the military/police force/etc. should be private?

So you are one of those people who think the military/police force/etc. should be private?

No, not at all. In fact, I think the police force and the military are one of the few services which must be state run. Anyone can see the ridiculous consequences of a private police force. The government would have no power to enforce law, the country would be run by mafia.

However, if all the government were providing was a military, a police force and some public land and roads for trade and travel, taxes would be negligible, if even necessary at all.

Like I said, it seemed to me. It doesn't take all that much money, when we're actually "allowed" to be armed like the constitution says. If we weren't messing with everyone else's business, we'd be saving a bundle, too.

I didn't say it takes the amount of money we are currently paying - but it *does* take money.

It's more than an opinion. I've already found the government--the US government. It's all in the constitution. Yes, income tax was ratified (sort of--we're only supposed to be taxed on income gained from outside the country, but they don't want you to know that), but there are a bevy of programs that are paid for that have no business existing--at least not to be funded from the government. And the system isn't doing the job. The checks and balances are not functioning. The Supreme Court isn't striking down unconstitutional programs.

None of this has a single thing to do with the fact that the government needs money to run.

And you need to do a little brushing up on the constitution and finding out what the government is really supposed to be there to do. Not create jobs. Not support people when they aren't working. Not adjust market rates. Not meddle in the affairs of consenting adults. The US federal government is mostly unconstitutional, as it exists today.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the government needs money to run.

Which particular section of economics should I be looking at in particular?

If you live in the US, you are certainly aware of the vast resources available to us here. You are probably also aware of the fact that people buy cheaper products when possible. If the US government tried to make all of its money through tarrifs - people would simply stop buying foreign products. The products not already made in the US would be - as people would start businesses to do it. Products already made in the US would have no real competition (since people would be buying the low-priced items) and thus progress would slowly grind to a halt. Meanwhile, the government would have to keep raising tarrifs over and over and over and over again to make the same amount of money - exacerbating the problem.

No, not at all. In fact, I think the police force and the military are one of the few services which must be state run. Anyone can see the ridiculous consequences of a private police force. The government would have no power to enforce law, the country would be run by mafia.

However, if all the government were providing was a military, a police force and some public land and roads for trade and travel, taxes would be negligible, if even necessary at all.

I hate to break it to you - but all of those things require *money*. Do you expect the government to pull money out of its ass?

I hate to break it to you - but all of those things require *money*. Do you expect the government to pull money out of its ass?

Ok, I conceed that some money must be taxed in virtually any society. However, the scale of taxation in a society where government's only roles were defense, law enforcement and provision of public land would be completely minute in comparison with the scale of taxation in essentially all other governments of the world.

Ok, I conceed that some money must be taxed in virtually any society. However, the scale of taxation in a society where government's only roles were defense, law enforcement and provision of public land would be completely minute in comparison with the scale of taxation in essentially all other governments of the world.

Good. As I suspected, your problem is not that you are being "forced" to pay taxes, but that you do not agree with the use of the tax dollars. Now, work to change it.

Believe me, I'm not happy about the VERY high taxes here in WI. The education system is not all that great (hell it takes a seperate principal for each grade in each high school in Madison, and they still can't teach kids), public health care is a sham, and we tend to hire accountants that can't add--we had a nice $1.6 billion defecit pop up due to a misplaced decimal point. Wisconsin is just as screwed up as anywhere else in the US.

Not great, huh? I guess if you consider that the USA doesn't rank against other Western nations in terms of education, then 8th in the USA isn't that great. Being from Minnesota I hate to admit it, but UW is a damn good state college system. And study after study has shown that quality of higher education is just as important in fostering high-paying jobs as quality of life. You know what hasn't been shown to create high-paying jobs or even a sustainable economy? Low taxes. I'd really love it if you could find me a study that found that low taxes is a better draw for quality employers that quality of life issues. In the meantime, take a look at these statistics that show how important a healthy welfare state is in fostering sustainable economic growth:

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank03.htm

http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank29.html (Wisconsin doesn't do too well there, but the correlation works for the most part)

Good. As I suspected, your problem is not that you are being "forced" to pay taxes, but that you do not agree with the use of the tax dollars. Now, work to change it.

However, my problem is still one of "forcing" and taxes. I'm being forced in any country I choose to live in to pay tax towards a public utility or utilities which I don't think needs government funding. I can't really work to change it anymore than I could work to change the fact that any tax is collected, if that was what I wanted to halt.

