NationStates Jolt Archive

"Libertarianism mainly impacts our Federal government. It calls for extremely low taxation, lots of private companies and so on.

For example, the FDA would be privatized and competition would be allowed to exist. There would be several meat inspection companies competing for business. The meat-packing plant would still be required to submit to inspections, only now they could choose between competitors for the lowest price on inspection. The inspectors, now employed by these private companies, would still be required to ensure that it complies with the same federal codes.

Difference is, taxpayers are no longer supporting a huge bureaucracy, competition keeps the costs down.

This is exactly the same situation with drivers and car insurance. You cannot legally drive without car insurance, therefore you MUST go buy car insurance. You get to choose who insures you and at what rate, but must also comply with minimum insurance levels. The insurer of your car has to comply with laws regarding insurers.

Even in an extreme Libertarian system, there would still be police and other groups with investigative and statutory arrest authority, but they might be getting paid by a police or investigation agency instead of a government.

Privatization is a huge central notion of Libertarianism, but it IS NOT ANARCHY. That is the most key misunderstood notion about Libertarians, btw. "

quote from Objective Patriotism

is Libertarianism good or bad? please express your opinion.

I believe that one may do as they wish as long as it does not harm another, no coercion only choice. I am pro-libertarian.

In what way does it differ, in your view, from classic free market liberalism (Adam Smith)?

USAians do not jump at the word liberal OK. It implies liberty in its original politcal use, as used here.

1. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

2. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

3. We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary
treatment in a mental institution.

4. We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.

5. Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees. (And the practical difference would be ....?)

6. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

7. Wherever possible, private security agencies should replace public institutions.

8. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. (emphasis added)

9. We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military.

10. We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

11. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

12. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

13. We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

In what way does it differ, in your view, from classic free market liberalism (Adam Smith)?

USAians do not jump at the word liberal OK. It implies liberty in its original politcal use, as used here.
I used libertarian for the sake of simplicity. Most of the time I prefer to it as Liberalism, but people often think of liberalism now a days.
The Founding Fathers were Liberals and did not believe in such a huge government.

I agree...to an extent. Their drug, moral, and foreign policies are too soft for my tastes, however.

It's a philosophical debate, isn't it?
Free Markets are great because they are so efficient, and no one has to spend millions of man hours directing everything so that everyone in the country has a pair of shoes, but I think that you can't take them out of context.
Markets don't operate in a vacuum (is that how you spell it???), and there's lots of things that happen that can't be expressed in nice demand and supply curves all that easily. Corporations always have the motive of making profit, while a Government exists first and foremost to keep the standard of living of the governed as high as possible. There's exceptions in either case of course, but it would just be too easy for a company to chose the meat inspector who will offer the best rating, rather than the best price. And that's not something I want the inspectors to compete for.
Also some industries just naturally tend to become monopolies (eg through economies of scale), and the resulting dead weight loss in efficiency is probably worse than the loss created when the Government watches that no company becomes too powerful in the market.
So I say, in practice I like to see Government Intervention in some markets, as that gives added security for the consumer. And you wouldn't like to privatise the US Army either, would you? Enemies could come and offer more money than the tiny Government in such a libertarian state, and then that would be a problem...

Libertarianism (this strand of it, anyway) is about as likely to succeed as any other ideological extremism.

"Libertarianism mainly impacts our Federal government. It calls for extremely low taxation, lots of private companies and so on.

Well, we'll see when we get to the details, but for starters ....

1. With "extremely low taxation" must come "abolition of most government programs" -- easier to advocate the former than justify the latter.

2. Why are private companies run for profit and not the public good always assumed to be better than public entities that ultimately report to the citizenry?

For example, the FDA would be privatized and competition would be allowed to exist.

1. Are you under the delusion that there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry?

2. Why should we trust an FDA run by private industry? Coyote watching the henhouse?

There would be several meat inspection companies competing for business. The meat-packing plant would still be required to submit to inspections, only now they could choose between competitors for the lowest price on inspection. The inspectors, now employed by these private companies, would still be required to ensure that it complies with the same federal codes.

Um, okay.

1. You'd still have all the same laws, just different enforcers?

2. Plants could hire their own inspectors -- and choose those that are cheapest? Wouldn't that be those who inspect the least?

Difference is, taxpayers are no longer supporting a huge bureaucracy, competition keeps the costs down.

Competition between whom? For what?

Nice general concept. Not easy to apply.

This is exactly the same situation with drivers and car insurance. You cannot legally drive without car insurance, therefore you MUST go buy car insurance. You get to choose who insures you and at what rate, but must also comply with minimum insurance levels. The insurer of your car has to comply with laws regarding insurers.

Um.

This system assumes (a) laws regulating insurers, (b) laws regulating who can get driver's licenses, (c) laws regulating driving, (d) laws regulating vehicles, and (e) police and other "bureaucrac[ies]" enforcing said laws.

Not a good example, methinks.

Even in an extreme Libertarian system, there would still be police and other groups with investigative and statutory arrest authority, but they might be getting paid by a police or investigation agency instead of a government.

Police paid for by private interests?

And they would serve those interests?

Who guards the guardians?

Privatization is a huge central notion of Libertarianism, but it IS NOT ANARCHY. That is the most key misunderstood notion about Libertarians, btw. "

quote from Objective Patriotism

is Libertarianism good or bad? please express your opinion.

Funny how so many rant about Microsoft and other mega-corporations, but would gladly turn over democractic government to those same corporations.

Bad idea. Me likes voting.

Libertarianism is essentially business-suit anarchism.

Only third world countries have 'small governments'

It is nonsense and disaster, naivette to the point of idiocy.

In the sense used here, no, I don't support it.

It is not, If you would reaserch it more, and stop speaking on things that you do not have the knowledge of.

http://www.libertarianism.com/

go there and get the facts before posting

My country is basically libertarian.

That's as far as we're going to get to an actual libertarian state. It's a great ideal, but as is the case in true anarchy, you need a strong establishment to hold up society. This has been the case for 10,000 years, and it is the case now.

The notion of privatization is confusing at first for many. The common accusation is that out-of-control corporations will overtake all aspects of society.

However, this is short-sighted. Already, an out-of-control US Government wages world-wide wars and passes whatever anti-terrorism laws it wishes, regardless of their impact on our privacy and freedom.

What difference is there between a powerful GOVERNMENT and a powerful CORPORATION?

Any group of sufficient power may exert unlawful force on their inferiors, but that was the purpose of the Bill of Rights. We are supposed to be protected from powerful groups who want to steal our freedoms. We are NOT being protected. Not from corporations, not from government.

Under a Libertarian system, what little government there is, is strictly limited to certain vital operations. One of those vital operations is promoting economic growth, another is promoting the Constitutional rights of the people. Where they conflict, the economy will lose and the people's Rights will prevail. Interesting that both our current corporations AND our current government frequently choose the economy first...

Government is no protection form corporate excess! In fact, they go hand in hand. The claims of Libertarian detractors are always ripe with the smell of European socialism, where people have few rights and the economy is stagnant.

The best solution is to have a small government of extremely limited powers, but to allow them to exert strong control over the issuance of Corporate Charters! Corporations which prove to be untrustworthy will lose their charters, be liquidated and sold to competitors. Also, a corporate charter should not protect the board from prosecution or repayment of debts...

"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

If this interests you, please explore the material at this site. Evaluate these ideas. Kick their tires and take them for an intellectual "test drive."

We hope you will join us in embracing this ideal -- and in taking a stand to personally help bring about a world of liberty, abundance and peace."

from www.Libertarianism.com

I like the idea of letting everyone live however they like, the government leaving people alone about who they want to fuck and what they want to putin their bodies. However laizze-faire capitalism isn't a good idea at all.

And that is why we need libertarian socialism.

What difference is there between a powerful GOVERNMENT and a powerful CORPORATION?
There isn't. However, the difference is that there wouldn't be just one corporation. There would be many corporations, taking over different aspects of society, with more care for profits then heed for their country. There would be no communication between the corporations, so there's no telling what one corporation would do that would effect another.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

this is a good quiz to find where you stand politically

I like the idea of letting everyone live however they like, the government leaving people alone about who they want to fuck and what they want to putin their bodies. However laizze-faire capitalism isn't a good idea at all.

And that is why we need libertarian socialism.
Now THAT might work. My reason is that the corporations wouldn't communicate. Libertarian socialism would be corporations, all bound together with more solid connections to the state then they would normally. They would do their same capitalist thing as they did before, but the communication that is critical to the success of a country would be much greater. The governent would serve as a "hub" for the corporations to make decisions... a corporate senate! Someone needs to write this down!

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

that wouldnt be socialism... just a more unified libertarian society, but would even more controlled by the corporations - not by the people. that could turn into a corporate police state!

You are not engaging in dialogue. You are cut-and-pasting propaganda.

Can you not defend your views?

Philosophically speaking I feel that it is in no way inherently better then Authoritarianism, the further you take it the harder you get screwed. Once you get to the point (in either direction) that "drawing the line" is no longer ethically in line with your belief (the infamous slippery slope that you support on the "why not?" basis.) If we are going to allow this, why not that? If we are going to forbid this, why not that? This being the path that takes you to equally dangerous extremes.

Ideally you would find the "sweet spot" in the middle, draw the line, and maintain the damn line.

lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
-- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
* * *

"Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."
-- definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (!), during the process of granting the Advocates for Self-Government status as a non-profit educational organization.
* * *

"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same."
-- Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government
* * *

"Libertarianism promotes a society where no one is the first to harm (strike, defraud, steal from) another. If someone fails to obey this one-and-only law, then he or she must make things right again with the one who is harmed. The only legitimate use of force is self-defense. Basically, libertarianism is a restatement of how we learned to get along with each other as youngsters. We honor our neighbors' choices, and they honor ours. We don't start fights and only fight back when attacked. We try to make right any wrongs that we do. Simple, isn't it?"
-- Dr. Mary Ruwart, Author, Healing Our World
* * *

"Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don't hit your sister."
-- former Advocates Board Chair Dr. Kenneth Bisson
* * *

"Libertarianism is self-government. It combines the best of both worlds: The left leg of self-government is tolerance of others; the right leg is responsible economic behavior. The combination of both legs leads to social harmony and material abundance."
-- Marshall Fritz, Founder of the Advocates for Self-Government; President, Alliance for the Separation of School and State
* * *

"Free minds and free markets."
-- slogan of Reason magazine, a prominent libertarian publication
* * *

:"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
-- from the Preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform
* * *

"In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence -- legal or illegal -- to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today."
-- Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), 1955
* * *

"Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. Libertarians value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity."
-- Carole Ann Rand, Chair, Board of Directors, Advocates for Self-Government
* * *

"Libertarianism is what you probably already believe… Libertarian values are American values. Libertarianism is America's heritage of liberty, patriotism and honest work to build a future for your family. It's the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual, with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide what's best for you. Americans of all races and creeds built a great and prosperous country with these libertarian ideals. Let's use them to build America's future."
-- David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and author of Libertarianism in One Lesson
* * *

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are *not* libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
-- author L. Neil Smith

and yea I am cut and Pasting, because I am not a good writer, but the things I am cutting and Pasting support and defend my views

that wouldnt be socialism... just a more unified libertarian society, but would even more controlled by the corporations - not by the people. that could turn into a corporate police state!
Yeah. I know that isn't socialism. I just picked it up and ran with it. Let's call it a "Corporate Bordello", for our sake.

Anyway, the "Corporate Senate" would not be permitted, by law, to make any law involving civil rights, only about the economy and its driving. There would be a supreme court or somesuch to enforce this.

Philosophically speaking I feel that it is in no way inherently better then Authoritarianism, the further you take it the harder you get screwed.

How can this be like Authoritarianism? It is the Opposite of it? I know where you are coming from, that all extremes fail, but this is not a extreme. Anarchism is an extreme. Libertarianism is a more moderate aproach to the extremes

about your Idea, that would form a more Corporatistic society than a Capitalistic society, which would enevitable fail.

I like freedom, but I don't think libertarianism will increase my freedom in practice. For example gun control in Australia reduces my freedom to shoot people, but increases my freedom not to be shot. As I wish to not be shot more than I wish to shoot people, this is a good deal for me.

I think Libertarians should work on getting some of their good ideas enacted in a limited form. By good ideas, I mean the ones where there is actual evidence that they will work. For example, their is evidence that supplying safe herion to addicts for free (or at a very low cost) would cut down on crime and save lives, but is that is not the same as legalization. If you can demonstrate that this is a good idea, then you can push for further decriminalization/legalization. If the expansion doesn't turn out to be a good idea, go back to the former system. Don't get hung up on ideology.

If libertarians want to go and collect evidence about their ideas, great! But I don't think decisions based on ideology are a good idea.

Cutting taxes can be a good idea, lots of people like lower taxes, but also, a lot of what is said about taxes are lies. Yes, low taxes are in general better for the economy than high taxes, but it's not clear cut. For example, Britian collects nearly twice as much tax as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. but their economy has been doing much better than the U.S.

If Libertarians want people to act on their ideas, they should proceed one step at a time, only putting forward ideas that that have evidence to back them up. For example, "Eyeglasses are cheap in Japan, because you don't need qualifications to give an eye test. If we try to eliminate qualifications here, we'll run into too much oposition and be accused of putting peoples sight at risk. We should push for a reduction in the qualifications needed to give eye tests instead."

