NationStates Jolt Archive

*Specifically the American Democratic Party

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway, but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

Instead, when election 2004 rolls around I heard “A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush”. A statement which isn't even logical unless the person in question originally was going to vote democrat, which is an unfounded assumption. The democratic party has always been able to host a diverse range of opinions, why wont they meet the libertarians even on like issues?

Its not like the republicans have ever been great friends of libertarians. Most republicans I have debated on other sites associate libertarians with modern day hippies, smoking crack and rejecting common decency, while democrats associate them with backwoods gun-nuts who refuse to give money to the “gubbermint”. Both views are entirely separate and yet held with equal ferocity. The Democrats however, actually associate the the libertarians with Republicans, while the Republicans never made the same connection to the Democrats.

Another common misconception is that every libertarian holds the most extreme views of the philosophy, and that these will all be simultaneously be enacted the day the libertarians are in office. Democrats and Republicans have held radical views for decades that haven't even been discussed in congress, why would it be any different with the libertarians?

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place?

Uhm, because its one less seat the Dems have?

Ah, tis a long and bloody tale, but as you have asked, I shall recite the abridged version. It all began many a year ago, on a cold winter's day.

Conan the Conservitive, banisher of Cornielious Communisticas, slayer of Harold Hippie, and protector of oil corporations everywhere (everywhere here meaning in the US), who once executed five million convicted criminals in one night so that they could not be pardoned (this story being set during the period when Right-Wingers ruled supreme) was out hunting for babies, which left the non-right wingers free to frolic in the snow.

Now, Darren the Democrat made a politically correct snow man, tye dying the snow many different colors, for he believed the fact that snowmen were always white was racist. Just as he set the hat (not being a top hat, as that was the sign of teh ebil business men) on top of the politically correct snow man's head, Larry the Libertarian, who had been sledding down a nearby hill, lost control and crashed into it. The rest is history.

Republican = fiscally irresponsible with economic freedom
Democrats = fiscally irresponsible with no economic freedom.

I would doubt the Libertarians would cut a deal with either. If they won't calm down their ideas to cater to political realism why the hell would they form an alliance with either of the other two parties.

The Libertarian position is extreme and unrealistic and is more aligned with the Republican standpoint if you cut out all the pointless moral legislation bullshit.

Ah, tis a long and bloody tale, but as you have asked, I shall recite the abridged version. It all began many a year ago, on a cold winter's day.

Conan the Conservitive, banisher of Cornielious Communisticas, slayer of Harold Hippie, and protector of oil corporations everywhere (everywhere here meaning in the US), who once executed five million convicted criminals in one night so that they could not be pardoned (this story being set during the period when Right-Wingers ruled supreme) was out hunting for babies, which left the non-right wingers free to frolic in the snow.

Now, Darren the Democrat made a politically correct snow man, tye dying the snow many different colors, for he believed the fact that snowmen were always white was racist. Just as he set the hat (not being a top hat, as that was the sign of teh ebil business men) on top of the politically correct snow man's head, Larry the Libertarian, who had been sledding down a nearby hill, lost control and crashed into it. The rest is history.
What? :confused:

These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.Because, unfortunately, the Democrats aren't especially in favor of gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

The thing I dont like about the libertarian view is that they want to privatize everything. I dont think our school system would work if the government didnt fund it. Not that it works well as it is...OK nevermind!

The Libertarian position is extreme and unrealistic and is more aligned with the Republican standpoint if you cut out all the pointless moral legislation bullshit.

I still do not see any such connection the opposition to "Moral legislation bullshit" is a huge part of the libertarian party, its not something you cant just cut away to reveal a tie to the republicans.

Many of the libertarian positions are held by the two parties already, just not by one party exclusively.

What? :confused:

That is what you get, for playing monopoly, with an Eskimo of the Darkness.

I still do not see any such connection the opposition to "Moral legislation bullshit" is a huge part of the libertarian party, its not something you cant just cut away to reveal a tie to the republicans.

Many of the libertarian positions are held by the two parties already, just not by one party exclusively.

Libertarians dont like moral legislation and want to abolish victimless crimes. They basically believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you arent infringing on the rights of anyone else.

Libertarians dont like moral legislation and want to abolish victimless crimes. They basically believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you arent infringing on the rights of anyone else.

They don't really like Republicans or Democrats. Both of those parties want to spend tax dollars telling you how to live your life.

Either they want to spend tax dollars taking away your guns, or taking away your right to have an abortion.

Libertarians aren't big on telling you how to live your life.

The thing I dont like about the libertarian view is that they want to privatize everything. I dont think our school system would work if the government didnt fund it. Not that it works well as it is...OK nevermind!

Really though, those opinions are miles down the road and held by only part of the party. "Reform Libertarians" are far greater in number than "Rand Operatives" Like any party, the libertarians have many different factions, the extremist are usually the weakest in any party.

Really though, those opinions are miles down the road and held by only part of the party. "Reform Libertarians" are far greater in number than "Rand Operatives" Like any party, the libertarians have many different factions, the extremist are usually the weakest in any party.

Its the Libertarian platform. I think all libertarians think that way.

I still do not see any such connection the opposition to "Moral legislation bullshit" is a huge part of the libertarian party,
No shit, I was referring to the Republican party.
The GOP have two platforms - get elected convincing everyone the Demcorats are morally bankrupt and free up industry.

Because, unfortunately, the Democrats aren't especially in favor of gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.
Exactly. Haha! It must suck to be left wing in America...the Republicans are far right and the Democrats dont stand for anything!:D

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway, but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.


As a mainstream Democrat, I am scared of the libertarians. While they support a woman's fundemental right to choose, this is beside the point. In the end, it comes down to how you care about the people.

The Constitution was intended to provide each citizen with the education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing that they NEED TO FREELY DEVELOP.

This was the promise given to us by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, until Repuilicans and later "Libert"arians were formed and tried to put their oppressive God/capitalism into everything.

We were founded on basic principles of equality and positive liberty, we need to go back to it by voting for Jim Webb in Virginia.

Exactly. Haha! It must suck to be left wing in America...the Republicans are far right and the Democrats dont stand for anything!:D
Ignorance is why Republicans win. You don't have to be able to do anything past listen to obviously retarded party slogans and repeat them until they become true.

No shit, I was referring to the Republican party.
The GOP have two platforms - get elected convincing everyone the Demcorats are morally bankrupt and free up industry.

I realized that. :confused:

The same can be said the other way around though, in regards to economic freedom and the democrats, can it not? Im not suggesting a merger of the parties, just wondering why Democrats would not extend a hand to libertarians in 04' and likely in 08'.

This was the promise given to us by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, until Repuilicans and later "Libert"arians were formed and tried to put their oppressive God/capitalism into everything.


1. Neither Jefferson, Jackson, nor the Constitution claims any such thing.
2. Libertarians have even less interest in theocracy than Democrats.

I realized that. :confused:

The same can be said the other way around though, in regards to economic freedom and the democrats, can it not? Im not suggesting a merger of the parties, just wondering why Democrats would not extend a hand to libertarians in 04' and likely in 08'.

Because the Democrats are for a big nanny government. To them, a true Libertarian is worse than a Republican! At least the Repubs also want big government; they just disagree with the Dems on specifics.

1. Neither Jefferson, Jackson, nor the Constitution claims any such thing.
2. Libertarians have even less interest in theocracy than Democrats.

Not that Jackson seemed to be a big fan of the constitution anyways.

"Supreme Court? MWAHAHA!"

Ignorance is why Republicans win. You don't have to be able to do anything past listen to obviously retarded party slogans and repeat them until they become true.

If you're of the opinion that only the Republican Party is the one with ignorant slogans, you haven't seen an election here yet.

The Democrats are just as stupid and banal as the Republicans - just as quick to reduce everything to a sound bite that is either patently false or patently absurd.

Ignorance is why Republicans win. You don't have to be able to do anything past listen to obviously retarded party slogans and repeat them until they become true.
And then they become true...so I fail to see the problem.

Because the Democrats are for a big nanny government. To them, a true Libertarian is worse than a Republican! At least the Repubs also want big government; they just disagree with the Dems on specifics.

At the same time, are the republicans not a bigger immediate threat to both parties? They have at least a little to gain by an alliance on social issues.

If you're of the opinion that only the Republican Party is the one with ignorant slogans, you haven't seen an election here yet.

The Democrats are just as stupid and banal as the Republicans - just as quick to reduce everything to a sound bite that is either patently false or patently absurd.
Seriously...wanna talk about stupid...how about when Kerry/Edwards started talking about Cheneys family (cuz of the lesbians)...in a political debate.

Thats just low.

At the same time, are the republicans not a bigger immediate threat to both parties? They have at least a little to gain by an alliance on social issues.
Democrats, since they advocate a much more intrusive government who will tell you how to live your life, and how it will be so much better if only you accept the wisdom of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, are seen as far more of a threat to libertarians.

Not that Republicans are any better...

At the same time, are the republicans not a bigger immediate threat to both parties? They have at least a little to gain by an alliance on social issues.
No..the libertarians would rather have the conservatives in power then the democrats..because libertarians care more about the economy and soceity...so theyd rather see a right wing economy (Republican that they agree with)..and gays with no marriage (who they probably dont care about anyway) than a left wing economy (Democrat who they dont agree with) than Gays with a gay marriage (who they dont even care about)...get it?

I realized that. :confused:

The same can be said the other way around though, in regards to economic freedom and the democrats, can it not? Im not suggesting a merger of the parties, just wondering why Democrats would not extend a hand to libertarians in 04' and likely in 08'.
Because the Libertarians directly compete with Democrats in an area where Republicans have a strangehold - morality legislation. Those that don't support the Republican hardball line choose between Democrat and Libertarian, and Libertarian is a third party and has no chance of winning unless Bill Clinton is able to run again and picks a Libertarian platform (third parties don't get half the concessions that the big parties do and thus have a very remote chance of even getting on the ballot, much less getting winning votes) so basically they are just a pit for what would be Democrat votes.

And the Libertarians have directly conflicting views outside of that. Which is why I would never vote Libertarian.

The Democrats are just as stupid and banal as the Republicans - just as quick to reduce everything to a sound bite that is either patently false or patently absurd.
Because people are ignorant and don't care. You reduce it to an easily repeatably soundbite or you have nothing. Like "Demcorats have don't stand for anything" or "Kerry is a flip flopper." I don't suppose "Bush is an incompetent clown" would go over as well.

Exactly. Haha! It must suck to be left wing in America...the Republicans are far right and the Democrats dont stand for anything!:DNo, there are the Greens, and various Communist parties.

Because the Libertarians directly compete with Democrats in an area where Republicans have a strangehold - morality legislation. Those that don't support the Republican hardball line choose between Democrat and Libertarian, and Libertarian is a third party and has no chance of winning unless Bill Clinton is able to run again and picks a Libertarian platform (third parties don't get half the concessions that the big parties do and thus have a very remote chance of even getting on the ballot, much less getting winning votes) so basically they are just a pit for what would be Democrat votes.

And the Libertarians have directly conflicting views outside of that. Which is why I would never vote Libertarian.

I never knew that gun control, midnight basketball for urban youth, and universal healthcare were things that libertarians wanted. I mean, that's what Democrats want, and if libertarians "would be Democrat votes" then you'll have to prove that those issues are something that libertarians really want.

No..the libertarians would rather have the conservatives in power then the democrats..because libertarians care more about the economy and soceity...so theyd rather see a right wing economy (Republican that they agree with)..and gays with no marriage (who they probably dont care about anyway) than a left wing economy (Democrat who they dont agree with) than Gays with a gay marriage (who they dont even care about)...get it?


Gay marriage is actually pretty important to the libertarian party. A threat to one groups liberty is a threat to all of them. In the big picture, Its also a launching pad for the government to gain greater power over the establishment of marriage, which most libertarians dont think the government should have any power over anyway.

The Patriot act made them far angrier than that excuse for a tax cut compensated them.

Personally I think that the Libertarians are fine and dandy minus their economic view points(me being slightly authoritarian in that aspect). The problem is that the Democrats don't especially embrace the views that they preach except for a select vocal few. If it were a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian who was moderate economically I would choose the Libertarian.

No, there are the Greens, and various Communist parties.
Yeah, but thats like throwing your vote away...everyone knows that.

Gay marriage is actually pretty important to the libertarian party. A threat to one groups liberty is a threat to all of them. In the big picture, Its also a launching pad for the government to gain greater power over the establishment of marriage, which most libertarians dont think the government should have any power over anyway.

The Patriot act made them far angrier than that excuse for a tax cut compensated them.
1. Gay Marriage and the Patriot act have nothing to do with each other...so I dont know why you stuck that in there.

2. I will bet you $1,000,000 that a Right Wing Economy..a free market..is more important to Libertarians in a country than Gay Marraige. I guarantee you.

As a mainstream Democrat, I am scared of the libertarians. While they support a woman's fundemental right to choose, this is beside the point. In the end, it comes down to how you care about the people.

The Constitution was intended to provide each citizen with the education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing that they NEED TO FREELY DEVELOP.

This was the promise given to us by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, until Repuilicans and later "Libert"arians were formed and tried to put their oppressive God/capitalism into everything.

We were founded on basic principles of equality and positive liberty, we need to go back to it by voting for Jim Webb in Virginia.


Wow – what shocking display of ignorance about the constitution, Jeffersonian ideals, and American history.

The whole idea that the government should provide all of that did not come about, in any meaningful way, until the great depression. Jefferson would be shocked that you would suggest that he was fighting for government provided education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing. He would be incredibly appalled.

How could you possibly consider it the obligation of the government to provide one recreation? Oh yeah – pursuit of happiness… that obviously didn’t mean having the freedom to do what you want, it mean the government would schedule games of dodgeball, badminton, or bridge for everyone. :rolleyes:

Somehow I just don’t get how government provided babysitters were part of the agenda for any of the founding fathers.

The whole point of the constitution was that people had the freedom to provide these things for themselves – not that the government would provide them. The ‘government’ is supposed to be a cop, not a nursemaid.

*Specifically the American Democratic Party

This is really a question that has long confused me. Sometimes its due to a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform, which is very widespread in the political spectrum anyway, but it seems a large problem to be limited to that alone. The current administration is both fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative. These two ideologies are in direct opposition to the Libertarian platform, and I would have thought the democrats would have embraced the chance to have a possible alliance with them; At least for points of agreement such as gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

Instead, when election 2004 rolls around I heard “A vote for a third party is a vote for Bush”. A statement which isn't even logical unless the person in question originally was going to vote democrat, which is an unfounded assumption. The democratic party has always been able to host a diverse range of opinions, why wont they meet the libertarians even on like issues?

Its not like the republicans have ever been great friends of libertarians. Most republicans I have debated on other sites associate libertarians with modern day hippies, smoking crack and rejecting common decency, while democrats associate them with backwoods gun-nuts who refuse to give money to the “gubbermint”. Both views are entirely separate and yet held with equal ferocity. The Democrats however, actually associate the the libertarians with Republicans, while the Republicans never made the same connection to the Democrats.

Another common misconception is that every libertarian holds the most extreme views of the philosophy, and that these will all be simultaneously be enacted the day the libertarians are in office. Democrats and Republicans have held radical views for decades that haven't even been discussed in congress, why would it be any different with the libertarians?

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place?

I can't speak for the Democratic Party as a whole, but I know that my opposition to Libertarianism has to do with the fact that our similarities are merely tangential to what is really important, and what is really important is something we fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. Put more simply, the fact that I agree with libertarians that gay marriage ought to be legalized is a distant second banana to the question of economics, and on that matter we simply cannot agree. As a liberal, I am a strong believer that the crucial element that ties us together is our social connection, our common view of a collective "us" that needs to be attended to and nourished for any society to work. To that end, all of society needs to be geared towards a "we're all in this together" mentality. We need to protect the poor and helpless because a society, like a body, cannot flourish with diseased parts. We need to build collective institutions because no one man can solve an epidemic, a hurricane, or a war. We need to organize our economy with an aim not towards maximum productivity, but maximum good for all. To beleive this is in some sense what defines you as a liberal.

Libertarians, by contrast, deny that there is such a thing as a community. To the libertarian, there are only individuals struggling against an impersonal and non-legitemate "other" out there (I realize I'm bringing post-modern rhetoric into a non-post-modern philosophy, but the image is appropriate). After all, it is only by denying the view that there is a "we" out there that we can conclude that "we" have no right to demand of "you" in particular. Hence, because of this worldview, we get the maximal view of individual liberty, but we also get the dog-eat-dog antithesis of a community.

On this point, there is no and can be no reconciliation, because our ideas are fundamentally opposite: one side says a community exists, and the other does not. One side says a community must be nourished with state help and that all of society should tend towards group flourishing. The other can't even parse out what "society" means, thus by definition any demands by this fictional entity are unreasonable abridgements of my freedom. To look at each other, then, is for one side to see the other as harbingers for despotism, while the other side sees their opponents as political solipsists. There can really be no bargain when our views are so fundamentally contradictory.

1. Gay Marriage and the Patriot act have nothing to do with each other...so I dont know why you stuck that in there.

2. I will bet you $1,000,000 that a Right Wing Economy..a free market..is more important to Libertarians in a country than Gay Marraige. I guarantee you.

I can guarantee you(I know many a Libertarian) that they would prefer a slightly less open economy if everyone was truely equal and free.

Because, unfortunately, the Democrats aren't especially in favor of gay marriage, privacy, and the use of medical marijuana.

Well, there's a conservative and a liberal wing in the democratic party. The conservative wing doesn't like the libertarians for the same reason that republicans don't. Pretty much what you mentioned above.

The liberal wing doesn't like oppression, whether it's political, economic, or simply physical. Libertarians aren't particularly opposed to oppression, they're simply opposed to government interference, which places them, de facto against political oppression, but not against any other kind. They see the Federal Civil Rights act as political oppression against racists. They're ok with oppression, so long as it comes from corporations and militia groups.

I can guarantee you(I know many a Libertarian) that they would prefer a slightly less open economy if everyone was truely equal and free.
No. Libertarians are for individualism..not really worrying about soceity as a whole but more thier own individual freedom..."Gotta look out for number one". Hell, some Libertarians dont even beleive in soceity. A free Market economy is not only a high priority in Libertarianism, but part of its foundation. Gay Marriage, is not. For instance...and this anology will be a little out of time but still. The founding Americans were libertarians...yet they didnt care about freeing all people......BUT, a free market economy WAS a high priority and one of the foundations on which this country was built.

Because the Libertarians directly compete with Democrats in an area where Republicans have a strangehold - morality legislation. Those that don't support the Republican hardball line choose between Democrat and Libertarian, and Libertarian is a third party and has no chance of winning unless Bill Clinton is able to run again and picks a Libertarian platform (third parties don't get half the concessions that the big parties do and thus have a very remote chance of even getting on the ballot, much less getting winning votes) so basically they are just a pit for what would be Democrat votes.

And the Libertarians have directly conflicting views outside of that. Which is why I would never vote Libertarian.



I suppose that you have a point when it comes to competition. That does seem a rather good reason. However you're slightly inaccurate about the rest. The two-party system is consistently dropping in power every year as more and more people label themselves independent. The libertarians have also consistently hit every state ballot.

Libertarians high level of activists also ensures they gain more power as less people vote.

I'll see if I can dig up some election statistics.

Yeah, but thats like throwing your vote away...everyone knows that.It depends on the issue and the candidates. My district and region is largely Democratic, so I can vote for the Greens in the local elections without tipping the election in favor of the Republicans.

It depends on the issue and the candidates. My district and region is largely Democratic, so I can vote for the Greens in the local elections without tipping the election in favor of the Republicans.
I'll give you that..but I was speaking more nationally and for the Presidential elections.