I didn't say it takes the amount of money we are currently paying - but it *does* take money.


I never said it didn't. You're the one that assumed I meant none. I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. Some small amount of government is necessary, in my opinion.


None of this has a single thing to do with the fact that the government needs money to run.


Look, your point was that it takes money to run (and it was implied maintaining current levels). I was saying that we can cut a lot of it out, and therefore can find alternative methods to fund the remaining costs.


None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the government needs money to run.


I wasn't just concentrating solely on the money to run. You were.


If you live in the US, you are certainly aware of the vast resources available to us here. You are probably also aware of the fact that people buy cheaper products when possible. If the US government tried to make all of its money through tarrifs - people would simply stop buying foreign products. The products not already made in the US would be - as people would start businesses to do it. Products already made in the US would have no real competition (since people would be buying the low-priced items) and thus progress would slowly grind to a halt. Meanwhile, the government would have to keep raising tarrifs over and over and over and over again to make the same amount of money - exacerbating the problem.

I think you seem to think the government needs a lot more than it does to run. Cut 95% of the programs and your price tag drops a great deal. As for the US grinding to a halt, how come it lasted 120 years before income tax came into being permanently?

Not great, huh? I guess if you consider that the USA doesn't rank against other Western nations in terms of education, then 8th in the USA isn't that great.


Considering we used to be first.....

battery charger; I should have worded that better, any drunk driver involved in a fatal accident should be given the death penalty, and if they are being careful, they have nothing to worry about, because they wont get pulled over, no?

and the gun issue, yes, there are hundreds, probably thousands of laws, but the few that are actually enforced do little to limit illegal guns. Although, I'm not sure about that, because if they go to prison for extended periods of time, taxpayers foot the bill, but the death penalty is to severe in this case, especially on a first offence. also the additional time should be scaled I guess, but murder with an illegal firearm would probably get you death, while say, sticking up a convenience store wouldnt get you much jail time, maybe counceling of some sort, but im not sure what good it would do, maybe help them get a job? -sorry for the jumbled mess, Im tired.

However, my problem is still one of "forcing" and taxes. I'm being forced in any country I choose to live in to pay tax towards a public utility or utilities which I don't think needs government funding. I can't really work to change it anymore than I could work to change the fact that any tax is collected, if that was what I wanted to halt.

Do you live in a country with no representative government?

If not, what you just said is full of shit.

I never said it didn't. You're the one that assumed I meant none. I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. Some small amount of government is necessary, in my opinion.

You replied to a post in which I was arguing with someone who stated that there should be no taxes. Maybe you should read the conversation you are replying to - or clarify your position. My only argument was against the contention that there should be *no* taxes. If that was not your contention, you had no reason to argue against me.

Look, your point was that it takes money to run (and it was implied maintaining current levels). I was saying that we can cut a lot of it out, and therefore can find alternative methods to fund the remaining costs.[/quoe]

Maintenance of current levels was never once implied. In fact, I stated more than once that maintenance of current levels was not an issue. Maintenance of *any* goverment structure requires money and the money, rightfully, should come from those who make up the government. In a representative government - that's the citizens.

[QUOTE=Zaxon]I wasn't just concentrating solely on the money to run. You were.

You were replying to a point that was solely about the money to run the government. It isn't my fault that you posted something unrelated to the post you were replying to.

I think you seem to think the government needs a lot more than it does to run. Cut 95% of the programs and your price tag drops a great deal. As for the US grinding to a halt, how come it lasted 120 years before income tax came into being permanently?

(a) 5% still requires income.
(b) There are other forms of tax than income tax.
(c) The economy of the US (and the world) today is nothing at all like it was 100 years ago.

Going back through my brief history with you Dempublicents, why do you fight the Libs much more than the Republicans? (I know you spread the condesention around, but hey, it's obvious there's an agenda).?

People who call themselves anarchists may advocate this - but, by definition, they are not really anarchists.

how so? no rulers, not no rules

The anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists would probably not support a tax

yeah, screw taxes. its just a unnecessary extra step when you've got social ownership of the means of production.

Going back through my brief history with you Dempublicents, why do you fight the Libs much more than the Republicans? (I know you spread the condesention around, but hey, it's obvious there's an agenda).?
It's because we have the thinking power to grant people civil rights, so he believes that he should be able to convince us that there's only one viable form of government.

