Im an Independent. The basic Libertarian values appeal to me, but there are so many different forms of it that it gets confusing.
WTF
Im for smaller government and less meddling in private citizen affairs, but some of the points I read off http://www.lp.org I dont understand. For example, they are for eliminating the income tax and the IRS. How does our military get funded without federal taxes? Also, I'm interested in how they deal with monopolies when they arise in the free market. Their website says they want to divest the government of all functions that can be provided by non-government organizations or private individuals. But I dont see how one can break up monopolies without government intervention.
Be great if someone could explain a bit more about the viewpoints of this party. But basically, Im interested in exactly what "smaller government" means to a Libertarian.
I'm going to give you a couple really quick answers on the main points you brought up.
Hopefully I can get this post out before the neo-lib trolls reply and start bashing libertarian thought.
First of all, the income tax does not pay for our military. The income tax pays our national debt. Eliminate the debt, cut spending in other areas, and there is no need for an income tax.
As for monopolies, they exist BECAUSE of government intervention.
Libertarianism is based in individualism. You're right, there are a lot of versions of libertarianism, because its an all encompasing idea - people should be able to live as free, sovereign individuals.
Your taxes don't fund the current military, so I'm not sure what your concern is. The government pays for itself by accruing debt in our name. Our taxes go towards paying the interest on that debt. Sound like a banker's wet dream?
Anyways as far as how this ties into an individualist philosophy, if I'm able to convince the federal government to FORCE you to fund things you do not agree with, then you're not free or sovereign. So a tax on labor is not acceptable as it is theft and violates your freedom.
If you wonder how we would pay for things without an income tax, you might consider how we paid for them before the income tax. It wasn't introduced until 1913 and until around....I want to say the 50's but I'm not sure, it was only like 1%.
Monopolies are handled by the free market. Monopolies can exist in a libertarian system but they cannot take advantage of the people in a free market. That is a natural monopoly. A federal monopoly, like what we have today, is another story and is very dangerous.
Again, to tie this into the individualist mindset, I should be free to buy and sell without the government's approval,as long as I'm not commiting fraud. If a monopoly springs up and starts price gouging, I should be free to start a business to compete with them without the red tape we have today, offering the people in my area the same product or service at a realistic cost.
Edit: Smaller, or limited, government means the federal government's role is very specific. It handles the military, it handles coining money, it handles the post office. Its only role is to protect the freedoms listed in the bill of rights from tyrannical state governments. Other than that, it leaves the people the hell alone to determine their fate.
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
Smaller .gov, more individual freedoms is the basic. Of course there are varying degrees of this, and plenty of 'centrist' positions. Just like how you can broadly define liberal or conservative and expect everyone in that party to meet the standards.
__________________
Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." -- Thomas Sowell
Also it's true monopolies only exist because of government intervention as Standard Oil clearly proves
Standard Oil gave working class Americans cheap oil, allowing many people who worked long 12 hour shifts a chance at having a social life, since they were able to afford to light their homes for a longer period at night.
Though I didnt know the military is not funded by our income taxes. How does it get funded then? There are lots of pie charts that show the federal budget and you can see how much they spent on the military.
Something to keep in mind - the supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment applies ONLY to corporate profit. The supreme court defines wages as private property, not income. That said, the military budget each year is equal to the expected revenues from corporate taxes. Increases for conflicts/wars get borrowed from China.
So basically we go to Iraq/Afghanistan, blow up bridges, and then borrow money from China to rebuild them. Meanwhile our bridges crumble and our people are forced to sacrafice their standard of living. It is called a welfare/warfare state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayeaye
I did not know there was such a thing as natural monopoly and federal monopoly; Ill have to do a bit of reading on that.
Natural monopoly just means there's no authority figure like the government enforcing the monopoly. A natural monopoly is a slave to the market, which means its a slave to the people. This is why monopoly men in Wallstreet are so busy financing lobbies that push for more regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayeaye
Btw, what are Libertarian viewpoints towards state governments? Would it be correct to say Libertarians favor small Federal government, but wouldnt care too much about state governments?