I never knew that gun control, midnight basketball for urban youth, and universal healthcare were things that libertarians wanted. I mean, that's what Democrats want, and if libertarians "would be Democrat votes" then you'll have to prove that those issues are something that libertarians really want.
No I don't, unless you can prove those are flashpoint issues that the Republicans run on.

I'll give you that..but I was speaking more nationally and for the Presidential elections.Yeah, sadly, we don't have instant runoff elections.

Because the Libertarians are toothless, and their economic opinion is loathsome to those of us who believe in Social Welfare and a humane economy.

Besides, I don't think an alliance will solve the Democratic problems. What we need is a new leader, one with vision, gravitas and cahones. We need an FDR, we need a Kennedy. John freaking Kerry just ain't cutting it. We need a new, focused agenda, one that reinforces key democratic values, and can define the Democratic Party in terms other than 'well we're not the Republicans.' Allying with a weak third party won't do it - being a strong, unique and electable party will.

Because only democrats deal in absolutes..

The simple truth is, democrats have been hijacked by the radical left. Thier dogma of faith is "if you don't vote for us, you're voting for a republican" which just isn't true.

I could say the same about green party, the green party is nothing more then democrat's with our enviorment as the top prirotiy.

Democrats are jealous of libertarians is what it is, because despite their differances, all libertarians can find a common good, (mostly because our country is in darkness..)

Abortion:
Some libertarians are left-leaning, invoking the idea of freedom and self responsibility.

Other libertarians are right-leaning, invoking the same idea, but that a fetus is a living creature who has been robbed of it's rights and therfore should not be aborted because it has no say in the matter.

Either way, both would agree abortion should not be coverd on a social healthplan which is precisely why they want healthcare to be completely privatized. That way moral dillemmas like these are not on the people's shoulders. No blood on our money.

Drugs:
I think even the right-leaning libertarians are more leniant on drug issues then thier republican counterparts. Being right-wing on this issue myself, drugs open doors to rape, violance, and murder against other people. Giving people the right to do drugs is just begging for trouble. Because drugs turn normal people into maniacs.. Also crystal meth is something like a WMD when you consider it's effects on the enviorment around it. Both would agree however the war on drugs is a waste of valuable time and resources.

Prostitution:
Another light-argument, to right-leaing libertarians, prostitution is slavery, even with the consent of the whore, it's still wrong, so it should remain illegal as slavery is not something libertarian's approve of. Left-leaning ones argue that it's simply a social service, but then so do left-leaning democrats which isn't saying much. Personaly; I don't like abortion, and it sends a negative message to our youth and society. But I hate the whore/customer more then the pimp. The whore/customer chooses to demeen themself, the pimp merely profits off thier idiocy.. But I don't want to encourage idiocy, so prostitution should remain illegal.

Though I could be willing to waver these ideals, seeing as with little to no goverment, Jack The Ripper would be alot more common, "social justice" would be prevelant. Democrats and republicans alike fear this "gang-war" type mentality, why I don't know. Regan wanted, democrats ACT like they want it.. but neither party implements it.. I figure you're allowed to do as you want unless someone else better then you says you can't. The strong, the smart, the lucky, and the inherited should decide the outcome of morality and law. And even the two latter cannot hope to compete if they lack competance or a plan..

For liberal-democrats wholly beliving in Darwin's Theory, thier entire mindframe is very Catholic.. perhaps worse, Catholics have good intentions, liberals just have selfish ones.

So I think that's why democrats hate libertarians, cause they reveal that democrats are NOT the liberty-toting rebels they make themselves out to be. They're just economic totalrians who use drugs, whores, and abortion as the doggy biscut to keep us suboordinate and stupid. We don't need abortion, we don't need drugs or prostitution, and we ceartainly don't need some stupid goverment telling us what's right, what's wrong, and how I should spend and get my hardworked money!

That's libertarinsm, and that's why democrats hate it!

I suppose that you have a point when it comes to competition. That does seem a rather good reason. However you're slightly inaccurate about the rest. The two-party system is consistently dropping in power every year as more and more people label themselves independent.
You obviouisly don't have the slightest understanding of the facts surrounding the party system. It isn't just about people's voting block. Government finances teh two big parties, they always get on the ballots in states. Third parties have to fight an uphill battle at every major election.

H4ck5 - those are all flashpoint issues that are entirely irrelevant in the big picture. The big picture is where the Libertarians are dangerous and exactly contradict the Demcorats.
This is why voting in America is crap - people don't know shit.

Yeah, sadly, we don't have instant runoff elections.
Dude, I'm gonna be blunt with you...If you're a communist, why the hell are you living in this country? This country was founded on principles totally opposite of what you want, it currently IS totally opposite of what you want, and doesnt even take Communists let alone thier parties seriously. I'm not tryign to be mean but why dont you move to a country that caters more to your political needs?

Government finances teh two big parties

This is a major problem everywhere is occurs. Canada only recently began public funding of its political parties (based on how many votes they get), and I think it's a terrible idea.

Parties should be funded by the people, but only voluntarily.

Dude, I'm gonna be blunt with you...If you're a communist, why the hell are you living in this country? This country was founded on principles totally opposite of what you want, it currently IS totally opposite of what you want, and doesnt even take Communists let alone thier parties seriously. I'm not tryign to be mean but why dont you move to a country that caters more to your political needs?
Stop voting, you're exactly the kind of person ruining American voting.

Dude, I'm gonna be blunt with you...If you're a communist, why the hell are you living in this country? This country was founded on principles totally opposite of what you want, it currently IS totally opposite of what you want, and doesnt even take Communists let alone thier parties seriously. I'm not tryign to be mean but why dont you move to a country that caters more to your political needs?

He could always swim to Cuba. It would be a first.

Either that, or he ends up as a joke like Gus Hall.

1. Gay Marriage and the Patriot act have nothing to do with each other...so I dont know why you stuck that in there.

2. I will bet you $1,000,000 that a Right Wing Economy..a free market..is more important to Libertarians in a country than Gay Marraige. I guarantee you.

1. I was not comparing the two, that was just an adden to "Libertarians prefer conservatives in power"

2. In the same way that low taxes are essential to economic freedom, gay marriage is essential to social freedom. You are comparing a pillar to a position. Of course they hold the pillar in higher regard. The same way I could say they care more about Social Freedom than low taxes. Social freedom covers hundreds of individual positions

Dude, I'm gonna be blunt with you...If you're a communist, why the hell are you living in this country? This country was founded on principles totally opposite of what you want, it currently IS totally opposite of what you want, and doesnt even take Communists let alone thier parties seriously. I'm not tryign to be mean but why dont you move to a country that caters more to your political needs?Ideally I could get myself and like-minded people to secede. This way we could keep the beneficial protections of the U.S. Constitution during the process, and cast the negative part of it away at the end of the process.

Ideally I could get myself and like-minded people to secede. This way we could keep the beneficial protections of the U.S. Constitution during the process, and cast the negative part of it away at the end of the process.
Ah, the Gus Hall method, where you're only remembered by right-wingers who keep your election poster as a dartboard backer.

You obviouisly don't have the slightest understanding of the facts surrounding the party system. It isn't just about people's voting block. Government finances teh two big parties, they always get on the ballots in states. Third parties have to fight an uphill battle at every major election.

H4ck5 - those are all flashpoint issues that are entirely irrelevant in the big picture. The big picture is where the Libertarians are dangerous and exactly contradict the Demcorats.
This is why voting in America is crap - people don't know shit.

I am actually pretty well educated on the party system. You should know that the idea that "Third parties are entirely powerless" is actually a relatively recent idea, which has no actual basis in American history. Third parties actually have a very strong history in regards to manipulation of political culture and even of the major parties. Third parties typically have local and grassroots power that the two main parties cant even touch. I suggest reading up on some recent third parties, many have far more colorful histories than the two-party system.

Of course, government funding of parties is a recent too, and its unlikely that any law is going to pass to change that. You would have to go through courts to stop that.

Dont forget that Republicans were not always a primary party, and began with the alliance of several third parties.

Ah, the Gus Hall method, where you're only remembered by right-wingers who keep your election poster as a dartboard backer.Oh, it's been tried? I'll have to look him up...then again, maybe this means the militants are right? :eek:

Libertarians, by contrast, deny that there is such a thing as a community. –snip-

That is an amazing statement of pure ignorance.

Libertarians do not pathologically deny the existence of ‘community’ – we simply believe that the government is not the sole manifestation of society and that government regulation and bureaucracy is not the natural solution to all of the world’s problems.

We are not anarchists who say two people even speaking to each other is some horrible tyranny – we recognize that a functioning society is beneficial to all. We simply do not think that someone sitting at a desk in some government office should be able to dictate how I brush my teeth.

This is a major difference between democrats and libertarians – democrats believe that bureaucrats know best and should be able to dictate what you do and how (in the name of the greater good) where as libertarians believe an individual is better able to gauge what is best for that individual (and a functioning society is a good thing for the individual).

I know my business, what would make me happy, what would make my family happy, how to help my neighbor, and benefit my community far better than some politician from the other side of the country.

I may have differing opinions on matters than you do – I happen to think I should be able to take a cow I raised myself on my own farm, butcher it myself, and then –gasp- eat it. Non-libertarians seem to be appalled by this suggestion as they clamor to insist that regulation must state that all consumed meat has to be processed at a regulated meat packing plant.

Who’s opinions are more important? If you say your’s then you are being selfish – if you say ‘the community’ then either you are going to have to twist and turn or embrace certain things like banning gay marriage (‘the community’ seems to be against that), banning abortion, etc.

Let me guess… you are one of those people who got freaked out when someone told you about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? Go to http://www.dhmo.org/ Are you going to suggest we need a government program to put even more regulation on that particular chemical or do you think people should be able to take care of themselves?

Stop voting, you're exactly the kind of person ruining American voting.
First of all I'm not old enough to vote, and second of all, I'm perfectly happy with American voting and having the Conservatives in power.:)

First of all I'm not old enough to vote, and second of all, I'm perfectly happy with American voting and having the Conservatives in power.:)So you're going to be pretty disappointed with the next couple rounds of elections, eh?

1. I was not comparing the two, that was just an adden to "Libertarians prefer conservatives in power"

2. In the same way that low taxes are essential to economic freedom, gay marriage is essential to social freedom. You are comparing a pillar to a position. Of course they hold the pillar in higher regard. The same way I could say they care more about Social Freedom than low taxes. Social freedom covers hundreds of individual positions

Whatever dude...you're wrong..you're not gonna agree with me but if you ask most Libertarians they will tell you a free market is more important than gay marriages.

Thats all I have to say, no arguing that.

He could always swim to Cuba. It would be a first.

Either that, or he ends up as a joke like Gus Hall.
Lol..yes, then he'd see the wonders Communism acomplishes.:rolleyes:

Libertarians, by contrast, deny that there is such a thing as a community.

There's isn't such a "thing" as community. Community is simply an interaction between indivuduals; it has no independent existence.

There's isn't such a "thing" as community. Community is simply an interaction between indivuduals; it has no independent existence.True, but individuals rarely live independently of communities.

Whatever dude...you're wrong..you're not gonna agree with me but if you ask most Libertarians they will tell you a free market is more important than gay marriages.

Thats all I have to say, no arguing that.

And they would also agree Social Freedom is more important than low taxes :rolleyes: . Im not saying you're wrong, its just a loaded question, which asks if you would prefer a TV over a remote.

True, but individuals rarely live independently of communities.

I suppose the true conflict comes when the wants of the individual conflict with the wants of the community. The libertarian view tends to insist that participation and contribution in a community should be a voluntary and temporary object. I pay taxes to the US Government because I have a vested interest in it's existence.

This existence is mandated in the constitution where I surrender my natural rights for the benifits of security and stability. When the government violates the constitution, it has violated my ties to it. As a sovereign citizen, I have a right to refuse to participate in violation of these rights, or I can surrender them in favor of new "benifits" (Such as the patriot act, or income tax, or social security).

The libertarian party wishes to ensure the idividual is never outshadowed by society. Many people mistakenly believe that the ideal libertarian economy is the "Gilded age" First, the government interfered with gunpoint (There is no other way the government can really interfere) upon those who refused to sell their land, and striking was outlawed as well. In a libertarian society a boss could Never force you to stay at your job, and private unions could not be prevented, since they are simply assembly.

This is a simple view of it with my own individual twinge. It gets far more complex depending on who you talk to, but reading jefferson is a good way to start.

True, but individuals rarely live independently of communities.

But we're also not tied inexorably to them.

If I happen to have opinions which are vastly different from those of my neighbours, should my life be bent to conform to their opinions, or should I be permitted to live as I see fit without their interference?

If community takes precedence, then I have to conform, but that doesn't benefit anyone. I'm one guy - adding me to the collective is of negligible impact, but the difference to me is much larger.

Well, people describe me as a libertarian. (As I get called an anarchist ALOT, almost as much as I do a fascist. Funny huh?) And I get libertarian on political quizes, even personality quizes not directly related to politics. So I'll tell you what I think and yes, I hate democrats.

Same Sex Marriage:
Deffinitely something that should be legal. It would improve the economy, it would open doors for adoption, it would discourage abortion vicarously through more adoptions, and it would be giving homosexuals who can't help what they are the same type of freedom we get. Homosexuals should be able to express thier love to.

Immigration:
Open up the borders and kick the minute men's asses, what have immigrants ever done to hurt America? If you spot a drug dealer or something kill them, otherwise what could it hurt? They're just trying to make a living, and it's a known fact immigrant's work for less wages, so it helps the small buisnesses who can't afford American workers and besides, immigrants ussualy do jobs you don't want anyway, so they're practicaly slaves.

Dem: But immigrants don't pay taxes!
Wrong, immigrants have a program that allows them to pay taxes without a green card, if they so choose to, we should all be so lucky as to have a program like this, none of us should be forced to pay taxes. In this regard the immigrant's have more freedom then we do. Though it comes at a hefty price.

The Right to a Choice:
Wether it be abortion, drugs, whatever. You know, there's a such thing as going too far but apparently even that's not far enough for liberal's. If you want to have the freedom to do what you want, you have to be willing to take the consequinces, for liberals who love to quote Nietzche, they forget one of his best quotes "Free men cannot be equal. Equal men cannot be free".

If you truly want a free society, then you cannot expect the goverment to step in when an abortion go's wrong and you die, or your drug habit gets out of control and the crystal meth leaves you frozen in carbonite. Or even if there's an inflation with prostitution and drugs and whatever! You expect the goverment to intervene when it's convient for you, and behalf on America, I say fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You have no obligation to serve the state, and the state has no obligation to serve you.

Our Ammendmant Rights:
I love how republicans and democrats pick which ammendmants they like and which ones they don't. Republicans love the guns and religous connections of the state, but the moment you meation free-speech "won't somebody please think of the children?!" like you give a fuck about the children. But democrats are even worse, as they've brainwashed people into beliving they're the voice of reason and the American way of liberty. Yah' right, they're all for liberty untill it meations God, guns, or lowering taxes. You know liberal's want more taxes? So you're too fucking poor to do anything about thier empire, you know why they want to ban guns? So you have no power in your household, that way, thier little state sactioned police officers are your only means of safety, not to meation it's pretty hard to implement change in a nation when there isn't a risk of a 95 calibur bullet going through your head. No amount of angery letters and pies to the face is going to make Adolph Hitler change his mind about the final solution. And liberal's know this and are counting on it.

The Problem With the Two Party System:
Republicans have become dem-lite. What's the differance between a repub and dem? Dems complain about them being a police goverment, but hey, atleast they're doing it for morality, all dems would use it for is to give the IRS even more power.. Yeah, that's so much better! *rolls eyes* Republicans have also taken moral stances to the backseat inplace of statist rule and socialist spending to combat radical left-wing countries like Iraq. you know what it sounds like to me? Left on Left crime. Like the sith, there can be only two. As more then that and there is just not enough room in space and time for these massive egos..

What's in a Vote?
You know, wether the independant party could never win or not is really irrelevant. If voting independant gets under the skin of democrat's this much, then that's reason enough to do it. Just the look on your face is worth it. If I'm going to get raped by the goverment, I'd like to know I got a frontseat in watching my enemy get raped first and harder.

I'm not republican, and I'm ceartainly not democrat.
I'm American! (I swear, I could hear Team America's "America fuck yeah!" song after I wrote this post.)

Originally Posted by Llewdor
There's isn't such a "thing" as community. Community is simply an interaction between indivuduals; it has no independent existence.
Community is a bit like gravity. You can't see it and it appears to have little effect or relevance but ultimately it is extremely powerful and affects everything we do.

It is this denial of the community that gives me the biggest problem with Libertarians. Every reply I've seen lately from a professed Libertarian on the plight of there fellow countrymen who are not as comfortable as they are is "so what", "why is that my problem" and my personal favourite "well sucks to be you then doesn't it".

Perhaps I've just been unlucky and come across right-wing Libertarians. Perhaps there are more benevolent Libertarians out there who believe that looking out for others is actually a good thing and beneficial to all. Perhaps :( .

That is an amazing statement of pure ignorance.


Tum te tum. . .cut and paste:


There's isn't such a "thing" as community. Community is simply an interaction between indivuduals; it has no independent existence.

You were saying again?


Libertarians do not pathologically deny the existence of ‘community’ – we simply believe that the government is not the sole manifestation of society and that government regulation and bureaucracy is not the natural solution to all of the world’s problems.

We are not anarchists who say two people even speaking to each other is some horrible tyranny – we recognize that a functioning society is beneficial to all. We simply do not think that someone sitting at a desk in some government office should be able to dictate how I brush my teeth.

This is a major difference between democrats and libertarians – democrats believe that bureaucrats know best and should be able to dictate what you do and how (in the name of the greater good) where as libertarians believe an individual is better able to gauge what is best for that individual (and a functioning society is a good thing for the individual).

I know my business, what would make me happy, what would make my family happy, how to help my neighbor, and benefit my community far better than some politician from the other side of the country.

I may have differing opinions on matters than you do – I happen to think I should be able to take a cow I raised myself on my own farm, butcher it myself, and then –gasp- eat it. Non-libertarians seem to be appalled by this suggestion as they clamor to insist that regulation must state that all consumed meat has to be processed at a regulated meat packing plant.

Who’s opinions are more important? If you say your’s then you are being selfish – if you say ‘the community’ then either you are going to have to twist and turn or embrace certain things like banning gay marriage (‘the community’ seems to be against that), banning abortion, etc.

Let me guess… you are one of those people who got freaked out when someone told you about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? Go to http://www.dhmo.org/ Are you going to suggest we need a government program to put even more regulation on that particular chemical or do you think people should be able to take care of themselves?

Before I begin by discussing your misunderstanding of liberalism and the Democratic Party, let me first talk about you ad hominem. At first, I considered simply writing a blistering philosophical response designed to cow you, but I thought better of it, as demonstrating a knowledge of theorists as diverse as Marcilius, Cicero, Aristotle, and Sandel works only for people who know who Marcilius is. So instead I will simply answer you directly in ascending order of narrow responses to your question: No, I wasn't one who campaigned against dihydrogen monoxide. I have a working knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, and other sciences, because I was the top science student at my admittedly second-rate school, and because I took more math and science classes than anyone else at my school ever did. As such, I knew perfectly well what dihydrogen monoxide was well before I'd even heard of the campaign to eliminate it.

In the wider sense, you apparently have fallen under the assumption that if you are a Democrat, you must therefore be a pernicious nanny-stater, whatever the hell that means (not to mention stupid to boot). The latter part of that conditional, however, is false. I don't believe that the government has the sole or overbearing responsibility to make you wear a helmet while you masturbate. To be honest, I don't know a Democrat that does. As such, at least part of why your post was so odious is because you apparently believe I'm part of the large strawman to whom no actual people belong. Rather, I simply believe that the government has an important role to serve in ensuring that I do have a choice, and this is part of why I disagree so vehemently with libertarianism.