Demanding the entire Libertarian package at once puts people off, and makes them feel that you are, well, stomping on their freedom to disagree.

I am for libertarianism, which I define as allowing people to do whatever they want provided that such does not impede on other's rights to same (i.e. crime, for example, is illegal).

~Czardas, Libertarian Expansionist Supreme Ruler of the Universe

How can this be like Authoritarianism? It is the Opposite of it? I know where you are coming from, that all extremes fail, but this is not a extreme. Anarchism is an extreme. Libertarianism is a more moderate aproach to the extremes

As I said, "why not" go further? Any belief that assumes the result will be a Utopia is wrong, pure and simple. Even if you support a nice system there will ALWAYS be others that take advantage of it and the closer that system leans towards anarchy the faster it will invariably get there. Once you shift weight to one side the weight will continue to slide in that direction until it brings the whole thing crumbling, it doesn't matter which direction you go.

but, from what you are saying, all governments would slide into corruption and Anarchy...

I'm not a libertarian, though, on occassion, I am confused with one.
The problem with libertarianism, IMO, is the lack of a distinction between neccessary goods (goods that every society needs before it can develop industry), consumer goods, and capital goods.
Their macroeconomic model suggests that a variance in one is only as important as a variance in another.
Horribly unjustified, in my humble opinon. A shortage of food, IE, a famine, will absolutley devestate your economy, while a shortage in television sets is only a temporary hinderance.


And, contrary to popular libertarian belief, it IS possible for a somewhat state planned economy to succeed. Japan between 1850 and 1914 modernized very rapidly, and many of their industries were state-owned(metarllurgical plants, mining, and ship building)


Note: I'm a free market, demand-side type of guy. :)

but, from what you are saying, all governments would slide into corruption and Anarchy...

All governments DO slide into corruption. All civilizations fall. Anarchy on the other hand is still playing tug-of-war for who gets to fall in the shit heap first.

That little game of tug-of-war is what will eventually fuck things up. Because it goes nowhere, people start to become dissatisfied with the lack of motion on behalf of their believe and go more to an extreme which off sets the weight. Either way the result is disaster.

so then why not go for the government that is the most effective while it lasts??? In my opinion that would be Libertarianism.

But if the government is checked enough by the people for corruption it would not fall into major corruption(as the US has so far, the only PROVEN time of political Corruption was watergate, which was descovered by Journalists.)

so then why not go for the government that is the most effective while it lasts???

Rome? That lasted pretty damn long. Of course they had some of the most brutal punishments for crime in history and they where under no delusion over their blatant imperialism.


But if the government is checked enough by the people for corruption it would not fall into major corruption(as the US has so far, the only PROVEN time of political Corruption was watergate, which was descovered by Journalists.)

Pfft, if Watergate is the earliest example of government curruption you could find I suggest you study up a little.

I got this from a Pro website so it may be Baised, but its all good :cool:
------
Do libertarians want to get rid of all government?
Libertarians want to replace as much government as they practically can with private, voluntary alternatives. About 3/4 are "minarchists" who favor stripping government of most of its accumulated power to meddle, leaving only the police and courts for law enforcement and a sharply reduced military for national defense (nowadays some might also leave special powers for environmental enforcement). The other 1/4 (including the authors of this FAQ) are anarcho-capitalists who believe that "limited government" is a contradiction and the free market can even provide better law, order, and security than any government monopoly.

Note: Even a completely libertarian society would still have a lot of structures that look like a modern-day government. The problem here is one of competing definitions: if by government you mean "that set of institutions in society on which we rely to defend our rights and aid us in the peaceful adjudication of disputes," then libertarians want lots of government, probably more and better government than we have now. On the other hand, if by "government" you mean "an organization which has a monopoly on initiation of force (coercion) and which is regarded as legitimate when it exercises that right," then libertarians want little or no "government." This ambiguity is inherent in the language, and results in a lot of misunderstandings on the net.

Now THAT might work. My reason is that the corporations wouldn't communicate. Libertarian socialism would be corporations, all bound together with more solid connections to the state then they would normally. They would do their same capitalist thing as they did before, but the communication that is critical to the success of a country would be much greater. The governent would serve as a "hub" for the corporations to make decisions... a corporate senate! Someone needs to write this down!

Libertarian socialism covers a wide variety of political theories, including most forms of anarchism as well as any forms of communism and socialism that allow one the freedom to conduct themselves free of government interferance.

I actually favour minarchist if not anarchist communism for how the government should work.

Roman Imperialism really only lasted 400 years( 50bc to 350 ad. The United States government has lasted 200 years and it looks like it will last much longer. It is based on conflicting Ideals, a 2 party system. Did you know the 3rd most powerful party is the National Libertarian Party?

Rome? That lasted pretty damn long. Of course they had some of the most brutal punishments for crime in history and they where under no delusion over their blatant imperialism.
Byzantine lasted a long time. Wouldn't work in the US, though. We'd never tolerate all the evil liberal bureaucrats. :p

there are a few others (like Lincolns assassination, Which was planned by the Republican radicals!!!) but the most proven and well known area of corruption was Watergate.

Roman Imperialism really only lasted 400 years( 50bc to 350 ad. The United States government has lasted 200 years and it looks like it will last much longer. It is based on conflicting Ideals, a 2 party system. Did you know the 3rd most powerful party is the National Libertarian Party?

LOL.

Depending on how you define "most powerful."

Regardless, that is a little like saying Butch is the third most important character in Tom & Jerry cartoons.

most powerful = most supporters

Badnarick (libertarian presidential candidate) officially ran under the platform that he would completely and fully abolish Child Protection Services (don't know the real name and to lazy to look it up).
need i say anything else?

It is not, If you would reaserch it more, and stop speaking on things that you do not have the knowledge of.

http://www.libertarianism.com/

go there and get the facts before posting



The libertarians in arizona tried, a few years ago, to pass a ballot initiative that would have done away with state taxes.

This would have been a disaster and the idea was idiotic, it is a shock that it failed, though it only failed by a small margin.


Wasnt part of badnarik's platform the legalization of all drugs and weapons?

most powerful = most supporters

Funny that.

2004 Presidential Election:
Party --------------Popular Votes
Republican Party -- 62,040,610 --50.73%
Democratic -- 59,028,111 -- 48.27%
Independent -- 463,653 -- 0.38%
Libertarian -- 397,265 -- 0.32%

2000 Presidential Election
Democratic 51,003,926 48.38%
Republican 50,460,110 47.87%
Green 2,883,105 2.73%
Reform 449,225 0.43%
Libertarian 384,516 0.36%

1996 Presidential Election
Democratic 47,400,125 49.23%
Republican 39,198,755 40.72%
Reform 8,085,402 8.40%
Green 685,297 0.71%
Libertarian 485,798 0.50%

You were saying?

Roman Imperialism really only lasted 400 years( 50bc to 350 ad. The United States government has lasted 200 years and it looks like it will last much longer. It is based on conflicting Ideals, a 2 party system. Did you know the 3rd most powerful party is the National Libertarian Party?

The earliest evidence we have for the existance of "Rome" goes back to 1400 BC. Granted the system of government changed drastically MANY times, the civilization lasted one HELL of a long time.

technicaly independent isnt a party, so in the 2004 elections they were the 3rd most popular party.

technicaly independent isnt a party, so in the 2004 elections they were the 3rd most popular party.

Talk about grasping for straws. :rolleyes:

you said GOVERNMENTS corrupt. not nations. the Republic of Rome corrupted into a Despotic Imperuim by ceaser at 46? BC

technicaly independent isnt a party, so in the 2004 elections they were the 3rd most popular party.

So your point is that in one of the last four Presidential elections the Libertarian Party is third most popular if you discount the actual third place vote-getters?

And that it is third most popular with a whopping 0.32% of the vote?

That is what -- about 1/150th of the support for the second most popular?

An almost 59 million vote gap?

We're afraid. Very afraid. :D

Funny that.

2004 Presidential Election:
Party --------------Popular Votes
Republican Party -- 62,040,610 --50.73%
Democratic -- 59,028,111 -- 48.27%
Independent -- 463,653 -- 0.38%
Libertarian -- 397,265 -- 0.32%

2000 Presidential Election
Democratic 51,003,926 48.38%
Republican 50,460,110 47.87%
Green 2,883,105 2.73%
Reform 449,225 0.43%
Libertarian 384,516 0.36%

1996 Presidential Election
Democratic 47,400,125 49.23%
Republican 39,198,755 40.72%
Reform 8,085,402 8.40%
Green 685,297 0.71%
Libertarian 485,798 0.50%

You were saying?

You do realize that, according to those stats, in the most recent election, they appear to have captured as many votes as all the other third parties combined?
Meh, doesn't really matter, as there are so many local and state elections that we cannot possibly make a decent analysis from our keyboards.


EDIT IN REGARDS TO PREVIOUS POST: Fear is a healthy thing sometimes. I, for instance, am afraid of carrots. :) Keeps me from choking!

I'm mostly Libertarian. There are certain things the government does that couldn't be adequately provided by privatized means. We'd never have enough engineers without public schools for example. And lazze-fair is a road to disaster when it comes to bioeconomics.

I fail to see how meat inspection could concievably be privatized. You'd need inspectors to make sure the inspectors are honest and so forth. If your going to have a regulating body it HAS to be government. Otherwise corruption is too easy.

I do agree with libertarianism. The organized party certainly needs to tone it down some, but the philosophy behind is by far the best.

you said GOVERNMENTS corrupt. not nations. the Republic of Rome corrupted into a Despotic Imperuim by ceaser at 46? BC
Julius Caesar was never a despot--- stupid propaganda. People only thought he was. He was assassinated, and replaced by Caesar Augustus (AKA Octavian), who immediately turned into a tyrant, made the consulship a post for life, and gave himself a cute crown.

I fail to see how meat inspection could concievably be privatized. You'd need inspectors to make sure the inspectors are honest and so forth. If your going to have a regulating body it HAS to be government. Otherwise corruption is too easy.

Brand name recognition. It is assumed that people will be wise enough to only purchase products that are insured by creditable companies.

Libertarianism? Only in America.

I don't believe in giving manual labourers just peanuts for their hard work, I am stubbornly secular in my beliefs and am opposed to moral relativism in politics which often leads to religious groups being granted special treatment and exemptions from legal codes meaning discrimination towards women and homosexuals in those areas cannot be prevented. Excessive libertarianism can also lead to cultural segregation and a general sense of isolation in the members of a society due to lack of moral cohesion. Wouldn't society be all together more peaceful if it shared its values of justice and equality like a community and instead of constantly gritting our teeth at how the person across the road is living their lives? Depression in people in Britain has risen dramatically in the past eight years and I honestly blame moral relativism aswell as our aimlessly consumeristic lifstyles, a libertarian sytem would only mean more of this.

I would rather be ruled by a somewhat corrupt government than by spineless businesses whose interests lie in nothing but bleeding people dry of as much money as possible.

Though we need a huge libertarian shift, true libertarian change is not good. Its extreme.

1. We are a federal government. We need to behave as one. The articles of the Confederation didn't work for a reason. We do need SOME bureaucracy.

2. We still need a certain amount of tax to pay for education and the sciences least we lose our ability to adapt to modern issues.

The government is to big. But libertarians need to know when to lay off on certain issues.

argh, for the last time you are not ruled by a business. you people continue to argue without knowing what libertarianism really is, and go on assumptions that you got from some posts of anti-Libertarians.

argh, for the last time you are not ruled by a business. you people continue to argue without knowing what libertarianism really is, and go on assumptions that you got from some posts of anti-Libertarians.

argh, right back at ya.

Libertarianism isn't going to work exactly as the pro-libertarian websites you copied from say.

Corporations are powerful. Very powerful. Abolish government and who do you think runs things? The local co-op?

Just because some utopian libertarians say "this is what we want and it'll be 100% peechy keen" does not make it so.

-- and you are the only one here copying-and-pasting from outside sources!

1. With "extremely low taxation" must come "abolition of most government programs" -- easier to advocate the former than justify the latter.

Most of those government programs are unnecessary and inefficient, anyways. They insert government control into markets and industries that could very easily be regulated by market factors.

2. Why are private companies run for profit and not the public good always assumed to be better than public entities that ultimately report to the citizenry?

Because government run agencies have no immediate pressure to perform, and will in turn only do as well as they are wanted to do. There is very few exceeded expectations along with rampant underfunding.


1. Are you under the delusion that there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry?

There is competition in the pharmaceutical industry, but it is skewed and measured by government intervention.

2. Why should we trust an FDA run by private industry? Coyote watching the henhouse?

Because the first time a private drug regulatory company allowed a faulty product to hit the market, and it causes several serious illnesses or deaths it will lose all of its credential and will flounder immediately. That is ample motivation to provide a truthful and viable service.


1. You'd still have all the same laws, just different enforcers?

2. Plants could hire their own inspectors -- and choose those that are cheapest? Wouldn't that be those who inspect the least?

A company who shirks on the inspection will be likely to release a bad product, if they do this they will eventually be financially harmed depending on the severity of their neglegence.

Competition between whom? For what?

Nice general concept. Not easy to apply.

Competition on the market, free market factors determining prices and wages. Modern economics is based on its application.

Um.

This system assumes (a) laws regulating insurers, (b) laws regulating who can get driver's licenses, (c) laws regulating driving, (d) laws regulating vehicles, and (e) police and other "bureaucrac[ies]" enforcing said laws.