States should be sovereign but should not be trusted any more than the federal government. Ideas on libertarianism tend to split up when you get into how local governments should be run. Some are borderline anarchists, some are libertarian socialists. The key is to understand individualism and you will get the basic concept they all agree on. Just go to youtube and search 'individualism' and you will find some good videos as an intro.
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
Smaller .gov, more individual freedoms is the basic. Of course there are varying degrees of this, and plenty of 'centrist' positions. Just like how you can broadly define liberal or conservative and expect everyone in that party to meet the standards.
It's impossible to have economic control without infringing on civil liberties.
__________________
WHO is John Galt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKo_w-EVmU
"I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day difficult."
Libertarians don't have values. They base their politics on an arbitrary principle of 'non-aggression' because they feel like it. Why? They say some people can justify it because they had a revelation from God that it's right. Others may justify it because they "feel" it's right from their moral intuitions. Others just like the principle of non-aggression.
So essentially, libertarianism is based on an arbitrary "axiom" (as they like to call it).
Libertarians don't have values. They base their politics on an arbitrary principle of 'non-aggression' because they feel like it. Why? They say some people can justify it because they had a revelation from God that it's right. Others may justify it because they "feel" it's right from their moral intuitions. Others just like the principle of non-aggression.
So essentially, libertarianism is based on an arbitrary "axiom" (as they like to call it).
All morals, ideologies, and belief systems are created out of artifical values that people place on various characteristics and entities.
All morals, ideologies, and belief systems are created out of artifical values that people place on various characteristics and entities.
Alright, so anything goes and libertarianism is no better than anything else. Let's just do what we feel as there are no objective standards of right and wrong, meaning there are also no facts about man's nature and how he must survive. Man must be a completely fluid entity like water, with no specific nature.
Alright, so anything goes and libertarianism is no better than anything else. Let's just do what we feel as there are no objective standards of right and wrong, meaning there are also no facts about man's nature and how he must survive. Man must be a completely fluid entity like water, with no specific nature.
Society is a reflection of the collective beliefs of those who live within it. People's beliefs and morals are nothing more than extensions of how they feel toward a given situation. So yes, people just do what they feel, and the standard of right and wrong is set by their feelings.
That doesn't mean humans have no specific nature. We evolved to generally feel a certain way towards various situations.
Society is a reflection of the collective beliefs of those who live within it. People's beliefs and morals are nothing more than extensions of how they feel toward a given situation. So yes, people just do what they feel, and the standard of right and wrong is set by their feelings.
That doesn't mean humans have no specific nature. We evolved to generally feel a certain way towards various situations.
That's false, emotions are based on previous value judgments that you made when you were living. That's why five people can have five different reactions to the same thing, based on their knowledge and values. An X-ray of a broken bone, for example, might make a patient feel sorrow to know it is broken, might prove what the doctor was looking for and elate him, might confuse a caveman, etc. Emotions are dependent on the value judgments (which were conscious) that a person previously made.
Now as to the main point--if there is no morality, then there is no way that man should live. All that morality is, is a code for man to live his life. Man is poised with the need of morality because he does not survive automatically, having free will. His need of morality comes from his need to find a way to act to further his life. If there is no objective morality, then that means that there is no means of man furthering his life. For example, a man can sit in the sun and soak up water like a flower all day, and that will help him live, because there is no objective morality. Or a man can live like a dog, running in a field and eating rabbits to flourish. But the truth is that no, man has a specific nature, and in order to live according to the specific nature, it must be recognized and codified into the science of ethics.
That's false, emotions are based on previous value judgments that you made when you were living. That's why five people can have five different reactions to the same thing, based on their knowledge and values. An X-ray of a broken bone, for example, might make a patient feel sorrow to know it is broken, might prove what the doctor was looking for and elate him, might confuse a caveman, etc. Emotions are dependent on the value judgments (which were conscious) that a person previously made.