You see, while libertarians are big on the freely-entered contracts, I an other liberals note two things that libertarians apparently do not: my free-entering into contracts is contingent upon my ability to rationally say either yes or no, and furthermore that the government is the only entity who can ensure that contracts are enforced. With respect to the first part, no libertarian would respect a contract wherein one party held a gun to the head of another; they would rightly call it duress. However, if one party is in the economic condition of being able to dictate terms to the other, while the other party is unable by virtue of economic circumstance to refuse the contract and have a reasonable expectation of survival, how is this any different? The answer is that there is no difference, unless you hold the libertarian belief that the only true force is government positive punitive force. With respect to the second point of interest for liberals, only a government has the capacity for legitemately and justly enforcing contracts, and making sure that each party adheres to said contracts, making sure they are justly created, and making sure that no one side manipulates the contract to its own advantage. Put more simply, for instance, it takes a hell of a legal arm for a government to make sure that Company B does not screw over any of its customers, and libertarians apparently don't recognize this when you consider that their tax policies would never allow a government the resources to police Company B in the first place.

That goes to the crux of the issue: libertarians like to say how they value the social and civic institutions that comprise society; they just want to allocate no resources for their continued existence. The problem is that one cannot come without the other: you cannot truly say you appreciate civic institutions if you are unwilling to pay them to upkeep them. Liberals, by contrast, are more intellectually honest in that regard.

Wow – what shocking display of ignorance about the constitution, Jeffersonian ideals, and American history.

The whole idea that the government should provide all of that did not come about, in any meaningful way, until the great depression. Jefferson would be shocked that you would suggest that he was fighting for government provided education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing. He would be incredibly appalled.

How could you possibly consider it the obligation of the government to provide one recreation? Oh yeah – pursuit of happiness… that obviously didn’t mean having the freedom to do what you want, it mean the government would schedule games of dodgeball, badminton, or bridge for everyone. :rolleyes:

Somehow I just don’t get how government provided babysitters were part of the agenda for any of the founding fathers.

The whole point of the constitution was that people had the freedom to provide these things for themselves – not that the government would provide them. The ‘government’ is supposed to be a cop, not a nursemaid.
Well, people describe me as a libertarian. (As I get called an anarchist ALOT, almost as much as I do a fascist. Funny huh?) And I get libertarian on political quizes, even personality quizes not directly related to politics. So I'll tell you what I think and yes, I hate democrats.

Same Sex Marriage:
Deffinitely something that should be legal. It would improve the economy, it would open doors for adoption, it would discourage abortion vicarously through more adoptions, and it would be giving homosexuals who can't help what they are the same type of freedom we get. Homosexuals should be able to express thier love to.

Immigration:
Open up the borders and kick the minute men's asses, what have immigrants ever done to hurt America? If you spot a drug dealer or something kill them, otherwise what could it hurt? They're just trying to make a living, and it's a known fact immigrant's work for less wages, so it helps the small buisnesses who can't afford American workers and besides, immigrants ussualy do jobs you don't want anyway, so they're practicaly slaves.

Dem: But immigrants don't pay taxes!
Wrong, immigrants have a program that allows them to pay taxes without a green card, if they so choose to, we should all be so lucky as to have a program like this, none of us should be forced to pay taxes. In this regard the immigrant's have more freedom then we do. Though it comes at a hefty price.

The Right to a Choice:
Wether it be abortion, drugs, whatever. You know, there's a such thing as going too far but apparently even that's not far enough for liberal's. If you want to have the freedom to do what you want, you have to be willing to take the consequinces, for liberals who love to quote Nietzche, they forget one of his best quotes "Free men cannot be equal. Equal men cannot be free".

If you truly want a free society, then you cannot expect the goverment to step in when an abortion go's wrong and you die, or your drug habit gets out of control and the crystal meth leaves you frozen in carbonite. Or even if there's an inflation with prostitution and drugs and whatever! You expect the goverment to intervene when it's convient for you, and behalf on America, I say fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You have no obligation to serve the state, and the state has no obligation to serve you.

Our Ammendmant Rights:
I love how republicans and democrats pick which ammendmants they like and which ones they don't. Republicans love the guns and religous connections of the state, but the moment you meation free-speech "won't somebody please think of the children?!" like you give a fuck about the children. But democrats are even worse, as they've brainwashed people into beliving they're the voice of reason and the American way of liberty. Yah' right, they're all for liberty untill it meations God, guns, or lowering taxes. You know liberal's want more taxes? So you're too fucking poor to do anything about thier empire, you know why they want to ban guns? So you have no power in your household, that way, thier little state sactioned police officers are your only means of safety, not to meation it's pretty hard to implement change in a nation when there isn't a risk of a 95 calibur bullet going through your head. No amount of angery letters and pies to the face is going to make Adolph Hitler change his mind about the final solution. And liberal's know this and are counting on it.

The Problem With the Two Party System:
Republicans have become dem-lite. What's the differance between a repub and dem? Dems complain about them being a police goverment, but hey, atleast they're doing it for morality, all dems would use it for is to give the IRS even more power.. Yeah, that's so much better! *rolls eyes* Republicans have also taken moral stances to the backseat inplace of statist rule and socialist spending to combat radical left-wing countries like Iraq. you know what it sounds like to me? Left on Left crime. Like the sith, there can be only two. As more then that and there is just not enough room in space and time for these massive egos..

What's in a Vote?
You know, wether the independant party could never win or not is really irrelevant. If voting independant gets under the skin of democrat's this much, then that's reason enough to do it. Just the look on your face is worth it. If I'm going to get raped by the goverment, I'd like to know I got a frontseat in watching my enemy get raped first and harder.

I'm not republican, and I'm ceartainly not democrat.
I'm American! (I swear, I could hear Team America's "America fuck yeah!" song after I wrote this post.)

It's about time somebody said all this. As a Republican-turned-Libertarian I have to say that the dems are just as bad, but on different levels. Both have lost sight of original American priniciples, supporting state-funded everything, supporting a "Big Brother" government, supporting all kinds of legislation that only serves to make it harder for people to live freely and enjoy life.

Democrats who oppose the libertarians are either hippies or statists, and republicans who oppose them are just idiots. The sprawling morass the American government has become since the Great Depression is disturbing.

In any case, I think it is important to rate both major parties along side the libertarians, because while I realize that leftists are too thick-skulled to understand what's good for them and right-wingers are monstrously conservative, I hope it will show undecided people the mistakes they'd be making by choosing the left OR the right.

Here are current issues that will demonstrate that both parties are simply WRONG, and each of the three parties' stance on each(sorry h4ck5, you said it all first, but it wasnt a party-by-party comparison):

Gun Control: DEMOCRATS - Wrong. They wish to demolish American freedoms and turn us into what the Soviet Union was socially, and most of the world is economically. They accuse the Republicans of wanting to strike down the little guy and let money make right, but think about Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry: all fuckig loaded FAT CATS. REPUBLICANS - Right, but for the wrong reason. They only oppose it because the democrats support it. LIBERTARIANS - Right. Guns have no will of their own and are no more dangerous that the people using them, so everyone should be able to own them to begin with, and only those who infringe on the rights of others should be forbidden.

To show the right stance on this:

Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University.

Gay marriage: DEMOCRATS - Right, but for wrong reasons. They only support it because the Republicans oppose it, and because they'll gain votes by passing it. REPUBLICANS - Wrong. The Christian right opposes it for biblical reasons. Religion has no place in government. Separation of Church and State, people! LIBERTARIANS - Right. They realize that any cut back on anyone's liberty threatens everybody else.

Constitution: DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS: Both wrong. They both like to cite it selectively. Enforcing the constitution selectively is like trying to buy part of a carton of milk; you can't. You have to buy the entire carton or none at all. LIBERTARIANS: Right. They accept it as a unit, the way it was intended, and want to likewise enforce it as a unit.

Immigration: DEMOCRATS - Right, but for wrong reasons. They only support open borders because the Republicans oppose them. REPUBLICANS - Wrong. They oppose immigration because widespread immigration would mean that "Americans would lose jobs to dirty foreigners who can barely speak English." I don't believe that, but I've had teachers who sincerely did. LIBERTARIANS - Right. They see the social and economic benefits it brings, and support it.

Abortion: Same reasoning for all parties as for Gay Marriage, but that the democrats know they would gain the votes of a lot of women if it remained legal. The democrats are right, for the wrong reasons. The republicans are wrong. The libertarians are right.

In conclusion, it's painfully obvious that the libertarians are right. Iif you oppose the libertarian philosophy in moderate form, i.e. Michael Badnarik, you're either a communist, a statist, a theocrat, a greedy little bastard or a plain idiot.

[ I put on "America, FUCK YEAH! while I was writing this. Really gets your blood charged. ]

Tum te tum. . .cut and paste:



You were saying again?



Before I begin by discussing your misunderstanding of liberalism and the Democratic Party, let me first talk about you ad hominem. At first, I considered simply writing a blistering philosophical response designed to cow you, but I thought better of it, as demonstrating a knowledge of theorists as diverse as Marcilius, Cicero, Aristotle, and Sandel works only for people who know who Marcilius is. So instead I will simply answer you directly in ascending order of narrow responses to your question: No, I wasn't one who campaigned against dihydrogen monoxide. I have a working knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, and other sciences, because I was the top science student at my admittedly second-rate school, and because I took more math and science classes than anyone else at my school ever did. As such, I knew perfectly well what dihydrogen monoxide was well before I'd even heard of the campaign to eliminate it.

In the wider sense, you apparently have fallen under the assumption that if you are a Democrat, you must therefore be a pernicious nanny-stater, whatever the hell that means (not to mention stupid to boot). The latter part of that conditional, however, is false. I don't believe that the government has the sole or overbearing responsibility to make you wear a helmet while you masturbate. To be honest, I don't know a Democrat that does. As such, at least part of why your post was so odious is because you apparently believe I'm part of the large strawman to whom no actual people belong. Rather, I simply believe that the government has an important role to serve in ensuring that I do have a choice, and this is part of why I disagree so vehemently with libertarianism.

You see, while libertarians are big on the freely-entered contracts, I an other liberals note two things that libertarians apparently do not: my free-entering into contracts is contingent upon my ability to rationally say either yes or no, and furthermore that the government is the only entity who can ensure that contracts are enforced. With respect to the first part, no libertarian would respect a contract wherein one party held a gun to the head of another; they would rightly call it duress. However, if one party is in the economic condition of being able to dictate terms to the other, while the other party is unable by virtue of economic circumstance to refuse the contract and have a reasonable expectation of survival, how is this any different? The answer is that there is no difference, unless you hold the libertarian belief that the only true force is government positive punitive force. With respect to the second point of interest for liberals, only a government has the capacity for legitemately and justly enforcing contracts, and making sure that each party adheres to said contracts, making sure they are justly created, and making sure that no one side manipulates the contract to its own advantage. Put more simply, for instance, it takes a hell of a legal arm for a government to make sure that Company B does not screw over any of its customers, and libertarians apparently don't recognize this when you consider that their tax policies would never allow a government the resources to police Company B in the first place.

That goes to the crux of the issue: libertarians like to say how they value the social and civic institutions that comprise society; they just want to allocate no resources for their continued existence. The problem is that one cannot come without the other: you cannot truly say you appreciate civic institutions if you are unwilling to pay them to upkeep them. Liberals, by contrast, are more intellectually honest in that regard.

You obviously haven't gotten the gist of libertarianism. We don't inherently disagree with the idea of government, we realize that cannot effectively manage any purpose other than keeping people from infringing on the rights of others. The philosophy means that there will still be police, and still be a government, to protect your rational excuse to say yes or no. As for tax policy, when you slash back most of what the government does, you can also slash back the spending it requires. That said, your oh-so-zealous statist discourse holds water about as well as a wire screen.

Because the Libertarians are toothless, and their economic opinion is loathsome to those of us who believe in Social Welfare and a humane economy.

Besides, I don't think an alliance will solve the Democratic problems. What we need is a new leader, one with vision, gravitas and cahones. We need an FDR, we need a Kennedy. John freaking Kerry just ain't cutting it. We need a new, focused agenda, one that reinforces key democratic values, and can define the Democratic Party in terms other than 'well we're not the Republicans.' Allying with a weak third party won't do it - being a strong, unique and electable party will.

On the subject of a new leader, I dislike both major parties equally, but I must recommend Senator Obama. On welfare, social welfare for people who arent either OLD or PERMANENTLY DISABLED is kind of a shitty concept. Read the second chapter of jennifer government and you'll understand why. Welfare is an idea invented by democrats for the sole purpose of securing votes. It's an excuse to raise taxes, thereby reducing peoples' financial freedom, and giving money to, almost exclusively, people who haven't earned it and are too lazy to go out and look for a job so they can try.

oh by the way, i would like to know who voted "theyre gun nutters and dont want to help society" it appalls me that people can be so closed-minded and just plain stupid

You obviously haven't gotten the gist of libertarianism. We don't inherently disagree with the idea of government, we realize that cannot effectively manage any purpose other than keeping people from infringing on the rights of others. The philosophy means that there will still be police, and still be a government, to protect your rational excuse to say yes or no. As for tax policy, when you slash back most of what the government does, you can also slash back the spending it requires. That said, your oh-so-zealous statist discourse holds water about as well as a wire screen.

It might seem that way, especially considering you think I'm a statist. I'm not, except in libertarian paranoid fantasies and Christian shoot-em-up video games. Or perhaps better put, I'm not a statist unless you consider Alexis de Toqueville and John Locke the paragons of proto-fascism.

The real problem, however, is your belief that citizens can truly have a choice in a society with no government intervention. Citizens need to be informed to have a choice, they need to have options and alternatives to have a choice, and they need to have protection from the practices of unscrupulous business practices. If history has shown us anything at all, it is that lack of government intervention prevents all three of those conditions. You may not like the Gilded Age, you may decry its excesses, and you may have a theory that doesn't predict its existence. But history has demonstrated, with recurring, disturbing, and gruesome regularity, that it is what you will get. It happened in the United States, it happened in England, it's happening now in Russia and China. You, however painful it may be, are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the only theory proven to be more inconsistent with human's tendency to corrupt than unrestrained communism is unabridged capitalism. Otherwise, you can continue to sit up in your libertarian ivory tower and play with your erector-set model of how things ought to be. Maybe join the Flat Earth Society for good measure.

Community is a bit like gravity. You can't see it and it appears to have little effect or relevance but ultimately it is extremely powerful and affects everything we do.

It is this denial of the community that gives me the biggest problem with Libertarians. Every reply I've seen lately from a professed Libertarian on the plight of there fellow countrymen who are not as comfortable as they are is "so what", "why is that my problem" and my personal favourite "well sucks to be you then doesn't it".

Perhaps I've just been unlucky and come across right-wing Libertarians. Perhaps there are more benevolent Libertarians out there who believe that looking out for others is actually a good thing and beneficial to all. Perhaps :( .

You're not paying attention. The criticism isn't of community generally, but of forced community. Libertarians may well help their neighbours - many will feel a moral obligation to do so. But the difference is that we're unwilling to force others to behave as we do.

Ayn Rand herself said that she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save her husband, and she considered that that be a selfish act on her part (she would rather die than see her husband die). Similarly, many libertarians would prefer to shovel some snow rather than know an elderly man struggled to do it himself.

But it's these universal rules that everyone somehow owes allegiance to his community to which we object.

my free-entering into contracts is contingent upon my ability to rationally say either yes or no
I don't think you really understand reason, but I'll get to that.

and furthermore that the government is the only entity who can ensure that contracts are enforced.
Libertarian != Anarcho-capitalist

With respect to the first part, no libertarian would respect a contract wherein one party held a gun to the head of another; they would rightly call it duress.
Given.

However, if one party is in the economic condition of being able to dictate terms to the other, while the other party is unable by virtue of economic circumstance to refuse the contract and have a reasonable expectation of survival, how is this any different?
And you think this actually occurs? Pursuant to emplyment, that would only happen if the employer had some sort of monopsony power, and I haven't seen an example of that without government intervention. And even if it does occur from time to time, isn't it worth that to prevent the sort of government largess that comes from giving them that sort of leeway when it comes to economic policy?

That said, I still think you can rationally choose in both cases. It just so happens that one alternative quite obviously dominates the other. Nothing about that precludes rational choice.

With respect to the second point of interest for liberals, only a government has the capacity for legitemately and justly enforcing contracts, and making sure that each party adheres to said contracts, making sure they are justly created, and making sure that no one side manipulates the contract to its own advantage. Put more simply, for instance, it takes a hell of a legal arm for a government to make sure that Company B does not screw over any of its customers, and libertarians apparently don't recognize this when you consider that their tax policies would never allow a government the resources to police Company B in the first place.
I think you're overestimating what proportion of government revenue goes toward law enforcement.

That goes to the crux of the issue: libertarians like to say how they value the social and civic institutions that comprise society; they just want to allocate no resources for their continued existence.
That's hyperbole. Again: libertarian != anarcho-capitalist

A vote for a third party was a vote for Bush. As the incumbent with a natural advantage, every third party vote helps him in an electoral situation where what matters is getting out your vote, not wooing the center.

The Libertarian Party isn't really to blame, though. They're not specifically attracting people who would otherwise vote Dem, so their negative effect is mitigated. The one to blame is Nader - the slogan should have been that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Not just in a general way - every single person who voted for him voted specifically for Bush by proxy, with no exceptions, by taking a vote away from the Democrats and giving it to someone who will never win.

Where's the "lets go around slapping libertarians until they get so annoyed they just shut up" option?
Im just kidding, I wouldnt ever slap a libertarian... unless you were facing me on the barriers. I'd bitchslap you back to JS Mill's lap.

It's implicit in the "I'm a fascist pigdog" option - wait, you say there isn't one of those? Damn.

Libertarian != Anarcho-capitalist


The minarchist wing of the libertarian faction always likes to say that, but I don't see how it's possible if you carry libertarian views to their logical conclusion. A government with no power to force individuals into certain actions that they may not necessarily take voluntary is no government at all. A government with no power to force individuals into certain actions they may not necessarily take voluntarily is also the only moral system according to quite a few libertarians. . .Rand explicitly said it as such, Mill fairly strongly implied it, as did Friedman and Hayek. Unless you want to argue that government action must be immoral to work (in which case the whole question of morality is academic), I would say that a minarchist libertarian is really just a liberal who's bad at history.


And you think this actually occurs? Pursuant to emplyment, that would only happen if the employer had some sort of monopsony power, and I haven't seen an example of that without government intervention. And even if it does occur from time to time, isn't it worth that to prevent the sort of government largess that comes from giving them that sort of leeway when it comes to economic policy?


Government intervention is an inevitable outcome in any system where 1) the motive is to win rather than to provide general benefit, and 2) the stakes are high. Just as it's easier to win by cheating than by playing by the rules, it's easier to kibbitz your opponents out of existence than to beat them in the marketplace. I don't see where there is some magical agreement by all parties to always play squarely and solely in the marketplace in the libertarian model, and the fact that it happens is a failing of libertarian theory to predict it, not some baffling externality that happens over and over.

And no, as I said, there is no fundamental difference between saying "Do this or I will shoot you" and "Do this or I will let you perish for want of material goods".


I think you're overestimating what proportion of government revenue goes toward law enforcement.

Law enforcement is hardly the sole means of manipulating or enforcing contracts. After all, what is unemployment benefits or welfare but an agreement by the people to pay a certain minimum amount if the market is unwilling or unable to provide that amount of money to people for their work. The practical effect is a floor on the wages companies can pay; if they pay less, people will simply accept welfare benefits instead.


That's hyperbole. Again: libertarian != anarcho-capitalist

Okay. Since I don't understand, perhaps you could help me sketch out a consistent minarchist version of libertarianism.