Not a good example, methinks.

The only difference is in the level of government intervention. It is based on the idea that if a private industry can perform societal roles better than government, it should be allowed to do so.

Police paid for by private interests?

And they would serve those interests?

Who guards the guardians?

This is a point of contention amongst libertarians, I personally don't believe that the police force should be privatised.

13. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?
Create a more fluid economic environment in which they'd break up. This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years. We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions. We'd make it impossible for corporations to grow fat on "sweetheart deals" paid for with taxpayers' money; we'd lower the cost of capital and regulatory compliance, encouraging entrepreneurship and lowering the optimum size of the business unit.

Here is your answer to corporate power

where is the rebuttal? we havnt beat you yet, have we?

guess we have :)

Julius Caesar was never a despot--- stupid propaganda. People only thought he was. He was assassinated, and replaced by Caesar Augustus (AKA Octavian), who immediately turned into a tyrant, made the consulship a post for life, and gave himself a cute crown.

A tyrant? The Republic was doomed; it was either an Imperium or the collapse of the great nation. Corruption ran rampant throughout Rome; civil wars that had been raging for years were rotting it from the inside; and those barbarians like the Germans and Parthians certainly weren't going to wait for things to get better. Something had to be done, the era of the Roman Republic was over no matter how you looked at it. Reforms had been tried, and while they might have worked, aristocratic opposition was too much, e.g. the Gracchi brothers.

As for Libertarianism; I certainly say that I am a Libertarian and that I am for Libertarianism.

Funny that.

2004 Presidential Election:
Party --------------Popular Votes
Republican Party -- 62,040,610 --50.73%
Democratic -- 59,028,111 -- 48.27%
Independent -- 463,653 -- 0.38%
Libertarian -- 397,265 -- 0.32%

2000 Presidential Election
Democratic 51,003,926 48.38%
Republican 50,460,110 47.87%
Green 2,883,105 2.73%
Reform 449,225 0.43%
Libertarian 384,516 0.36%

1996 Presidential Election
Democratic 47,400,125 49.23%
Republican 39,198,755 40.72%
Reform 8,085,402 8.40%
Green 685,297 0.71%
Libertarian 485,798 0.50%

You were saying?

And the common thread for the #3 is Nader. This makes your argument somewhat specious, as no one but Nader and the mainline candidates got any real airtime.

Once he's gone, the libs should take the #3 position again.

It is not, If you would reaserch it more, and stop speaking on things that you do not have the knowledge of.

http://www.libertarianism.com/

go there and get the facts before postingOr for a more realistic and clearer understanding of Anarchism and Libertarianism go here. http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html

Libertarianism is like the polar opposite of Marxism. Both are good ideas, but probably wouldn't work out to well. No system will be perfect, but I don't like the ideas of everything being privatized or publicized. There needs to be a good mix, I think, and that the best policy is a mix of the best programs and ideas from each side. Of course it won't be perfect, but nothing will. This is an imperfect world, we are imperfect beings, and everything we create is imperfect.

except for Mcdonalds fries... ;)

I'm Lovin' It :fluffle:

Or for a more realistic and clearer understanding of Anarchism and Libertarianism go here. http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html

What you gave is more of an extremist site

sooo, any more opinions on libertarianism?

And the common thread for the #3 is Nader. This makes your argument somewhat specious, as no one but Nader and the mainline candidates got any real airtime.

Once he's gone, the libs should take the #3 position again.

Sure, I'm being specious. :rolleyes:

The number #3 in 1996 was not Nader. What do they teach kids today?

And even without Nader in 1996 and 2000, the Libertarian Party is still not third. The Reform party also did better than the Libertarian Party both years.

And - as you wish to belabor the #3 point -- isn't that rather pathetic? The highest percentage that Libertarian party has gotten -- ever -- is 1.06% in 1980.

Let us look at the Libertarian Party's long and glorious history in Presidential elections:
1980 - 1.06% - 4th
1984 - 0.25% - 3rd
1988 - 0.47% - 3rd
1992 - 0.28% - 4th
1996 - 0.50% - 5th
2000 - 0.36% - 5th
2004 - 0.32% - 4th

So, the Libertarian Party once got 1% of the vote -- and that was 25 years ago. It has done worse since then.

In the last 3 elections, the Green Party garnered about 3.7 million votes total. The Libertarian Party got about 1.27 million. The Reform Party got about 8.5 million.

Are you done with the chest thumping?

The "anti libertarian" posters from whom i formulate my conclusions are, exclusively, Badnarik and the AZ libertarian party.


:rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova Castlemilk / The Seperatist states
Or for a more realistic and clearer understanding of Anarchism and Libertarianism go here. http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html



"What you gave is more of an extremist site"

Actually, what I was seeking to show you was what Anarchism and Libertarianism, isn't. The purpose of that site is to highlight the different (and usually mistaken) claims of those who would profess to be Anarchists or Libertarians. Bakunin would be spinning in his grave if he knew that American economic "theorists" were trying to take ownership of Libertarianism.

Why do lovers of capitalism fear Anarchism/Libertarianism so much, they have to try and take ownership of the very political philosophy that would seek to eradicate the need for any sort of capitalistic exploitation.

Social libertarianism is fine, economic libertarianism is not.

Because the first time a private drug regulatory company allowed a faulty product to hit the market, and it causes several serious illnesses or deaths it will lose all of its credential and will flounder immediately. That is ample motivation to provide a truthful and viable service.
Yes, let's go back to selling heroin as a cough suppressant.


A company who shirks on the inspection will be likely to release a bad product, if they do this they will eventually be financially harmed depending on the severity of their neglegence.How many people have to die in the meantime?

"Libertarianism mainly impacts our Federal government. It calls for extremely low taxation, lots of private companies and so on.

is Libertarianism good or bad? please express your opinion.

Libertarianism is the only thing worth voting for.

If I notice the Government is there at all, that's too much Government.

Market forces only apply if people are aware of what is happening.

If someone makes a drug to cure cancer, and it turns out to be a fake, you assume people will know and stop using it.

But without government regulation you only have the media to inform you. So if the drug company pays the media companies to advertise the cure for cancer, you never know and market forces cannot act.

But without government regulation you only have the media to inform you. So if the drug company pays the media companies to advertise the cure for cancer, you never know and market forces cannot act.Exactly. And since the media is in the pockets of the large corporations, good luck in finding anything out.

Exactly. And since the media is in the pockets of the large corporations, good luck in finding anything out.

Go BBC!

I think handing power from the government to the corporation is counter productive. Sure, governments are often corrupt and can be geared towards helping the few as opposed to the many, but at least they have some pretense of doing what is right for the people.

Corporations on the other hand are willing to admit that they only care about profit. Corporations would happily torture children if it thought it would get them some extra profit. Do you really want to cut regulation of them? The government isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than corporations.

How many people have to die in the meantime?

None, because the resulting PR and financial disaster from a death is ample persuasion not to release a faulty product in the first place.

But without government regulation you only have the media to inform you. So if the drug company pays the media companies to advertise the cure for cancer, you never know and market forces cannot act.

Those involved in fraud are held liable for damages done.

Yes, let's go back to selling heroin as a cough suppressant.

How many people have to die in the meantime?


How many people will die this year while waiting for Merck to finish Stage II and III testing on its broad-spectrum AIDS vaccine/treatment???

You imply that government meddling is saving lives, but Americans have to fight tooth and nail to get drugs that other countries have been taking for years.

I mean, the FDA was shy about SPLENDA (sucralose/sugar alcohol)! This fake sugar substitute that was available in Canada and Europe for years before we could get it. Oh sure, the government WILL PROTECT YOUR BODY, even if it kills you. Same disgusting egotism they show when they want to ban all abortions.

Thanks, but I am smart enough to study up on my polyols, my opiates and my other classes of drug and make my own decisions. You favor a nanny-state, but I'm going to step WAAAYYYY out on a limb here:

Did the FDA certify the pot you smoked at that party back in high school???

If you don't smoke pot, just think about all the nanny-state supporters who DID, but didn't worry for an moment about the results of smoking an illicit chemical (whose legalization I call for immediately, btw)...

These shrill cries of, "BUT THINK OF THE CHIIIILLLDDDREENNNN!!!!" are always so rediculous. Why don't we ban cars, god knows a lot of people die in those...

AH! Another Objectivist! Hooray!

Libertarianism is the only thing worth voting for.

If I notice the Government is there at all, that's too much Government.


There are several fine libertarian paradises in africa where you would be very happy.

You could live your whole life and never be bothered by the government.

That's how it works in the third world.

I'm very much anti-libertarian. They fail to grasp that corporations will always be willing to do whatever it takes to make more money than anybody else- if this means cutting workers wages, smashing trade unions, relentless propaganda campaigning or producing inferior products then it's no problem to them. No capitalist system will ever respect human rights

I'm very much anti-libertarian. They fail to grasp that corporations will always be willing to do whatever it takes to make more money than anybody else- if this means cutting workers wages, smashing trade unions, relentless propaganda campaigning or producing inferior products then it's no problem to them. No capitalist system will ever respect human rights

Right back atcha.

I'm very much anti-left. They fail to grasp that government will always be willing to do whatever it takes to get more power than anybody else- if this means raising workers wages and killing jobs, mismanaging your taxes, relentless propaganda campaigning or just putting you in a cage then it's no problem to them. No leftist system will ever respect your rights.

Those involved in fraud are held liable for damages done.

who buy?

If the corporations hold all the power and control the media, who knows when they are committing fraud and who can challenge them?

Ever read Jenniffer government?

Against against and against. Liberaterianism will destroy us all :sniper: end it now. Any other countries willing to stand up against it send me a telegram or join The Star System. You know what to do. Fight it. :mp5:

I think handing power from the government to the corporation is counter productive. Sure, governments are often corrupt and can be geared towards helping the few as opposed to the many, but at least they have some pretense of doing what is right for the people.

Corporations on the other hand are willing to admit that they only care about profit. Corporations would happily torture children if it thought it would get them some extra profit. Do you really want to cut regulation of them? The government isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than corporations.

I love these broad-sweep comparisons. You actually tear your own point apart right there in your first paragraph:

"Governments are often corrupt" and "geared toward helping the few" and "have some pretense of doing what it right".

The claim about child torture for profit is the best, though, truly.

China, anybody? Here is everybody's favorite underdog nation, a proud country with a thriving economy and rising middle class. Somehow combining "the best" of communism and capitolism, China still uses children's school-time to make fireworks (and possibly bombs) in a factory instead of learning their ABCs! When the factory blows up and kills a bunch of the kids, the government, because it is the RULING POWER, just covers it up. AND ALMOST SUCCEEDS.

http://usinfo.org/USIA/usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/uschina/firewrks.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/07/china.school.blast.03/

Show me a corporation that isn't being fronted by Kathy Lee Gifford that kills children AND has the power to cover it up! (Kathy Lee Gifford uses her powerful satanic investments to cloud our minds with stories of Cody, of course.)

Government is ALWAYS the first danger, followed by Religious Institution. Corporations can be very, very evil, yes. But their evil is always to better their shareholder's station, to profit, whereas governments and religions seek to dominate our lives, not our checkbooks. Government is so, so dangerous because they always have the stink of legality behind their actions. The IRS, ATF, CPS, even the local town council can bend and twist rules to their favour.

Remember, Hitler never broke German law. Enron did.

You say we want to loosen the rules and oversight on corporations, NOT TRUE. If you read back in my replies in this thread, I discussed the vitally-necessary Corporate Charter reforms needed to take the bite out of big corporations and make them start working for the public good.

Corporations ARE out-of-control, and they are doing it with the mega-governments blessing. Big Oil and the Guv are practically one monolithi entity these days. I propose to shoot one in the kneecaps and declaw the other. What is your solution?

Right back atcha.

I'm very much anti-left. They fail to grasp that government will always be willing to do whatever it takes to get more power than anybody else- if this means raising workers wages and killing jobs, mismanaging your taxes, relentless propaganda campaigning or just putting you in a cage then it's no problem to them. No leftist system will ever respect your rights.

It's the governments duty to protect people not to imprison them. The only duty corporations have are to their shareholders and board of directors

I used to be a bit liberal in the politics section, but I find staying away from politics and just viewing things as they are and will be is better. Corporations will always rule the world, people will always have war, poverty, evil, prejudice and crime. There is no way that you can stop these things. It is the result of being human. All humans are born with the 7 "sins" inbreed into them. There is some good that will come of this world as I described it. Corporations will make technological advances and hopefully the people will remain somewhat protected by our Constition and laws. War will help advance technology at a faster rate, but over time all technology is used for war some way. Poverty gives you someone to use and to have do your work or dirty work for low prices, poverty is a result of war. Evil gives you someone to make war on. Prejudice causes evil which you can make war on, therefore advancing technologically and helping the corporations but the end result is poverty.

You may say I'm pessimistic, but this is the world, this is how it is run and how it will always be.

who buy?

If the corporations hold all the power and control the media, who knows when they are committing fraud and who can challenge them?

Ever read Jenniffer government?

You want extremes? I'll give you extremes. If the government holds all the power and media how will you know if and when your tax dollars are being spent to bomb places you've never even heard of? You think coroprations are the only people trying to play us all for fools? Think again.

EDIT:

It's the governments duty to protect people not to imprison them. The only duty corporations have are to their shareholders and board of directors

You're appealing to the somewhat misguided notion that the government always fulfills its duties. Fact of the matter is, it frequently doesn't. Corporations in this country are better at making money than the government is at spending it.