People make value judgements based on emotion. How would these values arise in the first place? Knowledge may have an influence on the emotion felt, but it is still ultimately emotion which is the deciding factor.
Quote:
Now as to the main point--if there is no morality, then there is no way that man should live. All that morality is, is a code for man to live his life. Man is poised with the need of morality because he does not survive automatically, having free will. His need of morality comes from his need to find a way to act to further his life.
If there is no objective morality, then that means that there is no means of man furthering his life. For example, a man can sit in the sun and soak up water like a flower all day, and that will help him live, because there is no objective morality. Or a man can live like a dog, running in a field and eating rabbits to flourish. But the truth is that no, man has a specific nature, and in order to live according to the specific nature, it must be recognized and codified into the science of ethics.
There is no set way for a man to live his life. There are optimal methods which greatly enhance things such as survivability and pleasure, yes, but that's as far is it extends. What reason is there other than your own biologically fabricated drive to live which necessitates this "need" to further your life? If you want to argue for the moral code which provides the optimal conditions for survival, pleasure, procreation, or whatever you feel is the purpose of man, then fine, but do not pretend it is objective.
Man is not evil, good, kind, nor whatever descriptive you may wish to apply. Man simply is. He has no purpose. He is nothing more than a collection of atoms in a universe void of any and all meaning, except that which you choose to artificially create.
I'm trolling because I don't think Standard Oil, THE original anti-consumer anti-business monopoly, was a force for good in the world?
Again: u fraudin'?
Umm... this is what the supreme court said in 1911 on Standard Oil before deciding to break it up-
"Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer."
__________________
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. - Soren Kierkegaard "
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime. - Max Stirner "
You know someone doesn't have much of a case when they must sink to comparing their opponents to the Nazis.
Umm... this is what the supreme court said in 1911 on Standard Oil before deciding to break it up-
"Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer."
__________________
Bodybuilder, n. A weight lifter too weak to be a powerlifter.
Powerlifter, n. A weight lifter too fat to be a bodybuilder.
HIT Jedi, n. The fitness equivalent to Al Qaeda, except
rather than fly planes into buildings, devotees fly
steaming piles of dogmatic horse**** into your ears
and down your throat.
Every thing works..........for about 6 weeks.
Hard gainer = under eater
_____________________________________________
That's false, emotions are based on previous value judgments that you made when you were living. That's why five people can have five different reactions to the same thing, based on their knowledge and values. An X-ray of a broken bone, for example, might make a patient feel sorrow to know it is broken, might prove what the doctor was looking for and elate him, might confuse a caveman, etc. Emotions are dependent on the value judgments (which were conscious) that a person previously made.
Now as to the main point--if there is no morality, then there is no way that man should live. All that morality is, is a code for man to live his life. Man is poised with the need of morality because he does not survive automatically, having free will. His need of morality comes from his need to find a way to act to further his life. If there is no objective morality, then that means that there is no means of man furthering his life. For example, a man can sit in the sun and soak up water like a flower all day, and that will help him live, because there is no objective morality. Or a man can live like a dog, running in a field and eating rabbits to flourish. But the truth is that no, man has a specific nature, and in order to live according to the specific nature, it must be recognized and codified into the science of ethics.
There are basic moral principals 99% of humanity would agree on. Suppose there was no government and you were on your own. What boundries would you assume you shouldn't cross with your fellow man? There you have individualism. The government's role is to take over protecting those basic rights so you don't have to spend all of your time defending yourself.
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
There are basic moral principals 99% of humanity would agree on. Suppose there was no government and you were on your own. What boundries would you assume you shouldn't cross with your fellow man? There you have individualism. The government's role is to take over protecting those basic rights so you don't have to spend all of your time defending yourself.
aware
__________________
Goal: 165 cut like diamonds (no BB)
Linear Mode