<hijack>
A vote for a third party was a vote for Bush. As the incumbent with a natural advantage, every third party vote helps him in an electoral situation where what matters is getting out your vote, not wooing the center.
A vote for a third party was not a vote for Bush, as many posters in this thread have claimed. It was a vote for the person/party you actually wanted to win.

It's pretty clear that many Americans are sick of only having the Republicans and Democrats as choices. Some choose to vote a third way; the vast majority of Americans don't vote at all.

If the Libertarians, or the Greens, or whomever ever manage to fire the imaginations of the non-voters, they'd win the election.

(PS: Isn't it rather old-fashioned of you to only have 2 parties with seats in Congress/Senate? :P )

</hijack>

I'd like to point out that I am a libertarian (little L), I am a gun nut, and I do not want to be forced to help the rest of society.

Well?

Demos like social programs and Libets don't......

It might seem that way, especially considering you think I'm a statist. I'm not, except in libertarian paranoid fantasies and Christian shoot-em-up video games. Or perhaps better put, I'm not a statist unless you consider Alexis de Toqueville and John Locke the paragons of proto-fascism.

The real problem, however, is your belief that citizens can truly have a choice in a society with no government intervention. Citizens need to be informed to have a choice, they need to have options and alternatives to have a choice, and they need to have protection from the practices of unscrupulous business practices. If history has shown us anything at all, it is that lack of government intervention prevents all three of those conditions. You may not like the Gilded Age, you may decry its excesses, and you may have a theory that doesn't predict its existence. But history has demonstrated, with recurring, disturbing, and gruesome regularity, that it is what you will get. It happened in the United States, it happened in England, it's happening now in Russia and China. You, however painful it may be, are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the only theory proven to be more inconsistent with human's tendency to corrupt than unrestrained communism is unabridged capitalism. Otherwise, you can continue to sit up in your libertarian ivory tower and play with your erector-set model of how things ought to be. Maybe join the Flat Earth Society for good measure.


I didn't say lack of government intervention, I said only what's necessary. That means that all three conditions exist. As for enforcing contracts without government help, that's one of the many reasons guns ought to be legal. And I haven't advocated unabridged capitalism; I'm a libertarian, not an anarcho-capitalist. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Also, looking at your NS i can't see how you wouldn't be a statist. You have no success controlling crime, you permit slavery and you're economically protectionist. That adds up to statism.

The minarchist wing of the libertarian faction always likes to say that, but I don't see how it's possible if you carry libertarian views to their logical conclusion. A government with no power to force individuals into certain actions that they may not necessarily take voluntary is no government at all. A government with no power to force individuals into certain actions they may not necessarily take voluntarily is also the only moral system according to quite a few libertarians. . .Rand explicitly said it as such, Mill fairly strongly implied it, as did Friedman and Hayek. Unless you want to argue that government action must be immoral to work (in which case the whole question of morality is academic), I would say that a minarchist libertarian is really just a liberal who's bad at history.



Government intervention is an inevitable outcome in any system where 1) the motive is to win rather than to provide general benefit, and 2) the stakes are high. Just as it's easier to win by cheating than by playing by the rules, it's easier to kibbitz your opponents out of existence than to beat them in the marketplace. I don't see where there is some magical agreement by all parties to always play squarely and solely in the marketplace in the libertarian model, and the fact that it happens is a failing of libertarian theory to predict it, not some baffling externality that happens over and over.

And no, as I said, there is no fundamental difference between saying "Do this or I will shoot you" and "Do this or I will let you perish for want of material goods".



Law enforcement is hardly the sole means of manipulating or enforcing contracts. After all, what is unemployment benefits or welfare but an agreement by the people to pay a certain minimum amount if the market is unwilling or unable to provide that amount of money to people for their work. The practical effect is a floor on the wages companies can pay; if they pay less, people will simply accept welfare benefits instead.



Okay. Since I don't understand, perhaps you could help me sketch out a consistent minarchist version of libertarianism.

Libertarianism, minarchist or otherwise, doesn't mean that the government can't use force. The point of libertarianism is that you've got all your freedom, but we crack down like the hammer of God when you use that freedom to infringe on other peoples' freedom. And btw I'm saying this as a realist, not a utopian minarchist.

And how is morality academic if the government has to be immoral to work?

The Libertarian Party isn't really to blame, though. They're not specifically attracting people who would otherwise vote Dem, so their negative effect is mitigated. The one to blame is Nader - the slogan should have been that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Not just in a general way - every single person who voted for him voted specifically for Bush by proxy, with no exceptions, by taking a vote away from the Democrats and giving it to someone who will never win.This is only true if the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. This ignores the possibility of people voting for Nader not voting at all had he not run.

This is only true if the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. This ignores the possibility of people voting for Nader not voting at all had he not run.

I was talking about 2004, but 2000 works as well.

You're right, but most of the people who vote for Nader are just classic balls-to-bones pseudo-hippie-style liberal voters who just vote for the most liberal guy. Yes, some of them would have not voted, period - but a substantial number would have voted for Gore, Kerry, etc.

Its the Libertarian platform. I think all libertarians think that way.
Nice generalization. :rolleyes:
Libertarians don't necessarily hold the same opinions as libertarians. To cut to the chase, 'big-L' Libertarians are aligned with the Libertarian Party (a political party I see as somewhat irrational), while 'little-l' libertarians (like me) support libertarian philosophy but don't always agree with the LP.

Really, my question is: What don't the democrats have to gain from libertarian alliance, and why is there such opposition to a supposedly “weak” party in the first place?

There's opposition because its a third party. The Democrats hate the Republicans, but at least for them it's a one-front war. They don't want to fight, and they can't agree enough to just let Libertarians go.

As more Libertarian than anything myself, I can tell you Democrats are too anti-capitalist, pro-government to ever want to get into bed with us. And same the Republicans as well. There's no room for Libertarians in a nation dominated by Socialists.

You're right, but most of the people who vote for Nader are just classic balls-to-bones pseudo-hippie-style liberal voters who just vote for the most liberal guy.

Nonsense. There are candidates far more left-wing than Nader. Nader garnered support because there is a general impression among many US moderate leftists that the Democratic Party has abandoned them and that corporate power has far too great a role in the making of policy, whichever of the two parties is in power.

There's no room for Libertarians in a nation dominated by Socialists.Which nation is this?

Which nation is this?

That would be the US of A.

Just because we don't generally call ourselves socialists, and the hardcore European socialists wouldn't classify us as such, doesn't mean we don't have a basically socialist federal government. Unless you really think welfare is a hallmark of capitalism or something.

That would be the US of A.

Just because we don't generally call ourselves socialists, and the hardcore European socialists wouldn't classify us as such, doesn't mean we don't have a basically socialist federal government. Unless you really think welfare is a hallmark of capitalism or something.The erosion of welfare ("welfare reform") indicates that we are moving in the direction away from socialism as opposed to towards it.

The erosion of welfare ("welfare reform") indicates that we are moving in the direction away from socialism as opposed to towards it.

Maybe so, but I'm moving in the direction of sleep, but I'm still awake. :) It would thus be premature to describe me as being asleep right now.

Nonsense. There are candidates far more left-wing than Nader.
I have to agree, Nader was pro-life, but he ceartainly was a hippy. But left-wing today isn't hippy. They're commies.

Let's be honost, can you compare Stalin to Pink Floyd?

Nader=Floyd.
Democrats=Stalin.

Maybe so, but I'm moving in the direction of sleep, but I'm still awake. :) It would thus be premature to describe me as being asleep right now.Then it would also be premature to describe you as being hyper right now, also.

Then it would also be premature to describe you as being hyper right now, also.

Yes, but the metaphor had two states: asleep and awake. Back to reality, socialism vs... not-socialism. What you are doing is adding a third... "true socialism" (hyper) which is again your objection based on the fact that the US is not as socialist as you would prefer. It's still socialist.

There's no room for Libertarians in a nation dominated by Socialists.

mmm, abuse of language

Yes, but the metaphor had two states: asleep and awake. Back to reality, socialism vs... not-socialism. What you are doing is adding a third... "true socialism" (hyper) which is again your objection based on the fact that the US is not as socialist as you would prefer. It's still socialist.

No. It's just not as capitalist as "you would prefer."

mmm, abuse of language

I knew you socialists would get upset at my calling the US socialist.


Excuse me, I mean I knew you true socialists would. ;)

Yes, but the metaphor had two states: asleep and awake. Back to reality, socialism vs... not-socialism. What you are doing is adding a third... "true socialism" (hyper) which is again your objection based on the fact that the US is not as socialist as you would prefer. It's still socialist.Yes, but the problem is that there is a continuum between "true socialism" and "true capitalism". A handful of socialist policies does not a socialist state make.

No. It's just not as capitalist as "you would prefer."

Ah, so you believe socialism is completely and wholly mutally exclusive with capitalism? An either/or proposition; hence not socialism vs not socialism, but socialism vs capitalism. Hrm, how interesting, but I think you better argue with that with your fellow socialists (who undoubtedly care much more about the subject than I do), perhaps even in its very own thread.

Ah, so you believe socialism is completely and wholly mutally exclusive with capitalism?

I think socialism requires some sort of social ownership of the means of production, something lacking in the United States and yes, something incompatible with capitalism.

Yes, but the problem is that there is a continuum between "true socialism" and "true capitalism". A handful of socialist policies does not a socialist state make.

So how many handfuls does it require? Where's the line drawn exactly? What is The One True Socialism, and which are False Idols? Frankly, I don't care. The US is more socialist than capitalists AND socialists would prefer to admit - each for different reasons, of course. I find it cute. :)

Hmmm..... seems that Democrats think they know whats better for everyone else while libertarians know whats best for them selves as individuals.

It ( Libertarianism ) doesnt mix well with those that would "social engineer" you .

in fact it seems like matter and anti matter .

So how many handfuls does it require? Where's the line drawn exactly? What is The One True Socialism, and which are False Idols? Frankly, I don't care. The US is more socialist than capitalists AND socialists would prefer to admit - each for different reasons, of course. I find it cute. :)The line would be drawn exactly halfway between true capitalism and true socialism. While it is true that the U.S. is more socialist than many people would like to admit, the current state of the U.S. is on the capitalist side of that line.

The line would be drawn exactly halfway between true capitalism and true socialism. While it is true that the U.S. is more socialist than many people would like to admit, the current state of the U.S. is on the capitalist side of that line.


I took a test once online and it had me on the right side of libertarian except on social issues..it had me on the left ..but both were close to center .

I took a test once online and it had me on the right side of libertarian except on social issues..it had me on the left ..but both were close to center .The political compass test measures both. However, both capitalism and socialism are economic issues; while they do have a lot in common with social issues, they are distinct from one another.

Its the Libertarian platform. I think all libertarians think that way.

One word, No.

The political compass test measures both. However, both capitalism and socialism are economic issues; while they do have a lot in common with social issues, they are distinct from one another.


I do not believe capitalism is viable without socialism . I think for the system to work it must include the best of both ideas . The US is fairly close to the system I am thinking of . It could use some more work though..I'm still waiting for my "peace divadend " from the end of the cold war..freakin Arabs stole it .:D

Why do Dems see libertarians (as a party) as enemies? Because as a party, libertarians tend to let their economic conservatism overcome their social liberalism where the two come into conflict.

I do not believe capitalism is viable without socialism . I think for the system to work it must include the best of both ideas . The US is fairly close to the system I am thinking of . It could use some more work though..I'm still waiting for my "peace divadend " from the end of the cold war..freakin Arabs stole it .:DWould you say that the U.S. has more capitalist or more socialist policies?

As a mainstream Democrat, I am scared of the libertarians.

We're coming for you! FEAR US!:D

We're coming for you! FEAR US!:D
Yay. I feel powerful ^.^

As to why? For both the mainstream parties, the Libertarians are too extreme, but on different sides; for Republicans, they're too "get out of my life", and for the Democratsm they're too "get out of my economy". So yea.

I knew you socialists would get upset at my calling the US socialist.


Excuse me, I mean I knew you true socialists would. ;)

actually, i just prefer to use terms so that they actually convey meanings rather than obscure them

As to why? For both the mainstream parties, the Libertarians are too extreme, but on different sides; for Republicans, they're too "get out of my life", and for the Democratsm they're too "get out of my economy". So yea.

Which is why neither will ally themselves with the Libertarians. The fact of the matter is both are afraid that if they ally with them they will take their spot as one of the two major parties in the U.S. Obviously neither of them wants us (Libertarians) to pull a Republican party (when they replaced the fairly useless whigs) on them. Oh what irony it would be if the Republicans were removed from power by the same means in which they gained it. THe thought makes me tingle with anticipation (of course I don't care which party gets replaced but at least one of them has to go).

I'd prefer the democrats go, libertarians speak of socialy liberal ideas but with a more negotiable stance. For democrats it's automticaly "my body, my choice! no blood for oil!"

Republicans were suppose to be like libertarians but somehow became something completely differant. Maybe if libertarians are the competition instead of democrats, they'll go back to thier roots, and democrats will complain that there's no differance between the two parties, but there would infact be more differance then now with repubs vs dems.

Exsept now, people would be less concerned with thier party, and more concerned with the individual issue, as it should be.. Heck, I might actually have to think about who I'm going to vote for if it were a republican vs libertarian!

Just about all of the political parties I can think of have equally different but in most cases precisely as ridiculous views about how legislature is intended to interact with the common man.

Democrats generally pass laws that assume people are personally fiscally irresponsible. To this end they have endeavored to have us protected from our own stupidity by allowing us to.... I don't know, let's say they pass a law letting us sue corporations easily for self-inflicted injuries with their products. Seems like a pretty Democrat thing to do. You can throw all the praise you want at such a policy , but the law essentially assumes that people will make stupid mistakes--which they do seem to do with some regularity. Likewise, they contend that the government has every bit as much of a right to spend my money [well, okay, thirty percent of it] as I do, on the grounds that it can be put to better use once it hits their accounts. Whether or not this is the case--and again I'm not trying to start a tax debate here--it's obvious that this legislation assumes the average citizen is incompetent and irresponsible. Most Democratic legislation does [to say nothing of the more radical policies of those further to the left]. [i]Democrats regard laws as ways to ensure capital is put to "proper use." Republicans--since they obviously support the concept of taxation as well--also hold this view, but to them it is a simple necessity, to the Democrats its a major crux of their party-line.

Basically, they assume that we're doomed to poverty, and that a good lot of us are likely to be swimming in medical bills or growing old in a gutter because we didn't have the foresight to prepare for retirement, or breaking a leg, or having 12 kids, or whatever else. In short, we're idiots. *

Before you flip out on me and whine about how that's not true, take a moment to think about where these laws are coming: they're coming largely from New England [okay, they've a handful of other strongholds too] intellectuals, who are generally used to having a mental edge over others. This attitude frequently carries over into policy. Intellectuals, like any other person, are every bit as prone to allow their feelings or nature to interfere with their perceptions.

Now lets look at the Republican. The Republicans aren't generally intellectuals and as a result their views on how legislation should react with the rest of us is subsequently much different from their democratic counterparts. Republicans like to pass laws about sodomy and pornography and pride themselves on being America's "moral" [I use the term loosely] better half. Leaving aside their fiscal policy [which I happened to agree with in the early '90s--god knows its mangled to hell now] [i]Republicans tend to view laws as a means to ensure that people are not degenerate homosexuals, and that we live cleanly and stay more or less sober, except maybe for weddings and at Christmas.

Basically, they assume that we're doomed to sin, and that a good lot of us would be up to our eyeballs in cheap booze and pain pills unless they were there to save us [and send us to the Army]. In short, we're incorrigible sinners. *

The reason the Democrats havent chosen to ally themselves with the Libertarians is because the libertarians share none of the above views concerning the interaction of legislation and the invidual. Libertarian policy makes no such presumption that a citizen is guaranteed to fritter away his money on worthless pursuits; it does not even care if he is a degenerate homosexual, a wino, or a fiscal idiot. Libertarian [domestic] policy is founded upon the belief that the wide majority of people are responsible and should be trusted with their money, that they don't need a second [or sometimes even third!] set of parents telling them what's okay to eat, drink, smoke, or do with their freetime.

Naturally, this idea is abhorrent to the current Democratic and Republican politicains, who like the rest of us would probably prefer to keep their jobs.

*These are exaggerations, of course. I'm not saying that Democratic politicians [i]consciously view [or even treat] their consituents like idiots, nor am I claiming that Republicans are all even religious, or that they all care about how I spend my free time--I understand that some of them are a bit more with it than that. I'm just tossing a little hyperbole in there to prove a point about how the two parties regard laws.

Would you say that the U.S. has more capitalist or more socialist policies?
This question made me laugh.

Capitalism by nature is non-intrusive. You don't make capitalist policies, with the exception of say printing money, and even then, proxies for goods and services existed well before countries adopted currency. Capitalist policies are what happens when you let people do what they want, whether you consider that unfortunate or not. Most policies by definition are socialist, which is why non-socialists usually favour smaller government.

Capitalism by nature is non-intrusive. You don't make capitalist policies, with the exception of say printing money.


and...


Enforcing property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police)
Enforcing contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court)
Expanding access to new resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system)
Preventing the spread of other economic systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War)
Inventing legal fictions more suitable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) to the pursuit of profit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)
Protecting that profit against actual free competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)


(sure, some of these, in theory, do not constitute "real" capitalism. The historical record, however, is not a matter of ideology)

Some of those enforce the rule of law blindly, whether it be a socialist law or a capitalist one. Some of those don't create true capitalism.

I'll give you the creation of corporations though.

Some of those enforce the rule of law blindly, whether it be a socialist law or a capitalist one.


Regardless, such "policy" is vital to the proper function of a capitalist system. Being similar to that of a socialist system does not remove this vital relationship.

I've always looked at this phenomenon from the opposite perspective. Why don't libertarians ally with Democrats? I think that one of the reasons is rhetoric. The Republicans and the Democrats both tend to advocate larger government in practice, but the Republicans, at least nominally, call for smaller government. As such, libertarians find it a little easier to identify as Republicans than as Democrats.

I think it would be a better strategy for libertarians to ally with Democrats. The Republican base will probably never give up on their core social issues like abortion and gay marriage; that fact has become increasingly clear over the past two decades. I think the Democratic base, however, can be convinced on many economic issues. The key is to emphasize the fact that most Libertarian economic policies are not motivated greed, but rather a different opinion of how the economy functions. With minimum wage, for example, we should emphasize that we believe that that policy is ineffective in achieving its purpose of raising the standard of living for the poor.

With minimum wage, for example, we should emphasize that we believe that that policy is ineffective in achieving its purpose of raising the standard of living for the poor.


All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.


People are not interested in emphasis, reason, or purpose. They are only interested in three things: me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations), myself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions), and I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism). The only "purpose" is to pursue policy that serves to satiate their greed.

Libertarians understand this. Republicans and Democrats do also, but for an alternative pursuit.

People are not interested in emphasis, reason, or purpose. They are only interested in three things: me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations), myself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions), and I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism). The only "purpose" is to pursue policy that serves to satiate their greed.

Libertarians understand this. Republicans and Democrats do also, but for an alternative pursuit.
I think that many people make the mistake of assuming that self interest means selfishness. The idea of self interest is that people are only motivated to achieve their own goals. Those goals certainly can be charitable in nature; nevertheless, any attempt to acheive one's goals (even charitable goals) embodies self interest.

Because the average Libertarian believes in personal freedom -- for himself. They tend not to care so much about anyone who isn't themselves.

I have a question for those of you who say that without government forcing us, we would be selfish bastards and never do anything for anyone (socialists and leftist democrats).

I am a libertarian and an atheist (actually an agnostic really – I just don’t care if there is a god or not as it seems wholly irrelevant) so therefore, by socialist views, I should never lift a finger for other people and try to exploit them and cheat them out of everything.