Most of it depends on what you want for your nation; if you want stagnation, for example, socialism and left thinking government is for you [see Europe]. If you want growth, you want capitalism.

You want extremes? I'll give you extremes. If the government holds all the power and media how will you know if and when your tax dollars are being spent to bomb places you've never even heard of? You think coroprations are the only people trying to play us all for fools? Think again.
Everyone is playing people for fools because the American people will believe anything. I'm not kidding man.

Everyone is playing people for fools because the American people will believe anything. I'm not kidding man.

See my second quote below. You're preaching to the choir :D

See my second quote below. You're preaching to the choir :D
I'm confused now. Quotes here quotes there where a quote here a quote argh.

You're appealing to the somewhat misguided notion that the government always fulfills its duties. Fact of the matter is, it frequently doesn't. Corporations in this country are better at making money than the government is at spending it.

Most of it depends on what you want for your nation; if you want stagnation, for example, socialism and left thinking government is for you [see Europe]. If you want growth, you want capitalism.

Firstly can I just say that Europe is NOT socialist. That is a ridiculous assertation. Is all property held in common by the state? No? Then its not socialist.

Secondly I agree the government of the moment is taking alot of tax and doing little with it. 'So where's it going?' you may ask- On imperialistic wars, business subsidies and massive corrupt bureacracy

Thirdly this economic growth of which you speak- who is actually benefitting from it? I don't hear the chinese workers and peasants rejoicing in the wealth capitalism has brought them. In fact, their conditions are as bad as ever due to exploitation.

It's the governments duty to protect people not to imprison them. The only duty corporations have are to their shareholders and board of directors

Who watches over the government? Corporations must release their records to the authorities and can be called in and questioned afterwards. There is lawful oversight.

Would you let Microsoft audit its own tax records? If not, then why would you trust one branch of government to watch over another?

When government is small, the people can watch over it and ensure that checks and balances are operational. When government is huge and the Patriot Act makes the private citizen who asks the hard questions into a terrorist, then you have no oversight.

The government protects its own power, its own agenda. That power is freely given to them by leftists and neo-cons. The agenda is given to them by corporations and special interest groups via money.

Ultimately, WE THE PEOPLE must stand watch over both the government and the corporations. We must stand ever-vigilant against those who would abuse our economy, our freedoms or our lives. But we cannot stand vigilant when people want to give unchecked power to the very forces we seek to watch over.

The governments job IS to imprison us. It must be. Why else would we have the most people incarcerated of any nation in the world??? Why would we have the most foreigners incarcerated (at Camp X-Ray) of any nation in the world? ;)

Government serves its own ends, not the public's needs. You were fooled by your government-trained teachers in the public school system.

Who watches over the government? Corporations must release their records to the authorities and can be called in and questioned afterwards. There is lawful oversight.

Would you let Microsoft audit its own tax records? If not, then why would you trust one branch of government to watch over another?

When government is small, the people can watch over it and ensure that checks and balances are operational. When government is huge and the Patriot Act makes the private citizen who asks the hard questions into a terrorist, then you have no oversight.

The government protects its own power, its own agenda. That power is freely given to them by leftists and neo-cons. The agenda is given to them by corporations and special interest groups via money.

Ultimately, WE THE PEOPLE must stand watch over both the government and the corporations. We must stand ever-vigilant against those who would abuse our economy, our freedoms or our lives. But we cannot stand vigilant when people want to give unchecked power to the very forces we seek to watch over.

The governments job IS to imprison us. It must be. Why else would we have the most people incarcerated of any nation in the world??? Why would we have the most foreigners incarcerated (at Camp X-Ray) of any nation in the world? ;)

Government serves its own ends, not the public's needs. You were fooled by your government-trained teachers in the public school system.

Are you trying to imply that i support the "war on terror" and the human rights abuses which go on with it?

The government needs to be a true government that is set up BY the people and is comprised of the people.

To secure the people's government from right-wing and nationalist elements (both internal and external) we need to establish worker militias

Ultimately a government which ignores the people and a corporation which ignores the people is the same thing. Libertarians however seem to think that the second is a good idea while the first is what happens under every both conservative, liberal and communist societies?

Firstly can I just say that Europe is NOT socialist. That is a ridiculous assertation. Is all property held in common by the state? No? Then its not socialist.

What? You can't deny they're leftists; certainly much moreso than the United States.

Secondly I agree the government of the moment is taking alot of tax and doing little with it. 'So where's it going?' you may ask- On imperialistic wars, business subsidies and massive corrupt bureacracy

I know where it's going, and no, I don't approve either.

Thirdly this economic growth of which you speak- who is actually benefitting from it? I don't hear the chinese workers and peasants rejoicing in the wealth capitalism has brought them. In fact, their conditions are as bad as ever due to exploitation.

China is a much larger nation than the United States; it will then obviously take that nation a much longer time to garner its wealth before it shows up in the pockets of anyone other than the people in power. China's growth is a relatively recent phenomoenon, and if they continue doing what they're doing good things will happen to them.

This thread has degraded into nothing more than nanny-state advocators vs. total anarchists...

I see the discussion has nothing to do with libertarianism anymore.

The LP does not advocate complete government abolition. Merely privitization of certain aspects. (Such as healthcare, welfare, retirement).

The LP does not advocate dismantling of the courts system.... In fact, the LP principle is built around restoring the Court System back to its common-law foundations.... Which means little change in the present system of judiciary itself, only in the application of laws. Enforcement is handled by the courts in this system.... Contentions are solved through civil and criminal suits.

The LP does not advocate the complete abolition of taxes, only "direct tax" (such as income tax, property tax, etc.).... Not tariffs, and other forms of "indirect tax".

No one light a match.... The all the "straw" falling off people's strawmen in here, will set this thread ablaze.

i think this posts illustrates quite well why libertarianism is a very bad idea.

1. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances
so powerful prescription drugs would no longer need to be taken under a doctors supervision.

2. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material
so porn could be sold to minors. so (perhaps) child porn would be legal. so anyone could set up a sex shop next door to my home or the local elementary school

3. We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary
treatment in a mental institution.

4. We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.

today, only those who are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily committed in the US. so dangerously insane people would be left out on the street until they do enough harm to be tossed into prison where they will receive no treatment.

5. Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees. (And the practical difference would be ....?)
so those who pay the most will get the services of private police forces and the rest will be left to deal with crime as best they can?

6. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

so no court approved wiretaps to get evidence to convict organized crime? no subpeonaed evidence in court cases that might damage one side or the other? huh?


7.Wherever possible, private security agencies should replace public institutions.
private police and military?

8. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. (emphasis added)
so anyone, any time, any where can carry any weapon they want no matter how dangerous the weapon or the carrier. even the crazy man ranting to strangers on the street about the need for tinfoil hats can carry an AK-47.


9. We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military.
no draft no matter what the need for it?

10. We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.


even more unscreened aliens entering the country. no way to keep them out, or send them back or even know if they are terrorists coming in to do us harm. people coming in regardless of employment possibilities, housing, education, infrastructure of whatever kind?

11. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.
a quick trip back to the bad old days of black people not being allowed to eat in "white" restaurants

12. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.
so the children of the poor would be uneducated and forced to work for whatever wages a 6 year old could get.

13. We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

a myriad of different currencies issued by a myriad of different institutions all floating against each other.

wow that is like a laundry list of why libertarianism is a bad idea. all that talk of freedom and liberty and these are the results you really want? THIS is what you want to bring the US to? no thank you.

This thread has degraded into nothing more than nanny-state advocators vs. total anarchists...

I see the discussion has nothing to do with libertarianism anymore.

The LP does not advocate complete government abolition. Merely privitization of certain aspects. (Such as healthcare, welfare, retirement).

The LP does not advocate dismantling of the courts system.... In fact, the LP principle is built around restoring the Court System back to its common-law foundations.... Which means little change in the present system of judiciary itself, only in the application of laws. Enforcement is handled by the courts in this system.... Contentions are solved through civil and criminal suits.

The LP does not advocate the complete abolition of taxes, only "direct tax" (such as income tax, property tax, etc.).... Not tariffs, and other forms of "indirect tax".

No one light a match.... The all the "straw" falling off people's strawmen in here, will set this thread ablaze.

Let us be clear -- this was never an intelligent discussion of libertarianism.

And the strawmen are arrayed on both sides.

Not every government is a Chinese dictatorship, for example.

I cited some of the ridiculous policies the LP actually does advocate. No one has been willing to defend them.

Instead, they spew propogandic pablum.

oops

Are you trying to imply that i support the "war on terror" and the human rights abuses which go on with it?

The government needs to be a true government that is set up BY the people and is comprised of the people.

To secure the people's government from right-wing and nationalist elements (both internal and external) we need to establish worker militias

Ultimately a government which ignores the people and a corporation which ignores the people is the same thing. Libertarians however seem to think that the second is a good idea while the first is what happens under every both conservative, liberal and communist societies?

Ummm... Where to start?

Am I implying that you support it? No, but you openly and defiantly support the existance of a large and powerful government, the consequence of which is out-of-control global policing and war. Since when did a Corporation send a police force to a foreign nation or start a war between two countries?

You also imply that there would be a difference in what type of government was predominantly in power- That a liberal or communist government would not behave the same way as our own fairly conservative administration. But therein lies the failure of your beliefs:

China, Russia, Germany and Italy all had "leftist" governments that were pro-worker and anti-corporate, if not outright communist. The Brownshirts that lifted Hitler to power began as Unionists and were bouyed by the academic intellegentsia of post-Great War Germany. All of these governments grew powerful and violent, they all invaded other nations and made war for profit. Remember Tibet, Afghanistan, Poland and the others...

The label you put on a government is irrelevant, their initial politics beneath consideration. The power they hold is unstoppable and they will turn it to their own means- legally- at will.

What is a worker militia? I am in support of the original intent of the Second Amendment, which is guns held by private individuals and used for community defense against invasions and so on. This is the "unorganized militia" which is referenced in the United States Code and utterly ignored by all parties in the gun debate.

You speak of Libertarians supporting out-of-control Corporations which are not sensitive to the rights of the people. I have repeatedly renounced this belief and stated what should be done about corporations- if you must, search for my other posts on this site.

You can attack random Libertarians, or you can attack what I personally have posted about corporations, but not both. You have not responded to my points and keep repeating the points of the stereotypical Libertarian, which I am not.

I know it is hard to believe that I am not some Libertarian party-line enforcer, but I support the broad ideals and yet take my own stances on a number of issues. :)

Ummm... Where to start?

Am I implying that you support it? No, but you openly and defiantly support the existance of a large and powerful government, the consequence of which is out-of-control global policing and war. Since when did a Corporation send a police force to a foreign nation or start a war between two countries?
See the Chaco war- a war started for the benefit of oil companies.

You also imply that there would be a difference in what type of government was predominantly in power- That a liberal or communist government would not behave the same way as our own fairly conservative administration. But therein lies the failure of your beliefs:

China, Russia, Germany and Italy all had "leftist" governments that were pro-worker and anti-corporate, if not outright communist. The Brownshirts that lifted Hitler to power began as Unionists and were bouyed by the academic intellegentsia of post-Great War Germany. All of these governments grew powerful and violent, they all invaded other nations and made war for profit. Remember Tibet, Afghanistan, Poland and the others...

Let's examine these countries shall we?
China- now can hardly be called socialist seeing as it lets McDonalds operate it. Founded basically by Stalinists who have a tendency to manipulate things their own way.
Russia- Revolution started pretty well with active worker involvement in overhtrowing the powerless provisional government however soon collapsed with civil war and stalin's refusal to take socialism abroad. Due to russia's backwards economy this soon led to mass starvation as neither corporations nor the government was able to get enough food to the people
Germany- Okay, just because a party does not favour a totally free market does not make it left-wing. Communist parties are internationalist as opposed to patriotic which means that Hitler's party (which pretty quickly managed to break any trade union links once in power) was never a true leftist party.
Italy- You're calling Mussolini a left winger? Are you joking?
The fact is that the governments you have just described have either been stalinist or fascist, which is essentially the same thing (look at the national bolshevik party for more proof) which is not a left wing movement as it seeks oppression and a permanently authoritarian system as opposed to a liberation of the workers which is what we seek
The label you put on a government is irrelevant, their initial politics beneath consideration. The power they hold is unstoppable and they will turn it to their own means- legally- at will.

What is a worker militia? I am in support of the original intent of the Second Amendment, which is guns held by private individuals and used for community defense against invasions and so on. This is the "unorganized militia" which is referenced in the United States Code and utterly ignored by all parties in the gun debate.

To deal with your first point, not all governments have to be corrupt. I know it happens farely freuently because utter power corrupts. This is why many communists propose a system where the government is actually composed of the people (eg a direct democracy with rotation of bureacratic positions)

Now a workers militia is a grouped of armed workers who are there to protect the socialist state from an imperialist invasion/ attempted counterrevolution from right-wingers. Essetntially they are people who work in the same place/ live near each other and are armed and learn to fight so that we can take the battle to the streets.

You speak of Libertarians supporting out-of-control Corporations which are not sensitive to the rights of the people. I have repeatedly renounced this belief and stated what should be done about corporations- if you must, search for my other posts on this site.