It's because we have the thinking power to grant people civil rights, so he believes that he should be able to convince us that there's only one viable form of government.
I like her posts, save when they refer to Libertarianism.
Do the "search" function. From day one that I posted, she'[s been on every Libertarian's ass as a self-appointed watchdog.
All I've ever shown her was respect.
Oh well. It's the same attitude that follows the Bi's I know:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

EDIT: I already seriously fucked the gender thing with someone else tonight...
I know you're a woman. :p )

I like her posts, save when they refer to Libertarianism.
Do the "search" function. From day one that I posted, she'[s been on every Libertarian's ass as a self-appointed watchdog.
All I've ever shown her was respect.
Oh well. It's the same attitude that follows the Bi's I know:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I meant nothing personal about her. It's just something that's been bothering me about everybody lately. There's some sort of obsession about trying to prove other people wrong, despite the fact that millions of brilliant people agree with them. And, of course, everybody adopts the true until proven false mindset about his own beliefs. It just seems that we've all got everything backwards.

For some reason, not even the communists/socialists can get along with everybody here.

For some reason, not even the communists/socialists can get along with everybody here.
That's what rods the nethers for me.
I even like this board better than ChuckPalahniuk.net's board...
There's no major gangups. I don't know if everyone knows what I mean by that, but let's say that respect runs higher here than anywhere else on the net.
Barry's biggest contribution to society is this board.
I said it. Hit me.
*blocks a disturbing few*

?
Sorry... I like your posts. You've saved me (silently, much posting).
I also like my Floridian hockey team.
Wait... Now I don't even know what I mean. :p

That's what rods the nethers for me.
?

?
*uncomfortabler silence*

I still love you, although I'm speechless.

*uncomfortabler silence*

I still love you, although I'm speechless.
:fluffle:

You replied to a post in which I was arguing with someone who stated that there should be no taxes. Maybe you should read the conversation you are replying to - or clarify your position. My only argument was against the contention that there should be *no* taxes. If that was not your contention, you had no reason to argue against me.


Then I apologize.


Maintenance of current levels was never once implied. In fact, I stated more than once that maintenance of current levels was not an issue. Maintenance of *any* goverment structure requires money and the money, rightfully, should come from those who make up the government. In a representative government - that's the citizens.


Were it truly representative, on our tax forms we should have something that says, "My money goes to X". The only things we want to "purchase" so to speak. As it stands we are forced to pay for everything, regardless of whether or not we want it. And yes, we are, for all intents and purposes, forced. It's generally cost prohibitive to just get up and leave a country--especially to go to your own island. So, in the technical sense, no, it's not force, but in the practical sense, yeah, it is force.


(a) 5% still requires income.
(b) There are other forms of tax than income tax.
(c) The economy of the US (and the world) today is nothing at all like it was 100 years ago.

A. Yup, and something other than taxing the citizens could probably supply that income.

B. Can't argue a fact.

C. No it is not, but we can fit many of the principles that would make this country a lot less expensive.

Going back through my brief history with you Dempublicents, why do you fight the Libs much more than the Republicans? (I know you spread the condesention around, but hey, it's obvious there's an agenda).?

I don't know that I actually do. If I do, it's probably because I agree with them more in principle, but not when things are taken to extremes. The Republicans these days are pretty much fundamentalists - there is no arguing or reasoning with them. Most extremist libertarians I have met are very intelligent people who just haven't thought things through all the way.

how so? no rulers, not no rules

You cannot have rules without someone to enforce them.

Were it truly representative, on our tax forms we should have something that says, "My money goes to X". The only things we want to "purchase" so to speak. As it stands we are forced to pay for everything, regardless of whether or not we want it. And yes, we are, for all intents and purposes, forced. It's generally cost prohibitive to just get up and leave a country--especially to go to your own island. So, in the technical sense, no, it's not force, but in the practical sense, yeah, it is force.

Your tax forms may not have anything like that, but your ballot does. Vote for those who are closest to you in your philospohy on how to spend taxes. In that way, you are participating in the process.

A. Yup, and something other than taxing the citizens could probably supply that income.

B. Can't argue a fact.

C. No it is not, but we can fit many of the principles that would make this country a lot less expensive.

A. The citizens *should* supply that income - they are the ones being protected.
B. =)
C. Can't argue a fact.

Your tax forms may not have anything like that, but your ballot does. Vote for those who are closest to you in your philospohy on how to spend taxes. In that way, you are participating in the process.