Given this statement, why do I tend to work (at a substantial discount) for non-profits?
Why do I volunteer my time to charities? Why do I help others when I can?

If I see someone that needs a hand, I lend it. I do what I can to make the world a better place and I do not need anyone to force me to do so – and there are many people out there that do the same. So since your position is that only the government can provide for people, and only through a protectionist highly regulated bureaucracy can we ensue that society won’t crumble into anarchy and a dog-eat-dog mentality (yes, a slight hyperbole), how do you explain this? Why do so many people do volunteer work? Why do people work with charities? Why do a lot of people work for non-profits, making substantially less than they could were they private sector?

Perhaps I am being a bit myopic because I'm living in DC, but there are thousands of people around me every day that take a lesser income at their job and give up a substantial amount of time doing volunteer work. Because there are so many people who do the same, you cannot just brush this aside by saying that I am very rare and that, while I may actually be happy to help others, the vast majority of people are total bastards.

If government was substantially reduced, say perhaps to a third of what it is right now, I would have so much more time to pursue other things – be it spending more time painting, working on the farm, tutoring students, and what have you. Some of that leisure time will be spent doing very non-productive things, while much of it would likely be rather beneficial to both me and society. Most of the people I know are similar in that respect.

So how do you explain it? And by extension, how do you justify intrusive government which by its very nature is highly inefficient and thus wastes a lot of society’s potential?

I am a libertarian and an atheist (actually an agnostic really – I just don’t care if there is a god or not as it seems wholly irrelevant) so therefore, by socialist views, I should never lift a finger for other people and try to exploit them and cheat them out of everything.


I assume that "socialist" is intented to mean "state socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialist)/welfare statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)," however, for some other classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist#Mutualism) of "socialist" this is a strawman.


Given this statement, why do I tend to work (at a substantial discount) for non-profits?
Why do I volunteer my time to charities? Why do I help others when I can?


Because you're looking out for yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) :) (edit: a previous version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enlightened_self-interest&oldid=19868948) of that article contained a great illustration of the concept).

I have a question for those of you who say that without government forcing us, we would be selfish bastards and never do anything for anyone (socialists and leftist democrats).

I am a libertarian and an atheist (actually an agnostic really – I just don’t care if there is a god or not as it seems wholly irrelevant) so therefore, by socialist views, I should never lift a finger for other people and try to exploit them and cheat them out of everything.

Given this statement, why do I tend to work (at a substantial discount) for non-profits?
Why do I volunteer my time to charities? Why do I help others when I can?

If I see someone that needs a hand, I lend it. I do what I can to make the world a better place and I do not need anyone to force me to do so – and there are many people out there that do the same. So since your position is that only the government can provide for people, and only through a protectionist highly regulated bureaucracy can we ensue that society won’t crumble into anarchy and a dog-eat-dog mentality (yes, a slight hyperbole), how do you explain this? Why do so many people do volunteer work? Why do people work with charities? Why do a lot of people work for non-profits, making substantially less than they could were they private sector?

Perhaps I am being a bit myopic because I'm living in DC, but there are thousands of people around me every day that take a lesser income at their job and give up a substantial amount of time doing volunteer work. Because there are so many people who do the same, you cannot just brush this aside by saying that I am very rare and that, while I may actually be happy to help others, the vast majority of people are total bastards.

If government was substantially reduced, say perhaps to a third of what it is right now, I would have so much more time to pursue other things – be it spending more time painting, working on the farm, tutoring students, and what have you. Some of that leisure time will be spent doing very non-productive things, while much of it would likely be rather beneficial to both me and society. Most of the people I know are similar in that respect.

So how do you explain it? And by extension, how do you justify intrusive government which by its very nature is highly inefficient and thus wastes a lot of society’s potential?
The issue is not that the majority of rich people are selfish, but rather that some rich people are selfish. If the government forces all rich people to be charitable, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the quality of life for the poor.

The issue of forced redistribution, however, is entirely different from the issue of regulation. Economic regulations advocated by liberals do not help the poor. That is the problem with democrats. Although their concern for the needy is admirable, they have little understanding that many of their policies are simply inefficient in helping the needy.

The issue is not that the majority of rich people are selfish, but rather that some rich people are selfish. If the government forces all rich people to be charitable, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the quality of life for the poor.

The issue of forced redistribution, however, is entirely different from the issue of regulation. Economic regulations advocated by liberals do not help the poor. That is the problem with democrats. Although their concern for the needy is admirable, they have little understanding that many of their policies are simply inefficient in helping the needy.

Forces people to be charitable? I'm sorry, I usually ignore things like that but this is just too ludicrous. If force is involved it is not charity – it is theft. You think that because some rich people actually want to keep what is theirs, we should steal it from them?

Economic regulation does not help anyone – but neither does theft.

You may say that sacrificing the rights of the rich is justified in the name of the ‘greater good’, but when you start doing that, where do you stop?

I am all for people willingly donating blood; I am not for abducting unwilling people off the street to siphon some out of them.

Ooohhh… look at that guy, he must weigh 400 pounds… must have a lot of blood in him – he doesn’t want to donate but oh well… its for the greater good so get some people to go strap him down.

Forces people to be charitable? I'm sorry, I usually ignore things like that but this is just too ludicrous. If force is involved it is not charity – it is theft. You think that because some rich people actually want to keep what is theirs, we should steal it from them? Economic regulation does not help anyone – but neither does theft.
Actually, theft does tend to be helpful to the thieves. Anyway, I take it you're not a big fan of Robin Hood.

In truth, I sort of agree with you... in principal. I've admitted before that, if pressured on the issue of forced redistribution, I'll agree that I find it somewhat unethical. The problem is that I find it difficult to get worked up about it. Since government welfare works to acheive its purpose, it isn't nearly as bad as regulation. Secondly, an efficient system of welfare could achieve very good results for the poor at relatively low expense to the rich.

So I guess you could say that my policy on welfare is, to an extent, a comrpomise. Many influential people in this country seem to share a set of values embodied in Robin Hood. Given the power held by these people, it is virtually impossible to achieve a state in which the government refrains from even attempting to fulfill those values. In consideration of this fact, it is logical to encourage these people to use efficient means to achieve those values. As such, I believe that it would be prudent for libertarians to offer the compromise of welfare in exchange for deregulation.

You may say that sacrificing the rights of the rich is justified in the name of the ‘greater good’, but when you start doing that, where do you stop?

I am all for people willingly donating blood; I am not for abducting unwilling people off the street to siphon some out of them.

Ooohhh… look at that guy, he must weigh 400 pounds… must have a lot of blood in him – he doesn’t want to donate but oh well… its for the greater good so get some people to go strap him down.
I don't think it is entirely fair (or logical for that matter) for you to assume that my policy cannot be persued in moderation. I am not certain as to what ideology you embrace, but it would be just as easy for me to say that it is impossible for you to practice that ideology without resorting to the most extreme and illogical form thereof.

If I see someone that needs a hand, I lend it. I do what I can to make the world a better place and I do not need anyone to force me to do so – and there are many people out there that do the same. So since your position is that only the government can provide for people, and only through a protectionist highly regulated bureaucracy can we ensue that society won’t crumble into anarchy and a dog-eat-dog mentality (yes, a slight hyperbole), how do you explain this? I don't know of any Democrat or socialist who views this to be the case; what I do know is that, while people are sometimes willing to lend a hand, they aren't willing to do so to the degree to which the problem is solved - enter government. Only government can do this to the degree necessary.

I don't know of any Democrat or socialist who views this to be the case; what I do know is that, while people are sometimes willing to lend a hand, they aren't willing to do so to the degree to which the problem is solved - enter government. Only government can do this to the degree necessary.

Yes but therein lies the problem, Democrats and (in practice) Republicans increase the size of the government well past a size which is necessary and/or efficient. This is one major reason why Libertarians will not side with the Democrats, and generally side more with the GOP (at least on this issue) because it (in theory but not in practice), supports a decreased government and lessened (or eliminated) economic restraints.

Forces people to be charitable? I'm sorry, I usually ignore things like that but this is just too ludicrous. If force is involved it is not charity – it is theft. You think that because some rich people actually want to keep what is theirs, we should steal it from them?

Why do you think it is theirs?

When they undertook the actions that led to them acquiring that property, they did so with the knowledge that it would be taxed.

Why do you think it is theirs?

When they undertook the actions that led to them acquiring that property, they did so with the knowledge that it would be taxed.
To play the devil's advocate;
The fact that they know that they will be taxed if they acquire property does not mean that they have voluntarily submitted to the tax.

Why do Dems consider Libertarians enemies, specifically the American Democratic Party
Perhaps because MOST Libertarians don't agree with heavily taxing successful people to support those who aren't.

Why do you think it is theirs?

When they undertook the actions that led to them acquiring that property, they did so with the knowledge that it would be taxed.
By this logic, the taxes paid on the property would be a legally binding part of the contract when it was originally agreed upon. Unfortunately, this would mean that any tax raise on property would be unconstitional because it would be applying a new clause to an already agreed upon contract. A law raising the taxes on property, by your argument, would only be applicable to land the government was selling off, as anyone holding on to land would be legally entitled to the rate the government gave them when the contract was negotiated. Similarly, a transaction that saw the land change hands from one individual to another would not be subject to new government regulations either because it would constitute a private transaction.

Basically, a fitting analogy would be the difference between IPOs from corporations, which are decided by the corporation, and stocks that are traded from one private individual to another. The government can only affect the contracts of it is currently arranging or will arrange in the future. It has no business dictating terms to private citizens who wish to exchange goods or reneging on its original contracts with its citizens.

Unfortunately, this whole line of thinking makes even consumption tax illegal, so it won't work in society, but it does make sense.

It's better not to think of taxes as logical and rather as necessary.

The fact that they know that they will be taxed if they acquire property does not mean that they have voluntarily submitted to the tax.

It means that when they agreed to the exchange they knew that some of what they received would be taxed. They made the exchange anyway.

Taxation could only be regarded as theft if the state just randomly came out of nowhere and, after the fact, adjusted the results of the exchange by seizing a portion of the exchanged property. Since, however, the participants made the exchange in knowledge of taxation, they cannot claim that somehow the rightful product of the transaction has been usurped from them; that portion was assigned to the state to the start.

If I agree to work for someone for $100 a month, and at the end of the month she only gives me $80, I can justly say that I have been deprived of what I deserve. But if I agree to work for someone for $100 a month, knowing that I will give 20% of that to the government, I am really agreeing to work for $80 a month; since I am not working on false premises and I consented to the deal, I cannot legitimately claim that I somehow "deserve" that remaining $20.

It means that when they agreed to the exchange they knew that some of what they received would be taxed. They made the exchange anyway.

Taxation could only be regarded as theft if the state just randomly came out of nowhere and, after the fact, adjusted the results of the exchange by seizing a portion of the exchanged property. Since, however, the participants made the exchange in knowledge of taxation, they cannot claim that somehow the rightful product of the transaction has been usurped from them; that portion was assigned to the state to the start.

If I agree to work for someone for $100 a month, and at the end of the month she only gives me $80, I can justly say that I have been deprived of what I deserve. But if I agree to work for someone for $100 a month, knowing that I will give 20% of that to the government, I am really agreeing to work for $80 a month; since I am not working on false premises and I consented to the deal, I cannot legitimately claim that I somehow "deserve" that remaining $20.
Should individuals have a right to be protected from severe tax hikes or even government nationalization that were not reasonably expected when the contract was originally signed, or does part of the contract stipulate the right of the government to alter taxation schemes however it sees fit?

By this logic, the taxes paid on the property would be a legally binding part of the contract when it was originally agreed upon. Unfortunately, this would mean that any tax raise on property would be unconstitional because it would be applying a new clause to an already agreed upon contract. A law raising the taxes on property, by your argument, would only be applicable to land the government was selling off, as anyone holding on to land would be legally entitled to the rate the government gave them when the contract was negotiated. Similarly, a transaction that saw the land change hands from one individual to another would not be subject to new government regulations either because it would constitute a private transaction.

I do actually think that raising taxes is an injustice - the chief sort of injustice in taxation, because it violates a person's expectations. If I expect to be taxed at 20% of my income and am in fact taxed at 25% of my income, I have made my decisions on false premises, and I have been deprived of liberty to some degree.

I also think it is an injustice that is often necessitated by concern for the greater good.

I do actually think that raising taxes is an injustice - the chief sort of injustice in taxation, because it violates a person's expectations. If I expect to be taxed at 20% of my income and am in fact taxed at 25% of my income, I have made my decisions on false premises, and I have been deprived of liberty to some degree.

I also think it is an injustice that is often necessitated by concern for the greater good.
Like I said above, by your logic the individual should have been fully aware of the government's ability to alter the tax rate at a moment's notice and thus has not been deprived of any liberty because that was factored into the buying process.

Of course, that makes me wonder why anyone would negotiate with the government...

Like I said above, by your logic the individual should have been fully aware of the government's ability to alter the tax rate at a moment's notice and thus has not been deprived of any liberty because that was factored into the buying process.

Well, sure, I could argue that, but it would be unfair. The government may be capable of altering the tax rate, but that does not mean that a reasonable person would necessarily expect it to.

The moral test for me is the degree of expectation; if taxes always remain at the same level, a reasonable person expects her income to be taxed at that level, and if a sudden tax hike occurs it is unfair to her, and could legitimately be considered theft. If taxes are in a constant rate of increase, such an increase is not unfair, because it is predictable. If there is a huge budget deficit and it is clear that a leftist government is soon to come to power, the tax increases they will enact are also predictable, though to a lesser degree. And so on.

I also think it is an injustice that is often necessitated by concern for the greater good.
Actually, that's one of the primary functions of government: "To promote the general welfare [ meaning well-being in current vernacular ]."

Where the rub comes in is definiting "general welfare" and just how government should "promote" it.

This is why democrats fear libertarians, we see through thier crappy illussions and self-contradicting nature.

When you mercislessly kill a multiple offending rapist, it's murder.
When you mercislessly kill an unborn fetus, it's choice.

When you enforce your moral law onto the people, it's fascism.
When you enforce your moral law onto the people (involving taxation) it's democracy.

WTF?!

Actually, that's one of the primary functions of government: "To promote the general welfare [ meaning well-being in current vernacular ]."

The primary function of government is mass coercion in the service of those who control said government. The proper function of government is another story entirely.

But seeing as I don't think anyone out there, not even the Busheviks, believe that there will never be another left-wing, tax-raising government, in the long run shouldn't the rational individual expect the possibility of extreme tax hikes and thus be ineligible to consider a tax raise theft?

Eutrusca: Sometimes it's almost amusing to witness the government's best intentions actually exacerbating problems. Then you remember real people suffer when lousy policies are instituted.

I think this comparison outlines the issue with taxation. If the government has an active policy of killing anyone who burns a flag, people already have the expectation of being killed if they burn flags. The problem is that the government never had the right to hold that policy in the first place. The fact that people know what to expect is irrelevent.

The same applies to taxes. The fact that citizens expect to be taxed cannot logically be used to support arguments against the claim that taxation is theft.

The primary function of government is mass coercion in the service of those who control said government. The proper function of government is another story entirely.
That's a rather cynical viewpoint. Tsk! :p

The proper functions of Government are contained in the US Constitution, IMHO. How those functions are fulfilled, managed and paid for constitutes what passes for politics in America.

But seeing as I don't think anyone out there, not even the Busheviks, believe that there will never be another left-wing, tax-raising government, in the long run shouldn't the rational individual expect the possibility of extreme tax hikes and thus be ineligible to consider a tax raise theft?

But we don't know enough for it to factor meaningfully into our decisions. The fact that I can predict that there will be a tax-raising government at some unspecified point in the future that will enact tax increases towards some unspecified portion of the population at some unspecified degree does not mean that it helps me much in making rational decisions.

I think this comparison outlines the issue with taxation. If the government has an active policy of killing anyone who burns a flag, people already have the expectation of being killed if they burn flags. The problem is that the government never had the right to hold that policy in the first place. The fact that people know what to expect is irrelevent.

The same applies to taxes. The fact that citizens expect to be taxed cannot logically be used to support arguments against the claim that taxation is theft.
Except your example violates the 8th amendment, whereas taxes are laid out in Section 1, Article 8 and also the 16th amendment.

Eutrusca: Sometimes it's almost amusing to witness the government's best intentions actually exacerbating problems. Then you remember real people suffer when lousy policies are instituted.
How well I know, having been on the receiving end of government "good intentions" several times over the course of my life.

That's a rather cynical viewpoint. Tsk! :p

I'm a rather cynical person. But that aside, it really is the primary function of any government, however benevolent. It coerces people into refraining from certain behaviors (like rape, murder, and smoking marijuana) and into engaging in certain other behaviors (like paying taxes). That is what the government does; that is why it is dangerous, and that is why it is necessary (though not in the current statist form).

I'm a rather cynical person. But that aside, it really is the primary function of any government, however benevolent. It coerces people into refraining from certain behaviors (like rape, murder, and smoking marijuana) and into engaging in certain other behaviors (like paying taxes). That is what the government does; that is why it is dangerous, and that is why it is necessary (though not in the current statist form).
Is that just another way of saying that "a politician's primary goal should be to get re-elected?" :)

But we don't know enough for it to factor meaningfully into our decisions. The fact that I can predict that there will be a tax-raising government at some unspecified point in the future that will enact tax increases towards some unspecified portion of the population in some unspecified quantity does not mean that it helps me much in making rational decisions.
Is this why you're missing the last .25 on your left/right economic score?

There's a difference between the chance being so minimal that we disregard it and the chance being so minimal that we are justified in disregarding it. It's the inherent risk that anyone accepts when the acquire property with government strings attached. Heck, the government could nationalize your house any time they wanted to as long as they did it within due process of the law.

We don't need the goverment. Anything the state can do a private company can do better.

Postal Service? (Fexex)
Electric/Water company.
Transportation.
Private schools.

What do we need the goverment for? If we were completely free from the state we wouldn't even have to be arguing about half the crap we do now.

Like the war on terror, if any company fealt terrorists were a threat to thier buisness thier stronghold over the market could strangle the terrorists into submission, if not, they have the money to BOMBard them..

And us, what do we have to fear? Even if coporations get out of control with power and money, we've got guns and steel-toe boots, we go out in a blazing glory and take back some power by force.

That's what being an anarcho-capitalist is all about. They're are dicks, pussies, and assholes.

And we're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the republicans are pussies. And the democrats are an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck these assholes, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Except your example violates the 8th amendment, whereas taxes are laid out in Section 1, Article 8 and also the 16th amendment.
America had Founding Fathers, not Founding Gods. It is possible that they were wrong at least once or twice. I completely agree with you that taxation is entirely constitutional, I'm just saying that, since it is not voluntary, we should avoid using it as much as possible.

America had Founding Fathers, not Founding Gods. It is possible that they were wrong at least once or twice. I completely agree with you that taxation is entirely constitutional, I'm just saying that, since it is not voluntary, we should avoid using it as much as possible.
I agree, but I don't think they were wrong about banning "cruel and unusual punishment". Besides, that is the consitution you and your countrypeople have decided to be governed by. Of course, when you all got together and decided that you left out black people, women, and a bunch of other groups, but you did decide it at some point.

H4ck5, You lost me on that...uh..."analogy?". Well thought out though. :p

H4ck5, You lost me on that...uh..."analogy?". Well thought out though. :p
It's from a movie.

I think this comparison outlines the issue with taxation. If the government has an active policy of killing anyone who burns a flag, people already have the expectation of being killed if they burn flags. The problem is that the government never had the right to hold that policy in the first place. The fact that people know what to expect is irrelevent.

You are confusing two very different things.

I would argue that the only legitimate basis for a person's right to property is expectations - she expected that if she engaged in certain behaviors, she would receive certain rewards in the form of property, and to deny her those rewards is unjust theft, because it means that she was making decisions on false premises. In essence, she has been deprived of effective free will, because she was unjustly deprived of the knowledge she needed to make the decisions that fit her preferences. Consistent taxation is thus not a violation of that right, because it is expected.