But libertarians do support corporations- no matter what you insist a "free market" always allows people to become rich off the labour of others which leads to large organisations of corrupt fatcats willing to exploit the poor doing anything to make money. Usually because they own the media as well the facts will not be spoken of

You can attack random Libertarians, or you can attack what I personally have posted about corporations, but not both. You have not responded to my points and keep repeating the points of the stereotypical Libertarian, which I am not.

I know it is hard to believe that I am not some Libertarian party-line enforcer, but I support the broad ideals and yet take my own stances on a number of issues. :)
I am not attacking you, I am attempting to make my point that libertarianism is highly flawed. Damn I'm tired now.

Ummm... Where to start?

Am I implying that you support it? No, but you openly and defiantly support the existance of a large and powerful government, the consequence of which is out-of-control global policing and war.

Do you honestly think you are making good points in favor of Libertarians?

To say anyone that is not a Libertarian supports any abuse of power by any government in history is patently absurd. Shame on you.

If anyone opposed to your views is "pro-government" and therefore must support all government actions, then you must support all "anti-government" actions. Care to explain why you are your Al-Queda buddies were justified in the 9/11 attacks?

I thought not. Quit making silly false dilemmas for anyone who disagrees with you.

Even you support some government. The question is where to draw the line.

Some of us think the US Constitution does the job rather well.

Since when did a Corporation send a police force to a foreign nation or start a war between two countries?

LOL. You should study the history of Latin America.

You also imply that there would be a difference in what type of government was predominantly in power- That a liberal or communist government would not behave the same way as our own fairly conservative administration. But therein lies the failure of your beliefs:

China, Russia, Germany and Italy all had "leftist" governments that were pro-worker and anti-corporate, if not outright communist. The Brownshirts that lifted Hitler to power began as Unionists and were bouyed by the academic intellegentsia of post-Great War Germany. All of these governments grew powerful and violent, they all invaded other nations and made war for profit. Remember Tibet, Afghanistan, Poland and the others...

Again, this is ridiculous.

Fascism and communism are hardly the same. They are arguably opposites.

But some of us believe in constitutional democracy. Is it without flaws? No. But is a damn sight better than the alternatives.

You appear willing to trust citizens to control and regulate their actions for the good of all without any government -- but you distrust the ability of the same citizens to vote and legislate within constitutional constraints.

The label you put on a government is irrelevant, their initial politics beneath consideration. The power they hold is unstoppable and they will turn it to their own means- legally- at will.

LOL.

Good thing they have internet access in the Gulag you must be typing this from.


What is a worker militia? I am in support of the original intent of the Second Amendment, which is guns held by private individuals and used for community defense against invasions and so on. This is the "unorganized militia" which is referenced in the United States Code and utterly ignored by all parties in the gun debate.

You don't even want to go there. Create a separate thread if you like.

But this feeble argument is raised in almost every gun control debate. And it is easily refuted.

You speak of Libertarians supporting out-of-control Corporations which are not sensitive to the rights of the people. I have repeatedly renounced this belief and stated what should be done about corporations- if you must, search for my other posts on this site.

That you say it wouldn't happen does not make it so.

I fear not just for the unchecked power of corporations under your Libertarian policies, but also the encroachments upon liberty by other unchecked citizens.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51

You can attack random Libertarians, or you can attack what I personally have posted about corporations, but not both. You have not responded to my points and keep repeating the points of the stereotypical Libertarian, which I am not.

I know it is hard to believe that I am not some Libertarian party-line enforcer, but I support the broad ideals and yet take my own stances on a number of issues. :)

Typical duck and weave. You argue for Libertarians -- but with little specifics.

When specifics are raised, you either claim they aren't your private view of Libertarianism or you ignore them.

Anyone can take a vague stance for liberty. We almost all agree on that. The devil is in the details.

None, because the resulting PR and financial disaster from a death is ample persuasion not to release a faulty product in the first place.


And yet it still happens. Hmmm?

Right back atcha.

I'm very much anti-left. They fail to grasp that government will always be willing to do whatever it takes to get more power than anybody else- if this means raising workers wages and killing jobs, mismanaging your taxes, relentless propaganda campaigning or just putting you in a cage then it's no problem to them. No leftist system will ever respect your rights.

LOL.

But right-wing systems will? :rolleyes:

In a constitutional republic, the people are the government. We must be vigilant, we must be careful. But mindless fear of democratic government is just that: mindless.

Great crimes you listed there: raising workers wages?

When were you put in a cage? Did you do something wrong first?

This type of hysterical rhetoric does little to further your cause. It only brings the rationality of your views into question.

Wow, there are a lot of extremists in here...

1. Government is not always(and quite possibly rarely) looking out for itself. The days of this are over (or temporarily on delay, anyways), due to notions of nationialism and democracy. We demand that government look out for us now, where as, in the old days, we didn't care what dictator was in charge since the fields still had to be planted.
Hitler had what he thought were Germany's best interests in mind when he invaded Poland. (Living space)
Pol Pot had what he thought were were Cambodia's best interests in mind. (Perfect communist society)
Modern-day Democrats have what they think are America's best interests in mind when they support trial lawyers. (People's right to sue bad doctors)
Modern-day Republicans have what they think are America's best interests ni mind when they support business subsidies. (Supply-side economics)

2. Most businesses and many corporations do not focus on "screwing people out of their dollars". They offer their services for what they believe are fair costs. Most believe they are also fulfilling the wants of a population, which they consider noble. (Advertising is something a bit different...)

3. Government does often behave like an unaccountable monopoly. I trust them to have my best interests in mind, but I also trust Stalin, Hitler, Kerry, Bush, Blair, Chirac, Schroder, Martin, and every other world leader to cover up their mistakes. (What person does like to own up to his/her mistake?) Government can do whatever it wants to try to pay for these mistakes (Big Dig in Massachussets...) when it already has claimed a contract for itself, and is susceptible only to elections during which the vast majority of the population is decieved.
When businesses screw up, like Enron, they tend to go bankrupt. (And if you are an "essential industry", government will pay for your losses...but this goes back to 1. Airline companies ARE considered essential by a great many people)

4. Corporations do engage in some verrrry nasty activities when they are not regulated by government. These include not including bathrooms in factories, whipping small Asian children, and hiring Pinkertons to attack people on strike.

Wow, there are a lot of extremists in here... Extreme?!?!?! :headbang:

Libertarianism is not extreme, socialism is extreme, facism is extreme, but not libertarianism. Your Ignorance continues to frustrate me.

And yet it still happens. Hmmm?

Because the government removes the responsibility and accountability. How many pharmaceutical companies have been put out of business because of faulty medications?

Extreme?!?!?! :headbang:

Libertarianism is not extreme, socialism is extreme, facism is extreme, but not libertarianism. Your Ignorance continues to frustrate me.
everything you put on your list of libertarian platform that i went over item by item (and you ignored) is extreme.

doing away with US currency is somehow NOT extreme?

I am going to point out extreme in our current nation, the USA.

1) Public Cameras
2) Drivers License
3) Income Tax, Sales Tax, etc
4) Social Security
5) Gun control

etc...

you do not realize how privitising Currency will work. your learn the goals, but not how to achieve them. You also refuse to admit the good things about privitising the Dollar.

It is a Statistically Proven fact that nations with no gun control laws have less crime.

Why should money you work for go to other people? It is up to them to make there own money, or save there own money for retirment.

do you want someone else watching you go on your daily business? do you want Big Brother peeping over your shoulder?

I am going to point out extreme in our current nation, the USA.

1) Public Cameras
2) Drivers License
3) Income Tax, Sales Tax, etc
4) Social Security
5) Gun control

etc...

you do not realize how privitising Currency will work. your learn the goals, but not how to achieve them. You also refuse to admit the good things about privitising the Dollar.

how can the status quo qualify as extreme?

i know enough about how privatizing currency would work to know that i dont want it done and that there is no way it will ever be done regardless of my opinion on it.

everything you put on your list of libertarian platform that i went over item by item (and you ignored) is extreme.

doing away with US currency is somehow NOT extreme?

There would be nothing stopping the US from offering currency. What would be stopped is legal tender laws that force people to accept the US Dollar as repayment on debt. This would require the US to accurately value its dollar and would remove government control over the monetary flow in this country.

"Libertarianism mainly impacts our Federal government. It calls for extremely low taxation, lots of private companies and so on.

I am definitely pro-libertarian, but here's the part that scares me:

Under the federal government, federal employees, and many other employees in the private sector, are given, by law, worker's comp, paid vacation, a guaranteed minimum wage, some form of health care, and in general, a protective safety net than many working class families couldn't survive without.

Being a member of the working class, I can tell you, it's rough out there. I don't have mommy and daddy to fall back on. If I get hurt on the job and can't make my mortgage, what will I do?

How can we guarantee that the private sector will provide these failsafes that allow American workers to achieve the American dream? If the private sector remains or becomes largely unregulated, how can we be sure that the American worker is not shouldering more economic burden than he can bear?

There would be nothing stopping the US from offering currency. What would be stopped is legal tender laws that force people to accept the US Dollar as repayment on debt. This would require the US to accurately value its dollar and would remove government control over the monetary flow in this country.
oh well that changes everything. [/sarcasm]

there was an interesting show about the gold rush on the history channel a while back, turns out that there was so little US currency in san francisco in the early days that various banks issued their own currency based on gold deposits. some of it worked pretty well, some didnt, but once the US govt got enough over there everyone switched to the more stable US currency.

your point?

oh well that changes everything. [/sarcasm]

there was an interesting show about the gold rush on the history channel a while back, turns out that there was so little US currency in san francisco in the early days that various banks issued their own currency based on gold deposits. some of it worked pretty well, some didnt, but once the US govt got enough over there everyone switched to the more stable US currency.

That is what I am saying.

If the US Dollar is the best currency, then legal tender laws are unnecessary anyways, as lenders and borrowers will only want to deal in the US Dollar.

Legal tender laws either don't matter or hurt the individual financially.

Because the government removes the responsibility and accountability.

LOL. Pray tell, how does the government do that?


How many pharmaceutical companies have been put out of business because of faulty medications?

"Exactically!," said the Caterpillar.

There would be nothing stopping the US from offering currency. What would be stopped is legal tender laws that force people to accept the US Dollar as repayment on debt. This would require the US to accurately value its dollar and would remove government control over the monetary flow in this country.

That is very nice.

But that is not what the Libertarian platform says.

And before you say "I don't have to agree with the LP Platform," Ashmoria's question was specifically in that context.

Regardless, you have got to be kidding.

That is very nice.

But that is not what the Libertarian platform says.

And before you say "I don't have to agree with the LP Platform," Ashmoria's question was specifically in that context.

Regardless, you have got to be kidding.
what cat? youre not looking forward to the day when you can buy things in walmart dollars??

what cat? youre not looking forward to the day when you can buy things in walmart dollars??

I pine for the good old days when we was paid in company scrip.

That is very nice.

But that is not what the Libertarian platform says.

And before you say "I don't have to agree with the LP Platform," Ashmoria's question was specifically in that context.

Ashmoria was not commenting on the official LP platform, he/she was commenting on the list that States had posted. In States post he made no mention of banning the government from minting currency. He only stated that the government could not mint fiat money, nor could it prevent private entities from minting money.

EDIT: He did in fact mention the banning of government minted coins. So I am in the wrong on that one.

Regardless, you have got to be kidding.

Why?

what cat? youre not looking forward to the day when you can buy things in walmart dollars??

If "walmart dollars" were more valuable than the US dollar, what would be your justification for forcing us to use the US Dollar.

good point Vittos, they just cant get over there Thick Skulls that it is possible to do that, and the economy prosper.

If "walmart dollars" were more valuable than the US dollar, what would be your justification for forcing us to use the US Dollar.
its the thought of that awful yellow smiley face where george washington should be. *shudder*

good point Vittos, they just cant get over there Thick Skulls that it is possible to do that, and the economy prosper.

Thanks, but you aren't helping me out by insulting them.

If the dollar were privatized or put back on the gold standard, the government would have greatly diminshed power in controlling the demand side of the economic equation.
Since my entire economic model is predicated on government manipulating demand, I could never support privaztizing the dollar. :p

its the thought of that awful yellow smiley face where george washington should be. *shudder*

Although I did chuckle, I hope that you didn't make the joke as a substitute for a real answer.

Against. I really dont like people destroying many things so they can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anybody else. They would allow the destruction of forests (I dont care), polluting of water (slightly care), killing of whales (for that). Besides the next generation would want what ever right they dont have regaurdless of who gets affected

If the dollar were privatized or put back on the gold standard, the government would have greatly diminshed power in controlling the demand side of the economic equation.
Since my entire economic model is predicated on government manipulating demand, I could never support privaztizing the dollar. :p

What is your economic model?

Although I did chuckle, I hope that you didn't make the joke as a substitute for a real answer.
since i dont have alot of patience for debating topics that will never happen, it really IS my substitute for a real answer.

but since you were so disappointed how about we substitute "walmart dollars" for "enron dollars" and the problems i have with it will be obvious. YOU may be fine with letting people be destroyed by their own financial mistakes but the rest of US society isnt.

since i dont have alot of patience for debating topics that will never happen, it really IS my substitute for a real answer.

Well then our discussion shall end.

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal



From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity
If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

3. Tear down barriers to entrepreneurism and economic growth
Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.

In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

4. Reform education
There can be no serious attempt to solve the problem of poverty in America without addressing our failed government-run school system. Nearly forty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's schools are becoming increasingly segregated, not on the basis of race, but on income. Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate.