I have been. There are just too many in the US that are voting scared, choosing a "lesser of two evils", instead of for what they actually want. Frustrates the hell out of me. I guess I'm going to have to try to get to the Carolinas as fast as feasible. Gotta get out of Wisconsin--too much control from the larger urban areas.


A. The citizens *should* supply that income - they are the ones being protected.
B. =)
C. Can't argue a fact.

A. That's the nifty thing about a capatalist society, there are other ways to get cash than straight taxation of the citizenry.
C. =)

People who call themselves anarchists may advocate this - but, by definition, they are not really anarchists.

By definition, huh? I don't know what dictionary you use, but my unabridged Webster's version allows for that definition.

By definition, huh? I don't know what dictionary you use, but my unabridged Webster's version allows for that definition.

Anarchy:


1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

Notice: that we are referring to either a complete absence of government, or a denial of whatever government exists. As such, there is no room for *any* established rules.

Anarchy:


1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

Notice: that we are referring to either a complete absence of government, or a denial of whatever government exists. As such, there is no room for *any* established rules.

Look up the 3 : ANARCHISM. Do a search for it on Wikipedia as well.

Look up the 3 : ANARCHISM. Do a search for it on Wikipedia as well.


1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Again, specifically says "no government."

You cannot have rules without someone to enforce them.

and yet the existence of rules predates the existence of seperate ruling classess and enforcement bodies. someone has to enforce rules, but nothing about that necessitates that this someone be seperate from the group of people who decide the rules, let alone above them.

and yet the existence of rules predates the existence of seperate ruling classess and enforcement bodies. someone has to enforce rules, but nothing about that necessitates that this someone be seperate from the group of people who decide the rules, let alone above them.

And it predates settled, industrialized civilization, too.

One would think rules have to change to accomodate changing reality. What works for isolated groups of hunter gatherers doesn't work for modern society.

and yet the existence of rules predates the existence of seperate ruling classess and enforcement bodies. someone has to enforce rules, but nothing about that necessitates that this someone be seperate from the group of people who decide the rules, let alone above them.

...which has nothing to do with the fact that the very definition of anarchy is a complete lack of government.

There is nothing wrong with being a libertarian!!! I would like someone to answer this question. Do you think Libratarians are right wing or left? It is true that federal goverments are taking away our freedoms little by little and prtty soon we all will be noting but 1984 by George Orwall if you have not read it read it NOW! It will setal all arguments.

Man, you are a sad, condescending, little old man.

Read the book 1984 by George Orwall!!!

First Who is sad? Second read 1984 by george orwall!!!

Read the book 1984 by George Orwall!!!

George Orwell. But yeah, 1984 is a perfect example of what happens when government ceases to serve and begins to control. 1984 is a satirical exaggeration, but what he's getting at is that an overdose of government intervention in economy and society is terrible.

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Again, specifically says "no government."

Actually, it says no "governmental authority".

...which has nothing to do with the fact that the very definition of anarchy is a complete lack of government.

then we have to define government. if 'government' is any form of group decision making, then anarchists have never in their entrie history been opposed to all government. when some anarchists use the term as a thing to be opposed to, they are using it to mean 'the state' or the currently existing system of government, where there is a ruling class and an ruled class. this is clear from all of the books and articles on anarchist theory, right back to the founding of the modern movement. when proudhon and bakunin opposed the state and 'government', they sought to replace it with a freely created, decentralized federation of community assemblies/communes. there is no question on this matter. call it government or don't call it government, this is what anarchists have proposed.

then we have to define government. if 'government' is any form of group decision making, then anarchists have never in their entrie history been opposed to all government. when some anarchists use the term as a thing to be opposed to, they are using it to mean 'the state' or the currently existing system of government, where there is a ruling class and an ruled class. this is clear from all of the books and articles on anarchist theory, right back to the founding of the modern movement. when proudhon and bakunin opposed the state and 'government', they sought to replace it with a freely created, decentralized federation of community assemblies/communes. there is no question on this matter. call it government or don't call it government, this is what anarchists have proposed.

Personally I call it government, and disagree with the use of the term anarchy, but that's just my opinion. If anarchists wanted to call themselves Fluffies I would defend their right to do so, even though I find the term inappropriate.