My right to engage in free expression, however, does not depend on expectations. It is directly relevant to my liberty, because it does not concern results of my behaviors, but my behaviors themselves. Unless that engagement in liberty violates the liberty of others - and it does not to any significant degree - it is unjustified to suppress it.

I agree, but I don't think they were wrong about banning "cruel and unusual punishment". Besides, that is the consitution you and your countrypeople have decided to be governed by. Of course, when you all got together and decided that you left out black people, women, and a bunch of other groups, but you did decide it at some point.
Holy miscommunication Batman!!!

When I said that the Founding Fathers were not perfect, I was talking about the establishment of the government's "right" to collect taxes. Of course people shouldn't be killed (or punished at all, for that matter) for burning flags. The 8th amendment is something they got 100% right.

Holy miscommunication Batman!!!

When I said that the Founding Fathers were not perfect, I was talking about the establishment of the government's "right" to collect taxes. Of course people shouldn't be killed (or punished at all, for that matter) for burning flags. The 8th amendment is something they got 100% right.
I knew what you meant. I just preferred to assume you were talking about the other one. For one thing, it led to the Batman comment, which amused me.

*snip*
Do you intentionally use she to discourage gender bias?

I used to, but people kept asking why I was talking about women.

Is this why you're missing the last .25 on your left/right economic score?

No, I don't think so. (Incidentally, I took the test again today; I'm missing only the last .12 now.) If I recall correctly, there are two left/right questions on the test which I tend to respond in a slightly more moderate manner on - the first is the relative importance of the businessman/manufacturer and the artist/writer (I chose "disagree" instead of "strongly disagree") and the second is the one concerning whether those who have the opportunity to work, but refuse, should expect society's support (again, I chose "disagree" instead of "strongly disagree.")

There's a difference between the chance being so minimal that we disregard it and the chance being so minimal that we are justified in disregarding it.

We are not justified in disregarding it, yes, but we are perfectly justified in regarding it as what it is - a minimal risk. It will thus not impact our decisions as much as it should if, say, we are in fact going to be the target of a government nationalization.

It's the inherent risk that anyone accepts when the acquire property with government strings attached. Heck, the government could nationalize your house any time they wanted to as long as they did it within due process of the law.

But a government that suddenly decided to nationalize all houses without compensation would be engaging in a behavior that could not be reasonably expected, and would thus be acting unjustly.

But a government that suddenly decided to nationalize all houses without compensation would be engaging in a behavior that could not be reasonably expected, and would thus be acting unjustly.
Ethics-wise, I agree. From a legal standpoint though, it was within the realm of possibilities when you agreed to the contract, so you should have factored that into your buying process.

I need to find a large island in the ocean and settle there.

EDIT: How is it that we're almost 13 points apart on the economics scale and able to agree, for the most part, about the legality of taxation?

You are confusing two very different things.

I would argue that the only legitimate basis for a person's right to property is expectations - she expected that if she engaged in certain behaviors, she would receive certain rewards in the form of property, and to deny her those rewards is unjust theft, because it means that she was making decisions on false premises. In essence, she has been deprived of effective free will, because she was unjustly deprived of the knowledge she needed to make the decisions that fit her preferences. Consistent taxation is thus not a violation of that right, because it is expected.

My right to engage in free expression, however, does not depend on expectations. It is directly relevant to my liberty, because it does not concern results of my behaviors, but my behaviors themselves. Unless that engagement in liberty violates the liberty of others - and it does not to any significant degree - it is unjustified to suppress it.
Were citizens of Soviet Russia not deprived of their property rights? If property rights are embodied in expectations, as you claim, then Russians who were born after the Revolution and died before the fall of the Communist party were not deprived of their property rights in any way. Furthermore, the end of Communism in Russia, according to your definition of property rights, actually represents a violation of property rights rather than a restoration thereof.

Do you intentionally use she to discourage gender bias?

Essentially. I used to usually use "he" when writing casually, until a poster here called me on it. In the interest of making up for past inequalities (and angering certain kinds of people I enjoy angering) I have used "she" ever since.

Were citizens of Soviet Russia not deprived of their property rights? If property rights are embodied in expectations, as you claim, then Russians who were born after the Revolution and died before the fall of the Communist party were not deprived of their property rights in any way.

No, they weren't. They were deprived of lots of other sorts of liberties, some of which property rights help ensure in free-market capitalist economies, but they were not deprived of property rights.

Furthermore, the end of Communism in Russia, according to your definition of property rights, actually represents a violation of property rights rather than a restoration thereof.

A violation of whose property rights?

Is that just another way of saying that "a politician's primary goal should be to get re-elected?" :)

A politician's primary goal should be to accede to the wishes of her constituents, as long as no one's individual rights are unjustly violated in the process.

No, they weren't. They were deprived of lots of other sorts of liberties, some of which property rights help ensure in free-market capitalist economies, but they were not deprived of property rights.
At least you're consistant. Unfortunately, I suppose we've reached a point where debate is useless, because I completely disagree on this point.


A violation of whose property rights?
Most people in Russia had a logical expectation that the government would take care of certain things (like long term unemployment) that aren't guaranteed in a free market.

Ok, here's going into the head of the dems, repubs, and libertarians, and this is why it pisses both sides off.

Republican argument:
Republicans;
You should have to act a ceartain way!

Libertarians;
Why?

Republicans;
Cause God said so!

Democrats;
I don't believe in God! It go's against my constitututional rights to be forced to follow God's laws! God should be banned!

Libertarian:
Wait, wouldn't banning God be against the constituion to? I mean afterall, free-speech go's both ways..

Democrats/Republicans;
STAY OUT OF THIS!

Democrat argument:
Our nation was built on princaples! Democratic, liberty-loving princaples! We need to waver drug and prostitution laws while increasing taxes to fund healthcare and social security!

Republicans;
Drugs and whores will destroy our society! You speak the devil's tongue!

Democrats;
I don't have to take this in a free society! Arrest him!

Libertarian;
Waitwait wowo.. if we legalize drugs and harlots, it's going to open up doors we might want to open, I think we should highly consider this before just going through with it, secondly, how would you propose we afford these freedoms if we're too busy spending taxes?

Democrats/Republicans;
STAY OUT OF THIS!

Most people in Russia had a logical expectation that the government would take care of certain things (like long term unemployment) that aren't guaranteed in a free market.

Well, that isn't a property right; it's another right by expectation, though. And yes, I think that was an injustice.

Markos Moulitsas over at DailyKos has been arguing precisely this, that Democrats should embrace the idea of libertarianism, its a bogus proposition when you consider the philosophical basis of modern liberalism and then the philosophical basis of libertarianism, look beyond the specific platform (which should be about 1/2 Republican like and 1/2 Democrat like to oversimply) towards the philosophy that brings us to libertarianism and it makes no sense to discuss a real coalition between Democrats and libertarians because libertarianism is far closer to modern conservatism than modern liberalism.

The idea of liberalism would essentially contend that government should be restricted in order to protect people's ability to live their lives generally as they see fit, but government has a role as the protector of collective interests, and people should be restricted from harming others. That extends into business to a large degree, that business should be essentially free but not able to harm people, and that a social safety net should exist to manage the harms that a free market fundamentally places on large portions of the populations. Liberalism came about through the rise of social contract theorists, John Locke advocated that the State defend a collective interest in property, while Jean Jacque Rousseau talked about the need for the State to govern with the "general will" in mind, which would be whatever was in the collective best interest of society as a whole. The individual as the frame of reference was removed for a broader idea of common good. We see this expanded into the 21st century through theorists like Hannah Arendt who argued that all people must acknowledge that they bear "collective responsibilities" for what happens in society and that "collective responsibility occurs when a thousand experienced swimmers mulling arround a public beach allow one man to drown." In Arendt's view this should not happen, for those with the ability to prevent harm from being done should do so.

Libertarianism on the other hand views the State as having no role, that people should be free to do whatever they want regardless of how it harms others, because according to libertarianism all that matters is the welfare of the individual whereas to liberalism the welfare of the collective is important. If you look as far back as Plato you can see the libertarian view argued through the characters of Callicles in the Gorgias and Thrasymachus in the Republic. The view has since been advocated by Adam Smith (though Adam Smith would probably resent that characterization) and people like Milton Freidman.

Modern conservativism seems to have arisen by mixing the libertarian viewpoint with the classic conservativism advocated by Edmund Burke who talked about preserving hierarchy, the Burkian viewpoint has created the Republican desire to regulate fundamentally private activities (sexual conduct etc).

So while Libertarians may agree with liberals on specific issues, they share a philosophical frame of mind much more common with conservatism than with liberalism, and will ally themselves with conservatives because they view the liberal desire to regulate business for the "common good" as a fundamentally communist activity which they find far more frustrating than the Republican desire to tell people what they can do in the bedroom.

Well, that isn't a property right; it's another right by expectation, though. And yes, I think that was an injustice.
How does that not qualify as a property right, by your definition? People logically expected to be provided with certain goods and properties that were not provided to them. Please fully explain your defintion of property rights.

Think of it like this..

Democrats. (Far leftwing socialy, far leftwing economicaly.)
Republicans. (Moderate rightwing socialy, far rightwing economicaly.)
Libertarians. (Moderate leftwing socialy, far rightwing economicaly.)

I don't care what anybody says, when 90% of the republican party is pro-choice (atleast the politicians..) it's not a rightwing social party!

Libertarianism on the other hand views the State as having no role, that people should be free to do whatever they want regardless of how it harms others, because according to libertarianism all that matters is the welfare of the individual whereas to liberalism the welfare of the collective is important. If you look as far back as Plato you can see the libertarian view argued through the characters of Callicles in the Gorgias and Thrasymachus in the Republic. The view has since been advocated by Adam Smith (though Adam Smith would probably resent that characterization) and people like Milton Freidman.
That's anarchist.

Libertarians believe that you should not be allowed to directly harm another person unless you have a contract stating otherwise or have reasons of self-defense. There might a few other clauses that should be included in that.

Anyway, libertarians generally believe in small government, but not as many believe in no government. The point is that economic growth is fostered best by free markets, and any government initiative essentially crowds out the free market, so government action should be limited.

How does that not qualify as a property right, by your definition? People logically expected to be provided with certain goods and properties that were not provided to them. Please fully explain your defintion of property rights.

It's not a property right because it doesn't deal directly with property, but rather with employment. A property right is a right to property - the right of the owner not to have her goods used or taken without her permission.

Think of it like this..

Democrats. (Far leftwing socialy, far leftwing economicaly.)
Republicans. (Moderate rightwing socialy, far rightwing economicaly.)
Libertarians. (Moderate leftwing socialy, far rightwing economicaly.)

I don't care what anybody says, when 90% of the republican party is pro-choice (atleast the politicians..) it's not a rightwing social party!
Who are you talking to?

Who are you talking to?
Everyone.

Libertarians. (Moderate leftwing socialy, far rightwing economicaly.)

Libertarians are definitely to the "left" of the Democrats socially. See their position on drug laws, for instance.

How does that not qualify as a property right, by your definition? People logically expected to be provided with certain goods and properties that were not provided to them. Please fully explain your defintion of property rights.

I don't know how he's defining it, but Locke talks about property as "the gain of ones labor" so once I pick an apple off of a tree it becomes "my apple", that's property to Locke, I don't know what it is to the person you just asked.

That's anarchist.

Libertarians believe that you should not be allowed to directly harm another person unless you have a contract stating otherwise or have reasons of self-defense. There might a few other clauses that should be included in that.

Anyway, libertarians generally believe in small government, but not as many believe in no government. The point is that economic growth is fostered best by free markets, and any government initiative essentially crowds out the free market, so government action should be limited.

Sorry, Friedman is not an anarchist, we're talking about fundamental liberty to help oneself regardless of its harms upon others, anarchism would simply say there should be no government, libertarianism doesn't say that, libertarianism states that government should only act to reinforce the individual and their liberty.

I don't know how he's defining it, but Locke talks about property as "the gain of ones labor" so once I pick an apple off of a tree it becomes "my apple", that's property to Locke, I don't know what it is to the person you just asked.

For what it's worth, I think the concept of "natural" property rights is ridiculous.

There is no reason I "deserve" the fruits of my labor unless I contributed my labor under the reasonable expectation that I would receive said "fruits." For instance, if I am engaging in labor for the fun of it in a society where there is no private property (and thus no expectation of it), it is absurd to claim that I am being oppressed when the fruits of said labor are distributed to the community instead of being reserved for me.

So I guess then i'm an anarchist, cause my philosophy is people will make thier own justice, thier own jobs, and thier own livelyhood.

You want an abortion? Go find someone who knows how to do that sortof thing. Don't expect a goverment to fund it though. And there probably wouldn't be a coporation dedicated to it, but more then likely a guy well known throughout your area.

But if someone decides you're a disgrace to hummanity for killing your child and puts a bullet through your head. Too bad. That's what you get for being a baby-killer. No goverment is going to stop them.. people will be expected to act a ceartain way or face the consequinces. That's a party of princaples. Taking responsibility for your actions. Wether figuratively or by force..

It's not a property right because it doesn't deal directly with property, but rather with employment. A property right is a right to property - the right of the owner not to have her goods used or taken without her permission.
I admitt that my exact example didn't directly involve property. But there were other examples, like the fact that all Russians were guaranteed a home, that did directly involve property. So I pose the question to you once again in a different form, were white Southerners denied their property rights because of the 13th amendment?

I admitt that my exact example didn't directly involve property. But there were other examples, like the fact that all Russians were guaranteed a home, that did directly involve property. So I pose the question to you once again in a different form, were white Southerners denied their property rights because of the 13th amendment?

Yes. But it was an evil justified by the horrors it ended.

So I guess then i'm an anarchist, cause my philosophy is people will make thier own justice, thier own jobs, and thier own livelyhood.

You want an abortion? Go find someone who knows how to do that sortof thing. Don't expect a goverment to fund it though. And there probably wouldn't be a coporation dedicated to it, but more then likely a guy well known throughout your area.

But if someone decides you're a disgrace to hummanity for killing your child and puts a bullet through your head. Too bad. That's what you get for being a baby-killer. No goverment is going to stop them.. people will be expected to act a ceartain way or face the consequinces. That's a party of princaples. Taking responsibility for your actions. Wether figuratively or by force..
How about if you haven't done anything? Can people still put bullets through your head then?

For what it's worth, I think the concept of "natural" property rights is ridiculous.

There is no reason I "deserve" the fruits of my labor unless I contributed my labor under the reasonable expectation that I would receive said "fruits." For instance, if I am engaging in labor for the fun of it in a society where there is no private property (and thus no expectation of it), it is absurd to claim that I am being oppressed when the fruits of said labor are distributed to the community instead of being reserved for me.
Well, Locke would argue that no government can legitimately abolish property, because to Locke the sole purpose of government is to defend the right of private property. So once government fails to do that you get to the point where the people must withdraw their consent to that government and install one that respects the right to property. To tell you the truth there is no society that actually does not have any right to property, the closest you could come would be the Soviet Union. Even figures commonly thought of as anti-business wealth redistributors often ultimately return to Locke's assumption. In the Mexican revolution for example, one of the major driving forces of discontent was ownership of the land by the elites and foreign companies. Zapata famously declared "La tierra es de quien la trabaja" (the land belongs to those who work it). It was a fundamentally Lockian approach, that the people who work the farms and factories of Mexico should own the products thereof, not the wealthy who do no work.

Soviet extreme rationing I suppose poses the potential counterexample, but I don't think you'll find many people who don't think the Soviet Union was one of the most oppressive regimes in human history.

There is no reason I "deserve" the fruits of my labor unless I contributed my labor under the reasonable expectation that I would receive said "fruits." For instance, if I am engaging in labor for the fun of it in a society where there is no private property (and thus no expectation of it), it is absurd to claim that I am being oppressed when the fruits of said labor are distributed to the community instead of being reserved for me.
This might be a dumb question, but does anyone really oversee sewage treatment for the fun of it?

How about if you haven't done anything? Can people still put bullets through your head then?
It's unfortanate, but yes. Though I don't believe anyone to be innocent. The great thing about pessemism is you're either proven right or pleasently suprised.;)

But hey, you've got guns, use'em!:sniper:

It's unfortanate, but yes. Though I don't believe anyone to be innocent. The great thing about pessemism is you're either proven right or pleasently suprised.;)

But hey, you've got guns, use'em!:sniper:
And when a group of people decide they want to stop that from happening and thus establish a team that will retaliate against anyone who commits such acts as a way of deterring future acts of that kind, that's still fair game, right?

This might be a dumb question, but does anyone really oversee sewage treatment for the fun of it?
Doesn't seem particularly absurd, I think he was referring to situations like continued work in a society like Soviet Russia where one might work but at the end of the day it yields no real result for the self because everything was dispensed equally among the masses (not to the nobles though) and one was working solely for the State. But I think once you go to that kind of situation the question of whether the State has any legitimate authority comes up, which is why I brought Locke into the discussion.

And when a group of people decide they want to stop that from happening and thus establish a team that will retaliate against anyone who commits such acts as a way of deterring future acts of that kind, that's still fair game, right?
You got it.

You got it.
And when they name that team "government"?

...were white Southerners denied their property rights because of the 13th amendment?

Yes, of course. The form of slavery practiced by American plantation owners in teh South was inefficient, and a weakness that was easily exploited during the American Civil War (and, to a certain extent, by the British during the American Rebellion). But those property rights were essentially acknowledged in all but name a decade after the end of the Civil War. The enslavement of Negroes for agricultural work followed a peon system until the mid-20th century, when the modern industrialization of farmwork that led to a new Agricultural Revolution disenfranchised Negro serfs from their social function. As the Soviet Union at the time chose to use this weakness agains the US (as other enemies had), the US was forced to devise a new relationship - thus the so-called "Civil Rights Movement".

At present, there seems to be a swingback worldwide to a more feudal relationship - again, this is caused by the issue of efficiency. Fascist, secular feudalistic societies like the PRC clearly can mass produce common goods far more easily than free market capitalist states, by virtue of their mass slave system of labour. In this sense, Galt meets O'Brien - the Randian pseudo-utopias of the liberal West export their menial jobs overseas, to states run in a manner similar to the dystopias of George Orwell (or new immigrant serfs are used, when exporting tasks is not economically feasible).

lol I get where you're going with this dude but you don't seem to understand me;

I let what will be, will be.

To me, the goverment is irrelevant. I pay taxes cause I choose to. Only cause I have the will to live. If I didn't. I'd stop paying my taxes, get myself a bag of shotgun rounds, and go slaughter this company that fired me about a year back that I've never forgivven..

But to me, it's relative what the state can and cannot do. Nobody has power over anybody else, even through force! There's only so much you can do to the human body.. toture? Death? Who cares? This body, it means nothing to me. All I care about is giving my impression onto the world and stearing it in the right direction.

And if not, ohwell, I'm sure someone, somewhere will do something I approve of..

But my idea of the perfect society is something like the old west.

lol I get where you're going with this dude but you don't seem to understand me;

I let what will be, will be.

To me, the goverment is irrelevant. I pay taxes cause I choose to. Only cause I have the will to live. If I didn't. I'd stop paying my taxes, get myself a bag of shotgun rounds, and go slaughter this company that fired me about a year back that I've never forgivven..

But to me, it's relative what the state can and cannot do. Nobody has power over anybody else, even through force! There's only so much you can do to the human body.. toture? Death? Who cares? This body, it means nothing to me. All I care about is giving my impression onto the world and stearing it in the right direction.

And if not, ohwell, I'm sure someone, somewhere will do something I approve of..