It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty.

Summary
We should not pretend that reforming our welfare system will be easy or painless. In particular it will be difficult for those people who currently use welfare the way it was intended -- as a temporary support mechanism during hard times. However, these people remain on welfare for short periods of time. A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance. But our current government-run welfare system is costly to taxpayers and cruel to the children born into a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.

Here is the National Libertarian party's stance on welfare.

What is your economic model?

Simply summed: Keynes.

Supply will grow naturally to meet demand. Government subsidies will increase supply short-term, but, since incentive to produce is gone (the government provides funds, so why develop?), long-term development is harmed.
In addition, there is a healthy ratio of supply/demand. Too low and supply will not grow and companies will go bankrupt. Too high and inflation will rise astronomically, severly harming the effects of government spending


I support as many free market reforms as possible, while still maintaing a free market by giving workers a fair share/say (union support), conserving the two public goods (enviorment and education), and limiting the development of monopolies.
First-world countries should tax companies on a progressive basis (breaking up monopolies isn't always viable, so "supporting" small companies to an extent is a must), and a flat income tax with deductions given for business development and medical bills.
The taxes on companies should ONLY change in time of dire need (a static tax rate makes it easier for companies to plan for the future), and income tax rates should be changed to keep demand at the proper ratio of supply.

Money gained by the government should be used on:
1. The court system
2. Miltary
3. Education
4. Bare nessecities of life (and I mean bare)
5. If anything is left, spend it on improvements like a highway system.

A Welfare state should be avoided like the plague (it destroys incentive to produce), but some welfare nets will always be needed. The reason being that people expericing extreme poverty will change the social balance of a society...and if that balance gets too varied, then Civil Mentality (Neccessary for maintaing a democracy, another important bit of long-term economic viability since it keeps the government accountable for its actions) will begin to collapse.


It's not perfect, I know. Right now, I am trying to synthezie it with Philip Bobbit's theory on the development of systems of government, Ben Barber's opinons on civil society, and Thomas Friedman's globalization ideas. :)

I agree with many of your Economic positions, but what about 5. If anything is left, spend it on improvements like a highway system.
Wouldnt it just be easier to privitise improvments like that? so then the government would be a able to spend more money on education/defence/court system.

And what about the police? Would Law and Order be considered as one of the expendentures? if not, would it be privatized?

Simply summed: Keynes.

Supply will grow naturally to meet demand. Government subsidies will increase supply short-term, but, since incentive to produce is gone (the government provides funds, so why develop?), long-term development is harmed.
In addition, there is a healthy ratio of supply/demand. Too low and supply will not grow and companies will go bankrupt. Too high and inflation will rise astronomically, severly harming the effects of government spending

Keynes does make a good economic argument for a government that has monetary controls by pointing out the need to maintain investment. His points on real wages and aggregate demand are pretty convincing when arguing for minimum wage laws as well. My libertarian views are based in an ethical system as well, and many Keynesian policies conflict with those.

It is nice to see someone argue economics that actually has an extensive knowledge of the subject. I could learn some shit from you.

I agree with many of your Economic positions, but what about
Wouldnt it just be easier to privitise improvments like that? so then the government would be a able to spend more money on education/defence/court system.

And what about the police? Would Law and Order be considered as one of the expendentures? if not, would it be privatized?

Privatised roads would be hurt the economy through inconsistency of travel more than it would help it through efficiency. At least I think so.

As for privatised police, it would be problematic, as a privatised police force would only protect those who they are paid to protect.

See the Chaco war- a war started for the benefit of oil companies.

...liberation of the workers which is what we seek

(eg a direct democracy with rotation of bureacratic positions)

Now a workers militia is a grouped of armed workers who are there to protect the socialist state from an imperialist invasion/ attempted counterrevolution from right-wingers. Essetntially they are people who work in the same place/ live near each other and are armed and learn to fight so that we can take the battle to the streets.

no matter what you insist a "free market" always allows people to become rich off the labour of others which leads to large organisations of corrupt fatcats willing to exploit the poor doing anything to make money. Usually because they own the media as well the facts will not be spoken of




I will research this Chaco war. Sounds interesting. I'll get back to you once I can address it from a position on knowledge.

My point with the four countries was their similarities DESPITE their claims of differing political/economic systems. All of them became abusive to their own populations and warred against others. That they all operated via government-controlled market (a socialist principle) is a side-issue.

Are you denying that these powerful governments abused their authority? That the US government has been abusing its authority? If you were Irish, would you believe the UK government to be abusive?

You are a true idealist. Direct Democracy falls apart outside of the small-town setting and ignores utterly the rights of the minority. Jews, Gypsies, Intellectuals and Homosexuals were outvoted by the majority in Germany and sent to the "showers".

As far as your "worker's paradise" goes, it has been tried repeatedly around the globe- but it failed in every case. That you still cling to it amuses me, but it's scary, too. I truly hope you get to enact your vision somewhere, but just not where I am at. You deserve to live in the results of this would-be worker uprising.

We can certainly agree that the people should be armed, but who is in charge of these "worker militias" and whom do they fight in these streets you describe? Where are these lazy fatcats you need to shoot to free the worker? Is it the Soccor Moms in Hummers with six kids? Maybe Bill Gates and his limo driver? Oh, wait, no, have the Free Workers shoot their boss instead! Then they can split his pay between themselves and operate with no oversight!

In every example I can find of socialist/communist nations, the only guns are in the hands of the government and its policing forces/military... If you are such a strident revolutionary, I trust that you strongly support the NRA and all US gun rights? What country are you in and what is the situation there gun-wise? Are you heavily armed and well-trained yet?

I don't feel attacked, I think I misunderstood your particular biases. You aren't really angry at me, you are angry at the wealthy and seek to bring them low. Envy is the source of all leftist ideals. Envy so strong that the goal of government and the economy is to make everyone "equal".

But that equality is always in poverty since there isn't enough for all to be rich, and for those who do amass wealth there must be a goon with a gun to take it away again... And the goon is often ordered around by a fatcat government bureaucrat who survived being shot at by the workers back when he was a Corporate middle manager... You get my point.

You know, in the USSR the Party officials drove around in HAND-BUILT cars. They had lavish lives while the workers stood in bread lines. All the animals on the farm were equal, but some of them were MORE equal... :)

Orwell has to be the best author of all time.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

"Big Brother is watching you."

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. "

"In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."

"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."

"Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness."

sorry...sorta off topic...

and anyways, welfare is unconstitutional!

LOL.

But right-wing systems will? :rolleyes:

In a constitutional republic, the people are the government. We must be vigilant, we must be careful. But mindless fear of democratic government is just that: mindless.

Great crimes you listed there: raising workers wages?

When were you put in a cage? Did you do something wrong first?

This type of hysterical rhetoric does little to further your cause. It only brings the rationality of your views into question.

Don't you dare attack my rationality. Don't you dare.

The main problems we're having here is that our values are quite obviously not the same. The concept of arguing with you about things like this brings me about as much joy as the idea of bathing in lye. We're not going to change each others' minds here.

Furthermore, I did not imply that raising wages is a "crime;" [and you have the balls to call my point of view 'hysterical rhetoric' while putting words like that in my mouth. How quaint] I merely said that it tends to kill jobs. If you want to aruge that, then you may as well ignore new examples that present themselves every decade.

I also didn't say that I'd been put in a cage; if you would take the time to read that statement for what it is, it's a demonstration of my government's ability to do so. Say what you will about "doing something wrong" first, the fact of the matter is that a government can imprison you wrongfully, and a corporation can't imprison you [physically] at all.

Orwell has to be the best author of all time.
How interesting (ironic even) that you're such a huge fan of a socialist.

None, because the resulting PR and financial disaster from a death is ample persuasion not to release a faulty product in the first place.You'd think it would be, and yet it happens all the time.

How many people will die this year while waiting for Merck to finish Stage II and III testing on its broad-spectrum AIDS vaccine/treatment???Far fewer than would die if heroin were reintroduced as a cough suppressant.

Did the FDA certify the pot you smoked at that party back in high school???I don't smoke pot, but while the FDA didn't certify it, the USDA did.

I will research this Chaco war. Sounds interesting. I'll get back to you once I can address it from a position on knowledge.

My point with the four countries was their similarities DESPITE their claims of differing political/economic systems. All of them became abusive to their own populations and warred against others. That they all operated via government-controlled market (a socialist principle) is a side-issue.

Are you denying that these powerful governments abused their authority? That the US government has been abusing its authority? If you were Irish, would you believe the UK government to be abusive?

The four countries were all running on basically the same principles- government control of industry to a differing extent (note this is not the same as people controlling the industry) and a twisted form of nationalism to appeal to people's base instincts.

The governments who abuse their power are the ones who are no longer in contact with their people. In the USSR the allegiance of the government was to the bureacrats. In the USA and the UK it's currently to the corporations and their leaders. They have no loyalty to the people which is why we need a government run BY the people and not some faceless corrupt bastards.

You are a true idealist. Direct Democracy falls apart outside of the small-town setting and ignores utterly the rights of the minority. Jews, Gypsies, Intellectuals and Homosexuals were outvoted by the majority in Germany and sent to the "showers".

As far as your "worker's paradise" goes, it has been tried repeatedly around the globe- but it failed in every case. That you still cling to it amuses me, but it's scary, too. I truly hope you get to enact your vision somewhere, but just not where I am at. You deserve to live in the results of this would-be worker uprising.

Fortunately people's attitudes have started to change since the 1930's. Certain events bring the working classes closer together and gender, sexual and ethnic boundaries are soon forgotten. The miners' strike, for example, led to the end of massive racism and sexism that still existed in the North.

The workers' paradise has not failed because of it's own flaws but more often than not because of a corrupt individual who seizes power or an imperialist's invasion. Think about the USSR or Chile. Both cases socialism going okay until either a fascist gains power or America helps with a military coup.

We can certainly agree that the people should be armed, but who is in charge of these "worker militias" and whom do they fight in these streets you describe? Where are these lazy fatcats you need to shoot to free the worker? Is it the Soccor Moms in Hummers with six kids? Maybe Bill Gates and his limo driver? Oh, wait, no, have the Free Workers shoot their boss instead! Then they can split his pay between themselves and operate with no oversight!

The workers militias are led by the workers themselves and are organised for self-defence purposes. Chances are that after a revolution there will be a civil war/ attempted counter-revolution from either foreign powers who want their trading partner back or nationalists who cannot take this blow to everything they believe in.

In every example I can find of socialist/communist nations, the only guns are in the hands of the government and its policing forces/military... If you are such a strident revolutionary, I trust that you strongly support the NRA and all US gun rights? What country are you in and what is the situation there gun-wise? Are you heavily armed and well-trained yet?

At the minute I think the American public cannot be trusted with guns as they live in such a trigger-happy culture. I live in England and I do not have a gun because I do not need one at the moment. I don't think the revolution needs to be bloody. If we get the army on our side we have already won as there can be no attempt to quell rebel forces.

I don't feel attacked, I think I misunderstood your particular biases. You aren't really angry at me, you are angry at the wealthy and seek to bring them low. Envy is the source of all leftist ideals. Envy so strong that the goal of government and the economy is to make everyone "equal".

But that equality is always in poverty since there isn't enough for all to be rich, and for those who do amass wealth there must be a goon with a gun to take it away again... And the goon is often ordered around by a fatcat government bureaucrat who survived being shot at by the workers back when he was a Corporate middle manager... You get my point.

I'm not envious. Having lived with my parents (who are pretty damn rich) I've really seen that money doesn't do anything but corrupt people. Material possessions are seriously overrated and this consumerist culture promoted 24/7 throughout the media will destroy society unless it is stopped.

You say we cant all be rich, but we don't want everybody to be obsessed with what they own. There is enough in this world for everybody's need, not for everybody's greed. Oh, and suggesting that we're gonna murder the middle classes is just ridiculous. Notice that the vast majority of communists are anti-corporal and capital punishment. Violence is only justified in self-defence. However, if the revolution is limited to just one country due to set-backs bank accounts will be frozen so that certain people can't keep cheating the system.

You know, in the USSR the Party officials drove around in HAND-BUILT cars. They had lavish lives while the workers stood in bread lines. All the animals on the farm were equal, but some of them were MORE equal... :)
That's because the bureacrats took the role of the bourgeoise in the Soviet Union. They ceased to be "one of the people" and became "better than the people" in their own minds, at least.

LOL. Pray tell, how does the government do that?

Because of government regulation through the FDA, people automatically assume that all medications are ok for consumption. If people were given the responsibility, they would learn the facts about a medication before taking it. If people were motivated to inform themselves about companies, they would form brand name associations, and would avoid products from companies that they felt were wreckless and irresponsible.

"Exactically!," said the Caterpillar.

See above for why pharmaceuticals do not suffer catastrophic damages for irresponsibility.

You'd think it would be, and yet it happens all the time.

See above.

Because of government regulation through the FDA, people automatically assume that all medications are ok for consumption. If people were given the responsibility, they would learn the facts about a medication before taking it. If people were motivated to inform themselves about companies, they would form brand name associations, and would avoid products from companies that they felt were wreckless and irresponsible.



See above for why pharmaceuticals do not suffer catastrophic damages for irresponsibility.
oh now thats just funny. what planet do you live on that you know people who are responsible and informed??

oh now thats just funny. what planet do you live on that you know people who are responsible and informed??

Are you telling me that you don't discern between brand names when you go into a grocery store? You have never researched a vehicle before you bought it. I suppose you didn't read any reviews for that last CD or video game you purchased.

When people need to be responsible, they are responsible. When the public has a desire for information, companies and watchdog groups offer information.

oh now thats just funny. what planet do you live on that you know people who are responsible and informed??

I don't know about VO, but I don't live on such a planet but it's not my fault if they aren't responsible and informed. Its ridiculous to make me pay for their mistakes.

I don't know about VO, but I don't live on such a planet but it's not my fault if they aren't responsible and informed. Its ridiculous to make me pay for their mistakes.
no man is an island, melkor. youll pay for it whether its regulated or not.

no man is an island, melkor. youll pay for it whether its regulated or not.

How is that?

How is that?
*gives vittos the look*

loss of productivity, strain on medical systems, time spent at the funerals of stupid people who take the wrong medicines.....

*gives vittos the look*

loss of productivity, strain on medical systems, time spent at the funerals of stupid people who take the wrong medicines.....

And how is that a less damaging cost to me than taking 30% of my paycheck out of it without asking?

Eichen (I believe) made an excellent point not too long ago about why people consider libertarianism extreme. Libertarians in the past have been prone to the "Flash" syndrome, where we will make statements about libertarianism that, while true, tend to have a lot of shock value to "regular" people. If someone asks us "What will you do about the drug problem?", we reply "We'll make all drugs legal" and leave that giant turd of a statement floating in the room without explaining what it means.

Libertarians have to do a better job of not only stating the 'what' of our positions, but the 'why' and 'how' of them as well. In the case of legal drugs, we have to be able to answer the question of "If drugs are free, what will you do with all the junkies?" As those of you that have been around for a while know, my answer to that is in how libertarians will handle the transition from a Big Brother, cradle to grave Government presence BACK to one where the family, community, school, and church dominate the lives of individuals. In fact (even though it's Sunday morning and I don't feel like doing the research right now) the argument could be made that Government, through it's specific unsuccessful actions to try and control drugs and it's general actions of replacing the morally centered influences in our lives with the immoral, inept, and one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that Government has as it's main tool of control, has made the illegal drug problem worse.

We cannot just say "Eliminate the DEA". We have to be able to do two things as well. First, explain why the DEA is inneffective at controlling the illegal drug problem. This will be a very complicated explanation; one that is obvious to those of us trained in empirical analysis (DEA has been fighting the "War on Drugs" for some 20+ years and hasn't made a dent...), but one that a lot of people will reject, because Government is their friend and they have placed heir trust in the system. Second, we will have to explain how we will take care of all the junkies. The answer lies in strengthening the bonds of community again and in teaching the new generations how to live a good life as a part of a family and community, rather than as a part of a giant faceless "Nation" Again, this will not be easy.

One of my themes here has been that we are all currently Government "junkies", that there is no way to live your life without some form of Government influence and control, and it will not change any time soon. Look at the Social Security debate. GW wants to give, what, 2% control of the future back to new generations, and the opposition (Rep and Dem alike) scream like the sky is falling. Or Faith-based block grants, which I consider an excellent model for a transition away from government to the private sector, which GW got ripped a new one for even mentioning. Mind you, there is a LOT I do not like about GW, but like Reagan and unlike his dad, he is making some efforts to strengthen the control individuals have over their own lives. Anyway, libertarians will have to become the Nation's Substance Abuse Counsellors (the "Substance" being Government), and will have to present the argument that not only are "Substances" a bad idea, but that there is a better way out there for all of us.

I got this from Whipjangle. I hope this helps.

*gives vittos the look*

*gets turned on*

Oh wait, you meant the mad look.

loss of productivity, strain on medical systems, time spent at the funerals of stupid people who take the wrong medicines.....

Were regulations to be lifted, we would not see a rush of companies releasing untested and unsafe medications. The livelihoods of these companies depend on their ability to produce a product that works and is safe.

And how is that a less damaging cost to me than taking 30% of my paycheck out of it without asking?
the fda costs you 30% of your paycheck??

the fda costs you 30% of your paycheck??

no, it goes to the government. sheesh.

You're missing my point. The FDA doesn't take 30% of my income out of my paycheck. 30% isnt even an accurate figure; my tax rate is probably closer to 20% as a point of fact. What I'm trying to say here is that programs based on the same principles as drug regulation [i]are costing me money.

You're missing my point. The FDA doesn't take 30% of my income out of my paycheck. 30% isnt even an accurate figure; my tax rate is probably closer to 20% as a point of fact. What I'm trying to say here is that programs based on the same principles as drug regulation [i]are costing me money.
darlin' we all have issues with how our taxes are spent. yours are probably different than mine, but i have them too. the problem is that there will never be a system of taxation without some aspects that you dont like.

you arent going to find a country with a fairer tax system and you arent going to MAKE a country with a fairer tax system.

the thread titles is "for or against" and i am against the goals of libertarianism because the country that you would create would be much worse than what we have today.

darlin' we all have issues with how our taxes are spent. yours are probably different than mine, but i have them too. the problem is that there will never be a system of taxation without some aspects that you dont like.

Save, perhaps, a system of no taxation. You know, where we can pay for all the shit the government really needs to be doing by making them earn their income just like I earn mine.

I define theft as the act of acquiring funds or posessions from an individual without their direct consent. Tax is theft.

you arent going to find a country with a fairer tax system and you arent going to MAKE a country with a fairer tax system.

I'll agree with the former but I'll fight tooth and nail if I think I can make the latter a possibility. That's why I waited in line for five hours to vote for Badnarik. In a swing state. The swing state. :D

the thread titles is "for or against" and i am against the goals of libertarianism because the country that you would create would be much worse than what we have today.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but a number of us--especially myself--will disagree with this vehemently. I'd have to know just how exactly it would be "worse" according to your values to get any more specific.

That's why I waited in line for five hours to vote for Badnarik. In a swing state. The swing state.

Angband? didnt know elections existed there...

Heh whoda thunkit! :eek:

Wouldnt it just be easier to privitise improvments like that? so then the government would be a able to spend more money on education/defence/court system.
I struggle with #5, specifically because it is hard to determine what to privatize and what not to. For instance, the railroad system developed very well, under private companies. The interstate system linked people together and made the mass movement of goods even easier...but was funded by the government.
I've not done all the research neccessary to discern what specifically should be privatized and what not. As for the road system (which is going to take a VERY long time to bring back up to par), it should certainly be publicly owned, as every single person has come to rely on it. The rail system works better privately...not every single individual uses rail services. Electrical and water systems are more "in the air". Everyone uses them, but private companies are providing excellent service thus far...and are also providing excellent service in sections of India.
We'll determine this as we move on.
Another question, after determining who owns the "public" goods, is "who will improve it?" I tend to think that private contractors should take care of this, considering my government policies leave the status of employment in the air. Governemnt workers are very hard to get rid of, whereas private contractors can streamline.


And what about the police? Would Law and Order be considered as one of the expendentures? if not, would it be privatized?
No. The government should take care of the enforcement of its own laws. The most private it could become is hiring out a contract company to take care of it, but I'm not fond of mercenaries.


Keynes does make a good economic argument for a government that has monetary controls by pointing out the need to maintain investment. His points on real wages and aggregate demand are pretty convincing when arguing for minimum wage laws as well. My libertarian views are based in an ethical system as well, and many Keynesian policies conflict with those.
Yep, it's good stuff. :p

It is nice to see someone argue economics that actually has an extensive knowledge of the subject. I could learn some shit from you.
Unclear. I was struggling to develop my economic ideas and couldn't understand Keynes the first time I read his arguments until a debater down in Texas broke down the arguments for me. ("Flowing" in debater terms)

Save, perhaps, a system of no taxation. You know, where we can pay for all the shit the government really needs to be doing by making them earn their income just like I earn mine.

I define theft as the act of acquiring funds or posessions from an individual without their direct consent. Tax is theft.



I'll agree with the former but I'll fight tooth and nail if I think I can make the latter a possibility. That's why I waited in line for five hours to vote for Badnarik. In a swing state. The swing state. :D



That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but a number of us--especially myself--will disagree with this vehemently. I'd have to know just how exactly it would be "worse" according to your values to get any more specific.
yeah but in your vehemence and activism you are fighting the fight that has zero chance of ever prevailing. what a waste of time!

yeah but in your vehemence and activism you are fighting the fight that has zero chance of ever prevailing. what a waste of time!

The alot if open minded republicans vote republican because they like right winged economics. They are more liberal though, in social matters. these are the people who could potentially make the libertarian party threaten the 2 party system.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

Seperatist States
IF your goal is to bring liberty to the world, and you are opposed to military action, how would you propose to bring liberty to those who do not have it? And do you agree with the methods used by the United States and its allies (chiefly the UK) to bring liberty to Iraq?

Really, which is more important: liberty or the prohibition of military force?

Who watches over the government?...

...When government is small, the people can watch over it and ensure that checks and balances are operational. When government is huge and the Patriot Act makes the private citizen who asks the hard questions into a terrorist, then you have no oversight...

...Ultimately, WE THE PEOPLE must stand watch over both the government and the corporations.

Now I'm confused... if "WE THE PEOPLE" regulate the government how is that different from one governmental branch monitoring another? Do the people not then become part of the government theyre monitoring and if so, who monitors them?

yeah but in your vehemence and activism you are fighting the fight that has zero chance of ever prevailing. what a waste of time!

Great attitude. You keep that up. Fuck change!

Yeah, I'm totally going to ignore my values because something else has a better chance of getting off the ground. Pfft. Fuck that.

The alot if open minded republicans vote republican because they like right winged economics. They are more liberal though, in social matters. these are the people who could potentially make the libertarian party threaten the 2 party system.

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass a hoppin'! :D

Great attitude. You keep that up. Fuck change!

Yeah. The "I'm going to keep packing sand down this rathole rather than do anything realistic" attitude is so productive. :rolleyes:

[*snip*]

Yeah. The "I'm going to keep packing sand down this rathole rather than do anything realistic" attitude is so productive. :rolleyes:

Some of us like constitutional democracy.

Some of us like the Constitution.

Some of us like America.

You might try it some time.

What are you trying to say with this? Is Libertarianism unconstitutional? It hates America? We are a threat to freedom? Huh?

I'm at a loss here, I really can't figure out where the hell this particular deployment of sophistry is coming from.

yeah but in your vehemence and activism you are fighting the fight that has zero chance of ever prevailing. what a waste of time!

Zero chance? Calling the chance zero is just your way of trying to make that actually be the case. Certainly if you convince people to stop trying, then they won't ever succeed, and you'll be right, but how very low a tactic! Physically, there is a better than zero chance of ANYTHING happening!

What are you trying to say with this? Is Libertarianism unconstitutional? It hates America? We are a threat to freedom? Huh?

I'm at a loss here, I really can't figure out where the hell this particular deployment of sophistry is coming from.

Point taken.

My rhetoric didn't make much sense there. ;)

Great attitude. You keep that up. Fuck change!

Yeah, I'm totally going to ignore my values because something else has a better chance of getting off the ground. Pfft. Fuck that.
i hope you dont become old and bitter fighting for things that cant be accomplished. especially since you wouldnt like what you got if you could get it done.

actually, Libertarianism is more constitutional than the current government which, in my mind, is extremly unconstitutional (Social Welfare, Income Tax, FDA, etc).
what happened to No Government intervention in economic matters.

Oh, ya, Thomas Jefferson was a Libertarian.

i hope you dont become old and bitter fighting for things that cant be accomplished. especially since you wouldnt like what you got if you could get it done.

Who are you to tell me what can and can't be accomplished? Who are you to tell me what I will and won't like?

Zero chance? Calling the chance zero is just your way of trying to make that actually be the case. Certainly if you convince people to stop trying, then they won't ever succeed, and you'll be right, but how very low a tactic! Physically, there is a better than zero chance of ANYTHING happening!
yes zero chance of there being a government of no taxes.

ill be expecting the second coming of jesus before that and im an atheist.

Who are you to tell me what can and can't be accomplished? Who are you to tell me what I will and won't like?

im sorry i cant answer that without it being flamebait. not that my other answers werent borderline but no sense crossing it for sure.

god, what the hell is with the personal attacks Ashmoria? We are discussing how libertarianism works, not insulting one another.

yes zero chance of there being a government of no taxes.

ill be expecting the second coming of jesus before that and im an atheist.

There used to be a "zero chance" of enormous rocks falling from the sky and now we have an entire science built around the study of meteorites and extraterrestrial debris.

Just because something is phenominally unlikely doesn't make it an impossibility. I'm realistic about my odds here, but trying to tell me that I have "zero chance" of succeeding just makes me laugh.

You don't get anything done with an attitude like that.

EDIT:

im sorry i cant answer that without it being flamebait. not that my other answers werent borderline but no sense crossing it for sure.

No, I would venture to guess that you probably can't answer it at all. Give it a shot, I'd love to see this.

yes zero chance of there being a government of no taxes.

ill be expecting the second coming of jesus before that and im an atheist.

Well, there's a zero chance of having a government without corrupt officials. Should we stop trying to weed out corruption? Ideals are ideals for a reason, if they were reality there would be no need for the ideal. They give a target to work toward. Obviously right now government taxes, but it's a stupid argument if you say that because that's the way it is now, that is the way it always will be or worse, always HAS to be. Let people have their ideals, because I'm pretty sure you have your own.

actually, Libertarianism is more constitutional than the current government which, in my mind, is extremly unconstitutional (Social Welfare, Income Tax, FDA, etc).