But my idea of the perfect society is something like the old west.
There's a gap here that I'm not getting, if you don't care what they do to you, and nobody has power over anybody else, then why do you obey the authority of the State? Why do you "choose" to pay your taxes? You obviously see some kind of legitimacy of the rule of the State that you don't acknowledge in the post, otherwise you would do what you say, you would go get your shotgun and have a field day.

Yes. But it was an evil justified by the horrors it ended.
So you're saying that slaveholders' rights were violated, but this was justified because it served to protect more important rights held by other people.

This just doesn't fit into my view of what rights are meant to do. Rights, to me, are supposed to define the boundry of licit actions. I recall a famous quote about rights; "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" By this idea of rights, however you define the exact boundry of rights, it should never be impossible to for a society to respect the rights of all persons, as with the slavery example in your idea of rights.

There's a gap here that I'm not getting, if you don't care what they do to you, and nobody has power over anybody else, then why do you obey the authority of the State? Why do you "choose" to pay your taxes? You obviously see some kind of legitimacy of the rule of the State that you don't acknowledge in the post, otherwise you would do what you say, you would go get your shotgun and have a field day.
No, cause I'm thinking about my own happyness. I want a wife and kids, can't have that if I'm dead now can I?

So I tolerate the establishment because I want to be alive to make my dreams come true.

Mindyou, if I ever thought I would be single for the rest of my life you'd have heard about me on news by now..

No, cause I'm thinking about my own happyness. I want a wife and kids, can't have that if I'm dead now can I?

So I tolerate the establishment because I want to be alive to make my dreams come true.

Mindyou, if I ever thought I would be single for the rest of my life you'd have heard about me on news by now..
Then the government is not irrellevent precisely because you care about your body in the sense that you want to live a reasonable life by having that body. This was Hobbes' argument, that people obey State authority because the State can destroy you, so you give your "tacit consent" to be governed as the State wishes to govern you.

By this logic, the taxes paid on the property would be a legally binding part of the contract when it was originally agreed upon. Unfortunately, this would mean that any tax raise on property would be unconstitional because it would be applying a new clause to an already agreed upon contract. Couldn't this be viewed the same way as a mortgage on a house with a variable interest rate?

Well, Locke would argue that no government can legitimately abolish property, because to Locke the sole purpose of government is to defend the right of private property.Which is silly, since the government creates the right to private property, therefore government must have two purposes.

To tell you the truth there is no society that actually does not have any right to property, the closest you could come would be the Soviet Union.

"Right to property," maybe. I'm talking about "private property," though, and in that realm there is less unanimity. What about the Kibbutzim? Numerous collectivist indigenous cultures in the Americas and elsewhere? If you believe Acts, the early church? And so on.

This might be a dumb question, but does anyone really oversee sewage treatment for the fun of it?

Not for the fun of it, no. Which is not to say that it wouldn't be done without some sort of financial incentive (though that might also be the case, and would have to be something considered before switching to a society without private property.)

So you're saying that slaveholders' rights were violated, but this was justified because it served to protect more important rights held by other people.

This just doesn't fit into my view of what rights are meant to do. Rights, to me, are supposed to define the boundry of licit actions. I recall a famous quote about rights; "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" By this idea of rights, however you define the exact boundry of rights, it should never be impossible to for a society to respect the rights of all persons, as with the slavery example in your idea of rights.

If you're pointing out that I don't believe in absolute rights, well, yes, you are right - I don't. (For what it's worth, the Supreme Court doesn't either.) Any such conception would have to end up with arbitrary distinctions as to what is a "right" and what is not. It's simpler to picture rights as things that sometimes conflict, with resulting gray areas in the moral course of action.

This might be a dumb question, but does anyone really oversee sewage treatment for the fun of it?

This is the major problem with those who think that we should abolish a capitalist system and do everything for free. They assume that people will willingly do everything that needs to be done.

If everyone were assured free food, housing, and everything else – we would very quickly find that we have far too many painters and musicians, huge piles of garbage and sewage everywhere, and only enough food to feed one tenth of the population.

There will always be a need for an incentive system to make people work – while it is great if people do what they like to do, this is nowhere near sufficient to get everything done. Like doing chores, some people love to cook, but far more drains need unclogging and toilets need scrubbing than there are people who want to do it. While cleaning up your own mess is one thing, I doubt many people will be willing to clean up someone else’s explosive diarrhea in a public toilet.

The truth of the matter is that not everyone ‘pitches in’, and some people will have to be compelled to do unpleasant jobs – currently we compel people by offering money to those willing to do the job. I happen to think this the best way – putting a gun to their head or forcing exile if they do not do it is not an acceptable solution.

I get alng fine with many libertarians (note small letter "l"); we tend to agree that it's not anyone else's business who you sleep with or what you're smoking. However, the Libertarian Party leadership has been taken over by people who are only out to preserve their own existing economic advantage in a fundamentally unequal economic system. The "libertarian" society these people propose would quickly turn into feudalism.

How is it that we're almost 13 points apart on the economics scale and able to agree, for the most part, about the legality of taxation?
Uh ... you're both thinking for a change and not being knee-jerk ideologues? Heh! :p

Couldn't this be viewed the same way as a mortgage on a house with a variable interest rate?

Which is silly, since the government creates the right to private property, therefore government must have two purposes.
Government doesn't "create" ANYthing. Government is totally dependent on the people for even the right to exist.

I get alng fine with many libertarians (note small letter "l"); we tend to agree that it's not anyone else's business who you sleep with or what you're smoking. However, the Libertarian Party leadership has been taken over by people who are only out to preserve their own existing economic advantage in a fundamentally unequal economic system. The "libertarian" society these people propose would quickly turn into feudalism.
That's why they became like that, there's nothing revolutionary about the former. Everybody thinks like that! And the fact of the matter is, our society lives like that, and our society sucks balls.

There has to be a cap on things, that's why i'm anarchist. Because the goverment can't seem to do anything right, not even enforce the laws they themself created. Therefore it is up to the invididual to enforce the law for them.. As well as for themself..

It's like this; say your neighborhood has gone to hell. A hooker on every corner, a crackhouse down the street next to your grade school, what do you do?

Do you A) band a special ops team together to stop them? Thereby wasting time and energy trying to find the pick of the liter whilest the criminals just get more succesful and more rampant..

B) Accept the way things are, thinking that morality is relative, and that this is just the side effect of change and isn't nearly as bad as I'm making it out to be.

Or C) You give everyone a gun, the whereabouts to these criminals houses, and shoot anyone who would hold you back?

If you answerd A, you're a republican and you're destroying our economy and salvation with your arrogance.

If you answerd B, you're a democrat, and you can go to hell.

If you answerd C, you're a libertarian, and it's good to see someone else has a pair of balls and is willing to do what needs to be done.

It's called the party of princaples for a reason. We don't need the goverment to have princaples, but we do need princaples..

Couldn't this be viewed the same way as a mortgage on a house with a variable interest rate?
That's kind of my point. You take out a mortgage with the knowledge that the interest rate could change at any time in any direction. Therefore, when it happens you cannot protest the change because you knew it could happen. I applied that same line of thinking later when I said that large tax raises do not constitute theft because you knew they were a possibility.

Basically, I was leading into that.

*snip*
Which is not a libertarian way of life at all because one of the pillars of libertarianism is that you do not have the right to cause noncontractual harm to others unless it is in self-defense.

Jeez, you're like the Ann Coulter of libertarians, making us look worse than we really are.

If you're pointing out that I don't believe in absolute rights, well, yes, you are right - I don't. (For what it's worth, the Supreme Court doesn't either.) Any such conception would have to end up with arbitrary distinctions as to what is a "right" and what is not. It's simpler to picture rights as things that sometimes conflict, with resulting gray areas in the moral course of action.
The problem with a belief in absolute rights is that proponents thereof make arbritrary decisions with regards to rights when they are unsure of the ethically correct course of action. In order to avoid this, it is not necessary to deny the existance of absolute rights. One simply must admitt that one has not yet completely defined rights. This leaves open the possibility that, in the future, we can find legitimate solutions to complicated moral dilemmas.

Which is not a libertarian way of life at all because one of the pillars of libertarianism is that you do not have the right to cause noncontractual harm to others unless it is in self-defense.

Jeez, you're like the Ann Coulter of libertarians, making us look worse than we really are.
How do you expect to be able to keep your freedoms unless you're willing to defend them by force? You're like the UN from Team America.
"Kong, if you don't let us search your entire castle we're going to get angery with you and--" "And what?"
"and--mail you a letter.. telling you about how angery we are.."

Needless to say, Kong pressed a button and fed him to his pet sharks. Which I can't say wasn't deserving. The weak should either serve the strong, or die for getting in thier way.. If you want to be a tree-hugging hippy who believes in pipe dreams you need to become a socialist..

lol, and I take that as a compliment. Ann Coulter is funny, strong, and dead sexy.:fluffle:

How do you expect to be able to keep your freedoms unless you're willing to defend them by force? You're like the UN from Team America.
"Kong, if you don't let us search your entire castle we're going to get angery with you and--" "And what?"
"and--mail you a letter.. telling you about how angery we are.."

Needless to say, Kong pressed a button and fed him to his pet sharks. Which I can't say wasn't deserving. The weak should either serve the strong, or die for getting in thier way.. If you want to be a tree-hugging hippy who believes in pipe dreams you need to become a socialist..

lol, and I take that as a compliment. Ann Coulter is funny, strong, and dead sexy.:fluffle:
No, the UN pretends to be effective.

I'm quite willing to admit that I'm apathetic.

First, don't confuse Libertarianism with libertarianism.

Second, I think this sums it up, but iuf made to choose, most libertarians would rather blow elephant cock than such donkey dick.

Third, I am a libertarian and realize that there will never, ever, ever, ever be a libertarian society in the US, Europe, or on any largew scale. However, I'll take whatever increase in economic liberty I see.

Second, I think this sums it up, but iuf made to choose, most libertarians would rather blow elephant cock than such donkey dick.
So eloquently put...

I might be willing to take my chances with the Dems, if I were an American citizen capable of voting in American elections and whatnot.

Fortunately for my country, the Conservative government has toned down the moralistic rhetoric and turned up the economic liberalization.

Third, I am a libertarian and realize that there will never, ever, ever, ever be a libertarian society in the US, Europe, or on any largew scale. However, I'll take whatever increase in economic liberty I see.

As long as those regions remain democratic, of course not. Democracy and freedom are antithetical.

Modern American culture seems to use the words interchangeably, but democracy itself is a direct attack on individual freedom.

Fortunately for my country, the Conservative government has toned down the moralistic rhetoric and turned up the economic liberalization.
#1: I'm not happy with thier moral decline. It was the only thing that made me respect the republican party. Ronald Regan be turning in his grave if he'd seen what the republican party has become.

#2: They're not turning the economy into a more libertarian leaning anarcho-capitalism. Funding an expensive war that's going to jackup our taxes come four to eight years isn't economic liberation..

#1: I'm not happy with thier moral decline. It was the only thing that made me respect the republican party. Ronald Regan be turning in his grave if he'd seen what the republican party has become.

#2: They're not turning the economy into a more libertarian leaning anarcho-capitalism. Funding an expensive war that's going to jackup our taxes come four to eight years isn't economic liberation..
Except I'm talking about the Canadian Conservative government, because that's where I live.

The problem with a belief in absolute rights is that proponents thereof make arbritrary decisions with regards to rights when they are unsure of the ethically correct course of action. In order to avoid this, it is not necessary to deny the existance of absolute rights. One simply must admitt that one has not yet completely defined rights. This leaves open the possibility that, in the future, we can find legitimate solutions to complicated moral dilemmas.

I don't think any absolutist system of rights can give us good answers to moral dilemmas, complicated or not.

Let’s take the right to property. I’m picking apples in an unclaimed wilderness. My society is such that I have the reasonable expectation that the labor I’m contributing will be rewarded with said apples. This satisfies most people’s conceptions of property rights; I justly deserve the apples.

Now, let’s change it a bit. I already have plenty of apples; I don’t want to pick anymore, but my neighbor tells me that she’ll trade her slave for them. So I go out and pick apples again, with the expectation that I’ll exchange the apples for the slave. I do so. According to the logic of the last example, the slave is now my justly-owned property; I undertook a task with the reasonable expectation of receiving remuneration, in the form of a slave, for it later. Yet the slave has a right to autonomy, too.

It can’t consistently be said that property rights simply don’t apply to human beings. Every reason for me deserving the apples also applies to me deserving the slave – yet it is clearly unjustified to hold a human being in slavery. All that can be said, keeping to consistency and to basic human decency, is that the slave’s right to autonomy supersedes my right to property. That is the argument I would make, and because such an argument is irreconcilable with an absolute notion of property rights, I cannot hold to that notion.

Republican = fiscally irresponsible with economic freedom
Democrats = fiscally irresponsible with no economic freedom.

Both parties are the same. You seem to think that the Democrats are socialists of some sort. Their policies are boradly similar to the Republicans.

Fortunately for my country, the Conservative government has toned down the moralistic rhetoric and turned up the economic liberalization.

Except for that silly gay marriage vote and all their pro-family programs.

I'm all for economic liberalisation, but can't we just get broadly applied programs that treat everyone equally? Sure, I know they offered targetted programs because they sell (and that's what got them elected), but they still annoy me.

Except for that silly gay marriage vote and all their pro-family programs.

I'm all for economic liberalisation, but can't we just get broadly applied programs that treat everyone equally? Sure, I know they offered targetted programs because they sell (and that's what got them elected), but they still annoy me.
The GST cut affected everyone equally, but that's all I've got.

I would like to just cut every special deduction for taxes and give everyone a much lower general rate. Same tax base, just without the special interests.

I would like to just cut every special deduction for taxes and give everyone a much lower general rate. Same tax base, just without the special interests.

Exactly.

The GST cut affected everyone equally, but that's all I've got.

I would like to just cut every special deduction for taxes and give everyone a much lower general rate. Same tax base, just without the special interests.

Both agreeable and applicable. I think it would also perhaps be worthwhile to open a new thread entirely of the state and future of taxes?

I don't think any absolutist system of rights can give us good answers to moral dilemmas, complicated or not.

Let’s take the right to property. I’m picking apples in an unclaimed wilderness. My society is such that I have the reasonable expectation that the labor I’m contributing will be rewarded with said apples. This satisfies most people’s conceptions of property rights; I justly deserve the apples.

Now, let’s change it a bit. I already have plenty of apples; I don’t want to pick anymore, but my neighbor tells me that she’ll trade her slave for them. So I go out and pick apples again, with the expectation that I’ll exchange the apples for the slave. I do so. According to the logic of the last example, the slave is now my justly-owned property; I undertook a task with the reasonable expectation of receiving remuneration, in the form of a slave, for it later. Yet the slave has a right to autonomy, too.

It can’t consistently be said that property rights simply don’t apply to human beings. Every reason for me deserving the apples also applies to me deserving the slave – yet it is clearly unjustified to hold a human being in slavery. All that can be said, keeping to consistency and to basic human decency, is that the slave’s right to autonomy supersedes my right to property. That is the argument I would make, and because such an argument is irreconcilable with an absolute notion of property rights, I cannot hold to that notion.

This is a facetious argument.
If you do not consider the slave to be property, you would not purchase the slave with your apples. There is no contradiction there - you either consider the slave property (in which case you buy him) or you do not (in which case you do not pick the apples to buy him). Either way you do not loose out on apples.

If you hold that you cannot buy a slave, then it is the same thing as getting pissed off because you picked apples to buy sunshine. Just because you picked apples in exchange for sunshine (for which there is no purchasing authority to give you said sunshine – certain gods aside – like you consider that there is no valid purchasing authority for a person’s autonomy) does not invalidate the concept of property rights.

This is a facetious argument.
If you do not consider the slave to be property, you would not purchase the slave with your apples. There is no contradiction there - you either consider the slave property (in which case you buy him) or you do not (in which case you do not pick the apples to buy him). Either way you do not loose out on apples.

Obviously, I (as the purchaser, not the real me) consider the slave to be justly-owned property. A decent moral system, however, would not, and societies adhering to said decent moral system would attempt to emancipate her, whatever I thought - and would be perfectly justified in doing so, even though it violates my property rights.

If you hold that you cannot buy a slave, then it is the same thing as getting pissed off because you picked apples to buy sunshine. Just because you picked apples in exchange for sunshine (for which there is no purchasing authority to give you said sunshine – certain gods aside – like you consider that there is no valid purchasing authority for a person’s autonomy) does not invalidate the concept of property rights.

But sunshine isn't for sale; it would be unreasonable for me to expect to buy it. The slave was.

Let’s take the right to property. I’m picking apples in an unclaimed wilderness. My society is such that I have the reasonable expectation that the labor I’m contributing will be rewarded with said apples. This satisfies most people’s conceptions of property rights; I justly deserve the apples.

So I go out and pick apples again, with the expectation that I’ll exchange the apples for the slave. I do so. According to the logic of the last example, the slave is now my justly-owned property; I undertook a task with the reasonable expectation of receiving remuneration, in the form of a slave, for it later. Yet the slave has a right to autonomy, too.

The slave is obviously not justly-owned property because of the logic of the former example. If property rights imply an expectation towards the fruits of one's labor, then the slave was never justified as property and the exchange would be invalid, as there was no exchange of property.

Obviously, I (as the purchaser, not the real me) consider the slave to be justly-owned property. A decent moral system, however, would not, and societies adhering to said decent moral system would attempt to emancipate her, whatever I thought - and would be perfectly justified in doing so, even though it violates my property rights.

By your definition of the justification and expectations of property rights, the slave would not be justly owned property. So the emancipation of a slave would be the upholding of property rights, not the violation of property rights.

The slave is obviously not justly-owned property because of the logic of the former example. If property rights imply an expectation towards the fruits of one's labor, then the slave was never justified as property and the exchange would be invalid, as there was no exchange of property.

We do not disagree that the rights of the slave are being violated. That is obvious. The question is, if we emancipate the slave, are the property rights of me, as the slaveowner, being violated?

Justified as property or not, the slave is still my property, technically; I own her, I control her, and no one can take her or use her without my permission. Furthermore, I can justly say that I earned her - just as I earned the apples. I contributed my labor to get her. The exchange was perfectly valid; I gave the fruits of my labor to the owner, and the owner consented to give me something in exchange, the slave. How can the state, I might ask, suddenly come and demand that I relinquish her?

We both would accept the right of the state to do that, because her rights are being violated. But I would maintain that I have some justification in complaining*, because my labor has essentially been taken from me.

*Justification tempered by the fact that I am someone evil enough to hold another human being as a slave, but I digress.

By your definition of the justification and expectations of property rights, the slave would not be justly owned property. So the emancipation of a slave would be the upholding of property rights, not the violation of property rights.

Well, no; the slave did not expect rewards for her labor, she expected (hoped for, at least) the withholding of punishment.

But be that as it may, even if the slave's property rights do apply, it is the upholding of the slave's property rights at the expense of the owner's property rights.

We do not disagree that the rights of the slave are being violated. That is obvious. The question is, if we emancipate the slave, are the property rights of me, as the slaveowner, being violated?

In a strict sense, your property rights are not violated, as property rights are extended through government, and if government ceases to extend them, they cannot be violated.

In the sense I believe you are going with, yes, your property rights are violated, but the argument is moot, as you have already stated that the society justifies property rights as an extension of labor, thereby meaning that the slave would have right to their labor, not you or any previous owner.

The slave would not be considered justifiable property within that society.

Justified as property or not, the slave is still my property, technically; I own her, I control her, and no one can take her or use her without my permission. Furthermore, I can justly say that I earned her - just as I earned the apples. I contributed my labor to get her. The exchange was perfectly valid; I gave the fruits of my labor to the owner, and the owner consented to give me something in exchange, the slave. How can the state, I might ask, suddenly come and demand that I relinquish her?

As you have said, property rights are justified within this society through labor, not through ownership, control, or restricted use.

The exchange is not valid, as there was never a mutual exchange of property or goodwill.

I can only guess that the original owner of the slave would be required to compensate you for his breach of contract.

We both would accept the right of the state to do that, because her rights are being violated. But I would maintain that I have some justification in complaining*, because my labor has essentially been taken from me.

You either forfeited your labor through an illegal transaction or lost it to someone who never gave you consideration.

Well, no; the slave did not expect rewards for her labor, she expected (hoped for, at least) the withholding of punishment.

Exactly, you justify property rights with labor, yet ignore the labor of the slave. Your example is not logically consistent.

Of course capitalistic societies have engaged in this sort of inconsistency, but reason is the slave to the desires in everyone of us, so we can hardly blame this on capitalism itself.

But be that as it may, even if the slave's property rights do apply, it is the upholding of the slave's property rights at the expense of the owner's property rights.

All rights preclude another from some sort of action or claim to action.

In a strict sense, your property rights are not violated, as property rights are extended through government, and if government ceases to extend them, they cannot be violated.

My legal property rights are not violated, but that's irrelevant.

In the sense I believe you are going with, yes, your property rights are violated,

Then I appear to have misunderstood your position, because my impression was that you were arguing the opposite.

but the argument is moot, as you have already stated that the society justifies property rights as an extension of labor, thereby meaning that the slave would have right to their labor, not you or any previous owner.

That's a subtlety I didn't notice, but yes, that is the case. At least if we assume that the same rights apply to all human beings, if property rights are derived from my right to my labor - and that is indeed essentially how I have derived them - to deprive another human being of her right to her labor is against such a system of rights.

Of course, I could claim that the right of a slave to her labor is the equivalent of the right of a horse to its labor, and, indeed, a slave society would probably claim exactly that.

The exchange is not valid, as there was never a mutual exchange of property or goodwill.

Sure there was. It wasn't morally-owned property, but it was still property.

I can only guess that the original owner of the slave would be required to compensate you for his breach of contract.

The owner who acquired the slave in the first place? Maybe, but if the society treats slaves as property, it could be argued that the person who originally kidnapped the slave has the same right to property as the one who picks apples in the wilderness.

You either forfeited your labor through an illegal transaction

It wasn't illegal. If it were illegal my expectation for it to occur wouldn't be reasonable.

or lost it to someone who never gave you consideration.

How do we know that she didn't give me consideration? Did she know that the state would decide to emancipate the slave?

Exactly, you justify property rights with labor, yet ignore the labor of the slave. Your example is not logically consistent.

I have granted from the start that the slave's rights have been violated. The society itself doesn't see it as inconsistent, because it doesn't believe that the slave deserves the same rights as everyone else.

All rights preclude another from some sort of action or claim to action.

True. And when such an "action or claim to action" is guaranteed by another right, we have a conflict - one that cannot be resolved by a scheme of absolute rights.

Its the Libertarian platform. I think all libertarians think that way.
Most libertarians don't ascribe to the party platform. maybe somewhere down the long and dusty road, but most realize that such instant reform given the current situation is impossible.

Their gun-nutters who dont want to help society?

Interesting? I'm a Libertarian and I've never owned, nor do I ever plan on owning, a gun! Oooops, wait, I lied...I did have a Red Rider BB gun when I was a kid!!!:D

I don't think any absolutist system of rights can give us good answers to moral dilemmas, complicated or not.

Let’s take the right to property. I’m picking apples in an unclaimed wilderness. My society is such that I have the reasonable expectation that the labor I’m contributing will be rewarded with said apples. This satisfies most people’s conceptions of property rights; I justly deserve the apples.

Now, let’s change it a bit. I already have plenty of apples; I don’t want to pick anymore, but my neighbor tells me that she’ll trade her slave for them. So I go out and pick apples again, with the expectation that I’ll exchange the apples for the slave. I do so. According to the logic of the last example, the slave is now my justly-owned property; I undertook a task with the reasonable expectation of receiving remuneration, in the form of a slave, for it later. Yet the slave has a right to autonomy, too.

It can’t consistently be said that property rights simply don’t apply to human beings. Every reason for me deserving the apples also applies to me deserving the slave – yet it is clearly unjustified to hold a human being in slavery. All that can be said, keeping to consistency and to basic human decency, is that the slave’s right to autonomy supersedes my right to property. That is the argument I would make, and because such an argument is irreconcilable with an absolute notion of property rights, I cannot hold to that notion.
Here is my definition of property rights:

You have the right to ownership of yourself, plus anything you create or discover, plus anything you recieve in a free and honest agreement, minus anything you concede in a free and honest agreement, minus any property you willingly abandon.

Applying this definition to your example, the slave's property rights were clearly violated the moment your neihgbor originally enslaved her/him (assuming she was the original "owner" of the slave). You also violated the slaves' property rights by knowingly exerting illicit ownership. Furthermore your property rights were violated when your neighbor agreed to give you a property which she could not rightfully transfer to you. The solution is that your neighbor must compensate you for apples which she dishonestly gained and you and your neighbor (as well as anyone who "owned" the slave) must each compensate the slave for exerting illicit ownership of her/him proportionally to the extent to which you exerted this "ownership,"

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

I think the difference between our methods of defining rights is this:
You define rights such that they can be conflicting. When they conflict one person's rights supercede the other's.
I define rights such that they can never be conflicting. If I find a place where, according to my current definition, the rights of two persons are conflicting, I add to my definition such that the conflict is resolved in the new defintion.
Your method involves a complicated decision of which rights have precedent. In my method, this complexity is embodied in making sure that that the definition of rights creates no conflict.
In practice, these two methods will yield the same results for two people who completely agree on ethical principals. Whenever a person using the first method makes a decision regarding the precedence of rights, a person using the second method can always perfectly reflect this decision within her/his definition of rights.
Therefore, this disagreement on methodology is purely semantic. The real disagreement is on whether property rights are embodied in expectations.

Government doesn't "create" ANYthing. Government is totally dependent on the people for even the right to exist.This is only true of a democratic government.
Nonetheless, if governments don't create property rights, then where do they come from?

That's kind of my point. You take out a mortgage with the knowledge that the interest rate could change at any time in any direction. Therefore, when it happens you cannot protest the change because you knew it could happen. I applied that same line of thinking later when I said that large tax raises do not constitute theft because you knew they were a possibility.

Basically, I was leading into that.I don't have an objection to this, but I assume that Soheran would.

Nonetheless, if governments don't create property rights, then where do they come from?
Around the same place as the right to free speech, or is that government created to?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I really don't know what constitutes the creation of a right. Are there certain inalieable rights? I've heard that somewhere, but any clarification you can provide would be helpful.

Around the same place as the right to free speech, or is that government created to?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I really don't know what constitutes the creation of a right. Are there certain inalieable rights? I've heard that somewhere, but any clarification you can provide woudl be helpful.It depends. Certain people believe in the concept of natural rights; rights that we would have in the state of nature. Others would consider these abilities, rather than rights. Typically whenever people speak of inalienable rights, they mean natural rights (or abilities). The theory goes that governments are meant to extend natural rights, not impose upon them. I can agree with this idea. However, property rights don't exist in the state of nature, so property isn't a natural right, and by this definition, isn't inalienable.

Other people would view rights as solely a government construct. I can agree with this viewpoint as well; we don't say that a person has a right unless the government defends them from other people violating that right. Nonetheless, by this viewpoint, property rights, like all rights, would be government constructs.

There are likely other viewpoints on the nature of rights, but I am not familiar enough with them.

However, property rights don't exist in the state of nature, so property isn't a natural right, and by this definition, isn't inalienable.
In nature, an animal eats what it kills. It may have an instinctive agreement that the male will hunt while the female will watch the kids (or vice versa), but a lone wolf, so to speak, will be left alone if it has killed something on its own. Animals also have be known to mark territory and defend it as their own.

As a mainstream Democrat, I am scared of the libertarians. While they support a woman's fundemental right to choose, this is beside the point. In the end, it comes down to how you care about the people.

The Constitution was intended to provide each citizen with the education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, food and housing that they NEED TO FREELY DEVELOP.

This was the promise given to us by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, until Repuilicans and later "Libert"arians were formed and tried to put their oppressive God/capitalism into everything.

We were founded on basic principles of equality and positive liberty, we need to go back to it by voting for Jim Webb in Virginia.

Someone needs to go back to elementry history class. All those bullcrap programs that you listed above didn't exist until the twentith century. I've got news for you, back in the day the Democrats were the very conservative party that fought to keep slavery, racism, and push morality on everyone. The Republicans, at their conception, were environmentalists, anti-slavery, many were still racist but there were plenty who weren't...

The government does -not- exist to hold your hand. It is the responsiblity of the people to be successful. Education, healthcare, childcare, etc were inventions of a very VERY recent American government.

So my question for you is, if our Founding Fathers meant for us to have those bullcrap programs, why weren't they initiated when they were alive? The reason is simple logic, they didn't mean for such things to happen.

In nature, an animal eats what it kills. It may have an instinctive agreement that the male will hunt while the female will watch the kids (or vice versa), but a lone wolf, so to speak, will be left alone if it has killed something on its own. Animals also have be known to mark territory and defend it as their own.Certainly. However, they don't leave a piece of territory and expect it to be theirs when they come back without a fight. This is consistent with the occupancy and use concept of 'property' and not the concept of ownership of property.

(I put property in quotes in the first use of it because I realize that the current definition of property requires an owner.)

Here is my definition of property rights:

You have the right to ownership of yourself, plus anything you create or discover, plus anything you recieve in a free and honest agreement, minus anything you concede in a free and honest agreement, minus any property you willingly abandon.

These criteria aren't necessarily inconsistent with slavery.

If a person voluntarily sold himself into slavery, then he has conceded something in a free and honest agreement.

If the slave didn't concede his ownership of himself in a free and honest agreement, then his rights were violated, but the subsequent owner has still received something in a free and honest agreement, so she deserves to be compensated for the emancipation of her slave. Ideally by the original enslaver.

Someone needs to go back to elementry history class. All those bullcrap programs that you listed above didn't exist until the twentith century. I've got news for you, back in the day the Democrats were the very conservative party that fought to keep slavery, racism, and push morality on everyone. The Republicans, at their conception, were environmentalists, anti-slavery, many were still racist but there were plenty who weren't...
Hells yeah. Libertarians are the way Republicans were meant to be.

The government does -not- exist to hold your hand. It is the responsiblity of the people to be successful. Education, healthcare, childcare, etc were inventions of a very VERY recent American government.
Preach it sister!:p

So my question for you is, if our Founding Fathers meant for us to have those bullcrap programs, why weren't they initiated when they were alive? The reason is simple logic, they didn't mean for such things to happen.
Exactly, education? Private schools.. Healthcare? Insurance.. Childcare? A fucking nanny!

All these and more can be solved thier private enterprise.. That's the philosophy of libertarinsm, we don't need no goverment, we don't need no gun control, no dark sarcasm in the classroom..:cool:

In nature, an animal eats what it kills. It may have an instinctive agreement that the male will hunt while the female will watch the kids (or vice versa), but a lone wolf, so to speak, will be left alone if it has killed something on its own. Animals also have be known to mark territory and defend it as their own.

An animal does always eat what it kills. Another animal(orgroup) may come and steal it and eat it. Other animals can come in and try to take some or all of their territory. Territory and food are only their's if they can hang on to it. No rights are recognized.

Certainly. However, they don't leave a piece of territory and expect it to be theirs when they come back without a fight. This is consistent with the occupancy and use concept of 'property' and not the concept of ownership of property.
And occupancy, in terms of animals, is defined by how far their property can extend and still have them be able to hold onto it. For humans, however, the range of occupancy is much, much larger than any animal can maintain. Combine that with the fact that we often occupy our property with proxies, like guards or our houses and occupancy is easily satisfied even when someone is not physically there. Mix that with the arbitrary nature of use and you can easily satisfy both criteria. For example, a farmer goes vacationing in Florida and leaves his field planted. He is using the field for his crops, and his house remains as a symbol of occupancy, unless you maintain that squatters should be allowed to take the crops for themselves if he is not their to guard against it.

Claiming ownership was developed as a way of signifying both intent to occupy and use a said piece of land. It was deemed a more civilized way of sorting out property than multiple groups wasting time trying to drive each other out. While it is government sanctioned, I would maintain that it was adopted out of necessity rather than forced upon people. After all, wars are a great example of throwbacks to the "use and occupancy" criteria being applied. If a nation takes land from another nation, the occupancy has changed, which should mean that it now belongs to the other nation. However, adopting this ideal would lead to a great drop in the stability of countries around the world, as any invasion would be a justified acquisition of lands.

An animal does always eat what it kills. Another animal(orgroup) may come and steal it and eat it. Other animals can come in and try to take some or all of their territory. Territory and food are only their's if they can hang on to it. No rights are recognized.
Fair enough. But like I said, ownership began being government recognized to avoid such all-out warfare. Even in your case, the individual can lay claim to the property. The difference is that a larger body now enforces that claim that would be recognized by most people. It's similar to how there is no natural right to life. In nature, anyone can kill you if they want to. While your claim might be recognized by most people, the ones who do not recognize it can ruin it for everyone. Government sanctioning of a right to property is similar to government sanctioning of a right to life. Both were rights you could claim in the wild, but that would not necessarily be accepted by everyone.

Someone needs to go back to elementry history class. All those bullcrap programs that you listed above didn't exist until the twentith century. I've got news for you, back in the day the Democrats were the very conservative party that fought to keep slavery, racism, and push morality on everyone. The Republicans, at their conception, were environmentalists, anti-slavery, many were still racist but there were plenty who weren't...

The government does -not- exist to hold your hand. It is the responsiblity of the people to be successful. Education, healthcare, childcare, etc were inventions of a very VERY recent American government.

So my question for you is, if our Founding Fathers meant for us to have those bullcrap programs, why weren't they initiated when they were alive? The reason is simple logic, they didn't mean for such things to happen.

. . .Are you not also aware that education, healthcare, childcare, etc. were very recent inventions period? A century ago, education in this country consisted of basic math and reading instruction at home and a King James Bible. Healthcare consisted of getting your wisdom tooth pulled out by the local blacksmith if it was impacted combined with basic first aid and generous doses of whiskey and laudenum. Childcare consisted of a stay-at-home wife. They didn't initiate those programs because the need for them didn't exist, nor did the means.

Your post basically asks us to infer the logical equivalent of "If the Founding Fathers had wanted our nation to have spaceships, they would have built their own NASA."


These criteria aren't necessarily inconsistent with slavery.

If a person voluntarily sold himself into slavery, then he has conceded something in a free and honest agreement.

If the slave didn't concede his ownership of himself in a free and honest agreement, then his rights were violated, but the subsequent owner has still received something in a free and honest agreement, so she deserves to be compensated for the emancipation of her slave. Ideally by the original enslaver.

You cannot rationally choose to deny yourself choice in the future, any more than you can rationally choose to become insane. An inherent part of rationality is the continuation thereof.

And occupancy, in terms of animals, is defined by how far their property can extend and still have them be able to hold onto it. For humans, however, the range of occupancy is much, much larger than any animal can maintain. Combine that with the fact that we often occupy our property with proxies, like guards or our houses and occupancy is easily satisfied even when someone is not physically there. Mix that with the arbitrary nature of use and you can easily satisfy both criteria. For example, a farmer goes vacationing in Florida and leaves his field planted. He is using the field for his crops, and his house remains as a symbol of occupancy, unless you maintain that squatters should be allowed to take the crops for themselves if he is not their to guard against it.

Claiming ownership was developed as a way of signifying both intent to occupy and use a said piece of land. It was deemed a more civilized way of sorting out property than multiple groups wasting time trying to drive each other out. While it is government sanctioned, I would maintain that it was adopted out of necessity rather than forced upon people. After all, wars are a great example of throwbacks to the "use and occupancy" criteria being applied. If a nation takes land from another nation, the occupancy has changed, which should mean that it now belongs to the other nation. However, adopting this ideal would lead to a great drop in the stability of countries around the world, as any invasion would be a justified acquisition of lands.

Fair enough. But like I said, ownership began being government recognized to avoid such all-out warfare. Even in your case, the individual can lay claim to the property. The difference is that a larger body now enforces that claim that would be recognized by most people. It's similar to how there is no natural right to life. In nature, anyone can kill you if they want to. While your claim might be recognized by most people, the ones who do not recognize it can ruin it for everyone. Government sanctioning of a right to property is similar to government sanctioning of a right to life. Both were rights you could claim in the wild, but that would not necessarily be accepted by everyone.

The individual, in my case, can claim property but not property rights as we know them today. Someone else has the same right to steal their property. In the example of a farmer going on vacation squatters could have use of the field, whether short-term or long-term, and occupy the house. The house in that example is not being occupied.

I'm not criticisng property rights. Just natural rights. Natural rights don't have meaning. You have a right to life, and I have the right to to take that life, in a state of nature that is.

The individual, in my case, can claim property but not property rights as we know them today. Someone else has the same right to steal their property. In the example of a farmer going on vacation squatters could have use of the field, whether short-term or long-term, and occupy the house. The house in that example is not being occupied.

I'm not criticisng property rights. Just natural rights. Natural rights don't have meaning. You have a right to life, and I have the right to to take that life, in a state of nature that is.
So basically, you have the natural right to do whatever you want, but other people have the natural right to do whatever they want to you, making natural rights rather moot.

You have the right to ownership of yourself, plus anything you create or discover, plus anything you recieve in a free and honest agreement, minus anything you concede in a free and honest agreement, minus any property you willingly abandon.

"Create" from what? When I make something, I am altering the state of something; why does that alteration entitle me to the final product? What if, say, I'm doing it for fun? Wouldn't the "fruits of my labor" in that case be the enjoyment I derive from the activity, rather than the actual product?

Applying this definition to your example, the slave's property rights were clearly violated the moment your neihgbor originally enslaved her/him (assuming she was the original "owner" of the slave). You also violated the slaves' property rights by knowingly exerting illicit ownership.

Right. It is not in dispute that the slave's rights were violated.

Furthermore your property rights were violated when your neighbor agreed to give you a property which she could not rightfully transfer to you.

I don't think so. She made what to her was a perfectly honest deal; an exchange of one good for another to which both of us agreed and from which both of us benefitted (or, in my case, believed I would benefit). The slave's rights were violated consistently throughout, but mine weren't - except by the state, which essentially changed the terms of the deal after the fact.

The solution is that your neighbor must compensate you for apples which she dishonestly gained

She did not gain them dishonestly. She was perfectly honest throughout.

and you and your neighbor (as well as anyone who "owned" the slave) must each compensate the slave for exerting illicit ownership of her/him proportionally to the extent to which you exerted this "ownership,"

Definitely. Compensation at the very least.

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

Except for me and her. Both of us have had our property rights violated.

I think the difference between our methods of defining rights is this:
You define rights such that they can be conflicting. When they conflict one person's rights supercede the other's.
I define rights such that they can never be conflicting. If I find a place where, according to my current definition, the rights of two persons are conflicting, I add to my definition such that the conflict is resolved in the new defintion.

The problem is that the addition is arbitrary. Theoretically I can define rights however I want, but if we want them to make sense, they should have some sort of intuitive appeal. If the intuitive reasons for property rights in one case apply to another, property rights should apply in both cases.

Your method involves a complicated decision of which rights have precedent. In my method, this complexity is embodied in making sure that that the definition of rights creates no conflict.
In practice, these two methods will yield the same results for two people who completely agree on ethical principals. Whenever a person using the first method makes a decision regarding the precedence of rights, a person using the second method can always perfectly reflect this decision within her/his definition of rights.
Therefore, this disagreement on methodology is purely semantic. The real disagreement is on whether property rights are embodied in expectations.

All true. But I still think my method makes more sense.