Damn. I have to wipe of my keyboard.

I'd love to see you try to explain how those things are unconstitutional.

Especially income tax. Heard of the Sixteenth Amendment?

what happened to No Government intervention in economic matters.

No such provision in the Constitution.

To the contrary, there is the interstate commerce clause.

Oh, ya, Thomas Jefferson was a Libertarian.

LOL.

Good luck proving that. :rolleyes:

Moses was a Republican.

Jesus was a Democrat.

The Holy Ghost is a Green.

*snip*


No, I would venture to guess that you probably can't answer it at all. Give it a shot, I'd love to see this.

Are you inviting flaming?

Are you granting immunity?

You made the issue personal. Is egging Ashmoria on appropriate?

Perhaps you should both back off.

Well, there's a zero chance of having a government without corrupt officials. Should we stop trying to weed out corruption? Ideals are ideals for a reason, if they were reality there would be no need for the ideal. They give a target to work toward. Obviously right now government taxes, but it's a stupid argument if you say that because that's the way it is now, that is the way it always will be or worse, always HAS to be. Let people have their ideals, because I'm pretty sure you have your own.
oh im not saying that things cant be improved. im saying that there is NO chance of replacing taxes with voluntary fees. dismantiling welfare, the fda, the atf, the usda, etc. privatizing police, roads, education, etc. removing all regulation of business, gun owndership, drivers licenses, etc.

we cant even get an agreement to privatize 10% of social security and you think there is a chance we will abandon it?

Um... Jefferson did sort of advocate the abolition of all freaking taxes. Considering the world political climate, all of the founding fathers were pretty libertarian.

Think about it: they were putting holes in peoples heads for a tax on tea.

And income tax is unconsitutional because theft is too.

Are you inviting flaming?

Are you granting immunity?

You made the issue personal. Is egging Ashmoria on appropriate?

Perhaps you should both back off.

:headbang:

The point I was trying to make with that is if you have to resort to personal attacks in the course of an argument you're not making a very convincing case for your side. Once someone reaches the point where they "cant respond without it being flamebait" they've lost the argument.

No, I would venture to guess that you probably can't answer it at all. Give it a shot, I'd love to see this.

im in an online poker tournament right now. give me a bit and ill work up a reasonable scenario based on the libertarian agenda that is on the first page. i assume he took tht from the libertarian site he mentioned.

it seems to me that people who advocate radical change always assume they are going to be on top rather than on bottm.

oh im not saying that things cant be improved. im saying that there is NO chance of replacing taxes with voluntary fees. dismantiling welfare, the fda, the atf, the usda, etc. privatizing police, roads, education, etc. removing all regulation of business, gun owndership, drivers licenses, etc.

we cant even get an agreement to privatize 10% of social security and you think there is a chance we will abandon it?

Yes, there is a chance. There are always circumstances which can bring about previously unexpected results. Time, for one, is a biggie. Unexpected situations bring about adaptations. One day England is Catholic, the next, C of E. Certainly the Catholics thought that would never happen, they rated the probability zero, but it clearly wasn't. I share your cynicism when it comes to change, and I am not an idealist, but I wouldn't say there's a zero chance of even global communism working. It doesn't have to be 'zero' chance to be improbable.

As for privatization, well, I'm all for it, so I guess there I am an idealist who won't be deterred by your estimation of low probability. :)

I am pro-RATIONAL Libertarianism, not for the radical and extreme form of libertarianism in which organizations like the FDA no longer exist under government control.

Um... Jefferson did sort of advocate the abolition of all freaking taxes. Considering the world political climate, all of the founding fathers were pretty libertarian.

You have got to be kidding.

During his administration, Jefferson cut -- but did not abolish -- taxes. He didn't even try. He ended some taxes. He created some new taxes.

He stongly advocated public education supported by taxes.


Think about it: they were putting holes in peoples heads for a tax on tea.

Think about it. Ever heard the phrase "taxation without representation"?

It wasn't the existence of taxes that was the point.

And income tax is unconsitutional because theft is too.

Don't be ridiculous.

Theft is not unconstitutional. It is illegal.

Nor is taxation theft. Taxes are imposed with the consent of the governed. Not everyone. A majority. That is democratic government.

And, to be clear, taxes aren't unconstitutional. In addition to the Sixteenth Amendment, see Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ..."

We the People adopted the income tax to pay for government programs we hope are for the good of all.

Perhaps misguided. But democratic & constitutional.

You have got to be kidding.

During his administration, Jefferson cut -- but did not abolish -- taxes. He didn't even try. He ended some taxes. He created some new taxes.

He stongly advocated public education supported by taxes.

He's still more libertarian than any other politician I can think of from that era. Then again I'm not familiar with many so I may be wrong.

Think about it. Ever heard the phrase "taxation without representation"?

It wasn't the existence of taxes that was the point.

Oh please. I'm taxed and there's not one Libertarian in congress so if you want to use that rhetoric I'd be within my rights to start my one man revolution. Yes, they were upset that no one in charge gave two shits about the colonies, but taxes were the catalyst. Without them, theyre may not have been a revolution.

Don't be ridiculous.

Theft is not unconstitutional. It is illegal.

Nor is taxation theft. Taxes are imposed with the consent of the governed. Not everyone. A majority. That is democratic government.

And, to be clear, taxes aren't unconstitutional. In addition to the Sixteenth Amendment, see Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ..."

We the People adopted the income tax to pay for government programs we hope are for the good of all.

Perhaps misguided. But democratic & constitutional.

"We the People" also said that "All men are created equal" and proceeded to enact policy that allowed only white upper class landowners to vote. "We the people" also stuck Japanese folks in camps during WW2. "We the people" apparently endorsed Vietnam.

By this logic then it would be acceptable policy for the federal government to pass an amendment saying I have no right to exist. A lot of people doing or endorsing a stupid thing doesn't make it any less stupid.

And tax is still theft. Say what you will about getting all the free streetlight in the world; if I stole your wallet, bought a streetlight with it, and gave $10 to a bum on the street, I'd be arrested for theft even if I gave the rest of the money back. I'm not prepared to hold my government to a different standard than I hold myself.

just a reminder of the posted libertarian agenda.....

1. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances

2. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

3. We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary
treatment in a mental institution.

4. We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.

5. Repeal property tax laws and force government to fund property protection services with user fees. (And the practical difference would be ....?)

6. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions.

7. Wherever possible, private security agencies should replace public institutions.

8. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. (emphasis added)

9. We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military.

10. We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

11. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

12. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

13. We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

OK im out in 147th place. *sigh*

So here is my nightmare scenario under a new libertarian america.

You are out of work due to an amputation that didnt need to happen but the antibiotic that the hospital used was substandard (#1) and the infection ran wild. You tried to sue (would there be courts still?) but the doctors and hospital declared your medical records to be private so there was no evidence to take to court but your missing legs. (#6).

You have no income, no welfare, no social security disability. You, being a responsible fellow, had plenty of savings to cover just such a disaster. Too bad it was all held in ENRON dollars (#13)... the $200k you would have invested in a new business is now worth $2.50. oh well at least you dont have to pay taxes.

So you sell what you can to get enough money to live in a questionable neighborhood. You are sandwiched between the meth lab (#1) and the schizophrenic (#3&4) who thinks you are a space alien. His cache of semi-automatic weapons concerns you but ... (#8). You dearly wish you could afford to pay for police protection since you are pretty sure he's going to shoot you one of these days but in a choice between police and eating you went for food. (#5&7?)

You finally find a job assembling computer parts. You find that you have to work 80 hours a week because the $2/hour they pay you, the recent immigrants (#10) and the 8 year olds (#12) doesnt stretch very far. At least you dont have to compete with the blacks and chinese, your boss wont hire them(#11).. You feel lucky compared to the millions who cant find work of any kind and have to resort to begging and crime to survive.




while YOU might not end up in this nightmare, plenty of other people would. its not an america i would want to live in. the social programs we have developed over the years, while no where near perfect, have benefitted the whole country. i see no reason to get rid of them just so i can pay less in taxes.

I'd read this a couple of times but I didn't realize it was directed at least to some degree at me.

At any rate, yes I will concede that nightmare scenarios exist under Libertarianism. They exist under any form of government, just at different levels and in different places in society. They're part of life. The reason I prefer libertarianism isn't so much that I think it reduces the amount of these scenarios to zero, I prefer it because I'm honest with myself and its the ideology that correlates most closely with my best interests as a human being.

Extremely opposed to.

For libertarianism, but not for anarchy.

Most of the rhetoric here (from both sides) is rediculously bloviated, so I'll leave it at that.

Most of the time (and let's face it), people aren't attacking classical liberalism or libertarianism, they're attacking the platform of the Libertarian Party (of which I'm a member).

I'm for libertarian communism (anarchy), but certainly not for the US Libertarian party. I don't trust capitalism anymore than I trust government and I can't see how anyone can seriously trust them if they don't trust the equally dubious government.

Extremely in favor of.

I happen to be a staunch Libertarian and I openly advocated for Micheal Badnarik in the '04 election. The fact is, is the Government has completely lost sight of the bill of rights and constitution and they blame others for it. For instance, outscourseing, they have no one to blame but themselves for that.... Busniesses are getting so ercked off about the rabid business resrictions here that they're leaving! The government also claims to still be a becon of liberty as they arrest peaceful protestors, extend the patriot act, and signs into action the national ID card. I think it's long past time America gave the Libertarian Party a chance. Keep in mind also, a platform may say one thing, but a large sect of the party may say another.... I'm what's called a conservative libertarian because I'm pro-life and anti-illegal emigration as well as anti amnesty for those who came in illegally.. I also feel that veteran pensions should remain in place and that those who dodged the draft (even though i'm against the draft) should be prosecuted.... We owe our veterans much more than we can give, but the GI bill of rights and prosecuting those who ran away is a good start.

I'm certainly not in favour of it, but as long as it doesn't become normal wherever I live, you guys can try it out.
It's gonna fail just like the USSR did, because it is just another extreme, a theory that cannot be implemented in reality.

I'm certainly not in favour of it, but as long as it doesn't become normal wherever I live, you guys can try it out.
It's gonna fail just like the USSR did, because it is just another extreme, a theory that cannot be implemented in reality.
The failing of the USSR was the communist system and its inability to keep up with the capitalist economic powerhouse. In Libertarian society, we are strengthening capitalism so that it will utterly boom..... The USSR didn't fail because it was an extreme, it failed because of what the philosophy it followed.

The failing of the USSR was the communist system and its inability to keep up with the capitalist economic powerhouse.
How much do you know about economic theory?
There is a whole list of market failures that have the potential of ripping down your utopia.
And the USSR failed because you can't plan everything, not because the US did anything at all.

PS: What do you think about auctioning off orphans?

How much do you know about economic theory?
There is a whole list of market failures that have the potential of ripping down your utopia.
And the USSR failed because you can't plan everything, not because the US did anything at all.
I always thought they pretended to collapse because they knew they couldn’t keep up with the pace of military build up set by Reagan, but I’m a realist. To be believe that the USSR “collapsed” is naivety in its purest form. I mean, the television and radio broadcasting wasn’t ever even cut for sanity’s sake.

Heavily in favor of, though I accept that any implementation would have to be gradual. The markets would change and industries would shift; though trade subsidies shouldn't exist in the first place, it would be unreasonable to remove them all instantly. I'd prefer a more incremental phasing out of things like that, over a couple of years, so that people do get a chance to retrain or restructure their businesses and whatnot.

But yes, heavily in favor of. I don't see how anyone can claim the government has no right to interfere with who you sleep with and who you marry, but they do have a right to say where you spend your money.

I always thought they pretended to collapse because they knew they couldn’t keep up with the pace of military build up set by Reagan, but I’m a realist. To be believe that the USSR “collapsed” is naivety in its purest form. I mean, the television and radio broadcasting wasn’t ever even cut for sanity’s sake.
Just from a purely microeconomic standpoint, trade occurs whenever two parties can increase their utilities by trading. The more they have of something, the less one unit of it means to them, and the more of that something they are willing to trade.
Now, everyone has hundreds if not thousands of goods that you have or you would like to have. To get them, you trade with others until you have an optimal level of utility from them.
If you now take that and put it into a country of hundreds of millions of people, you see that it is quatrillions and quatrillions of transactions. In the USSR, with private enterprise and private trade so restricted, that was all the job of the government.
Add to that running an industry, keeping in mind that any unforeseen circumstance creates a bottleneck that can stop an entire production chain and you start to see why the USSR could not work. It was a great achievement on their part that they held on for so long.

There was a time when I was younger when I was more of a "Communist", meaning that I didn't think the USSR was such a bad idea. But learning about that stuff did it for me. Without a market there is just too much information to be processed.

As for the choice of words - well, Gorbachev could see the trouble and he thought he'd introduce some freedoms to take care of it. But he couldn't stop what he started, and the USSR doesn't exist anymore in this form. Today's Russia is different, so "collapse" would be the right word, at least for its economic system.

I don't see how anyone can claim the government has no right to interfere with who you sleep with and who you marry, but they do have a right to say where you spend your money.
Wait what?

Where the devil is that double standard coming from? They don't have a right to control the body but they have the right to control the production of that body? Color me confused.