Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

Joey D · Sep 26, 2005

You would be able to see the number of crimes decrease, and the amount of people who go back to jail or commit crimes decrease as well. I just think we need a harder justice system, its a little to laid back.

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

danoff
How do you know?

Look at the repeat offenders.

I'm not sayi8ng we should have the death penalty for taking a loaf of bread. But it seems to me that the current prison system is at best a revolving door and at most a complete support system.

Duke · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
Right, but jail hasn't been too big of a ditorrent from crimes. Even non drug related crimes.

If it hasn't been a deterrent to crimes now, it's going to be equally effective or ineffective under a more libertarian system. That's not a symptom of Libertarianism per se.

Joey D · Sep 26, 2005

I don't think you will ever fully correct criminals to tell you the truth, once a criminal always a criminal.

///M-Spec · Sep 26, 2005

I've never heard of anyone argue that libertarian principles will help reduce crime. Well, maybe someone, somewhere who may or may not call himself a 'Libertarian' may think it will, but I sure don't. To me, it's simply not one of the "promises" libertarianism makes.

In fact, since governments that have historically been "good" at making sure their citizens behave are also the most oppressive governments in history, I would argue that libertarians should readily acknowledge there are limits to what any social institution can do to prevent crime AND preserve personal liberty at the same time.

I think one pitfall that people make when they compare all the different social models out there is confusing what is fair and just and what is going to solve all your problems.

Socialism says it solves all your problems because it makes everyone the same. What it actually does is make everyone dirt poor except for the people in charge.

Let's say you gather up all the violent criminals in the world-- the real scumbags, murders, rapists, whathaveyou and put them on a deserted island. No matter what kind of government you impose on them --socialist, democratic, despotic, anything-- they are STILL going to be murderers and rapists. That won't change them. They will still figure out how to be complete bastards to one another.

Libertarianism doesn't pretend it will solve society's ills. It won't make people richer, smarter or better dressers. It doesn't put food on your table for you and it doesn't whiten your teeth.

What it will do is make people accountable for their actions without everyone else having to pay a premium for it. At the end of the day, what more are people willing to do?

M

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

///M-Spec
Libertarianism doesn't pretend it will solve society's ills. It won't make people richer, smarter or better dressers. It doesn't put food on your table for you and it doesn't whiten your teeth.

What it will do is make people accountable for their actions without everyone else having to pay a premium for it. At the end of the day, what more are people willing to do?

M

In a libertarian system, is it fair to take taxes to pay for prisons?

///M-Spec · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
In a libertarian system, is it fair to take taxes to pay for prisons?

Depends on who you ask. I think it is. But I admit I haven't spent much time checking in with other libertarians to see if our policies match to a 't'.

There are plenty of things I am willing to be taxed for.

M

Duke · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
In a libertarian system, is it fair to take taxes to pay for prisons?

Read through the beginning of this thread again. No matter how hard a time Brian had understanding it, we (Libertarians) all pretty much stipulated that a certain amount of public services, funded by taxes, were acceptable: police/judicial, military, emergency services, roads/infrastructure - that sort of thing. And NO, Brian, "emergency services" do NOT include welfare.

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

Duke
Read through the beginning of this thread again. No matter how hard a time Brian had understanding it, we (Libertarians) all pretty much stipulated that a certain amount of public services, funded by taxes, were acceptable: police/judicial, military, emergency services, roads/infrastructure - that sort of thing. And NO, Brian, "emergency services" do NOT include welfare.

Ok, well it wouldn't make sense if you can spend money on law enforcement but not prison.

Man I'd love to totally get rid of welfare. Of course, I'd like to totally get rid of a lot of taxes too. :sly:

Danoff · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
Ok, well it wouldn't make sense if you can spend money on law enforcement but not prison.

Man I'd love to totally get rid of welfare. Of course, I'd like to totally get rid of a lot of taxes too.

Believe it or not that's actually possible (however extremely difficult) - through the necessary inflation to counteract natural deflation.

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

danoff
Believe it or not that's actually possible (however extremely difficult) - through the necessary inflation to counteract natural deflation.

You lost me bud.

Danoff · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
You lost me bud.

Deflation occurs naturally in expanding economies. Deflation is bad for the economy though so it is actually useful for government to inflate the money supply to counteract deflation. By doing that, the government essentially gets free money for providing a service.

That's the economy paying your taxes for you.

But that would be VERY hard to make work out.

///M-Spec · Sep 26, 2005

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what our other GTP libertarians --Duke, danoff, Sage, etc. WOULD and WOULDN'T cut out of our federal budget.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/browse.html

Here are some of the depts.

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State and International Assistance Programs
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Corps of Engineers - Civil Works
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration

Each dept has a PDF file link that provides a high-level overview of the agency's functions. There's lots of interesting functions there we could debate over.

EDIT: Btw, Swift. There are a lot of tasks I still believe government should be responsible for, but that doesn't mean I think they should not sub-contract out the work.

M

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

I would think Social security and education would have to go since that would be all private now.

EDIT: Btw, Swift. There are a lot of tasks I still believe government should be responsible for, but that doesn't mean I think they should not sub-contract out the work.

But wouldn't that be spending tax money anyway?

Danoff · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
I would think Social security and education would have to go since that would be all private now.

But wouldn't that be spending tax money anyway?

But it shifts the spending onto a company who is competing for resources rather than a government agency that no long has to concern itself with anything besides being useless so that it can claim it needs more tax dollars.

It switches the incentives around.

///M-Spec · Sep 26, 2005

It would, Swift. However, I'm a firm believer that governments should sub out to the private sector whenever it's more efficient to do so. That already happens to a moderate degree, but I feel there are entire departments that do so.

For example, while many libertarians believe the entire Dept. of Education be axed, I believe they should sub out actual running of entire schools to private companies.

Ultimately, what is taught and the standard of learning is the responsibility of the government, but exactly how it is implemented is up to the private sector.

M

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

///M-Spec
It would, Swift. However, I'm a firm believer that governments should sub out to the private sector whenever it's more efficient to do so. That already happens to a moderate degree, but I feel there are entire departments that do so.

For example, while many libertarians believe the entire Dept. of Education be axed, I believe they should sub out actual running of entire schools to private companies.

Ultimately, what is taught and the standard of learning is the responsibility of the government, but exactly how it is implemented is up to the private sector.

M

Hmm...I find that somewhat contradictory. The Gov't should either run it or just say what they can't teach in a private school and go from there.

Maybe I'm not following your course of logic though.

danoff
But it shifts the spending onto a company who is competing for resources rather than a government agency that no long has to concern itself with anything besides being useless so that it can claim it needs more tax dollars.

It switches the incentives around.

You were talking about Social Security here right?

Danoff · Sep 26, 2005

Swift
You were talking about Social Security here right?

No, any government agency - from NASA to the military to the FEMA to the Department of Housing and Urban development. Government agencies don't get more money by doing a good job and coming in under budget - they get more money by coming in over budget and doing a bad job... then yelling "we need more money!!! See!!"

Contracters, on the other hand, have to do a good job and come in on a tight budget or they simply don't get the contract at the next go around.

Swift · Sep 26, 2005

danoff
No, any government agency - from NASA to the military to the FEMA to the Department of Housing and Urban development. Government agencies don't get more money by doing a good job and coming in under budget - they get more money by coming in over budget and doing a bad job... then yelling "we need more money!!! See!!"

Contracters, on the other hand, have to do a good job and come in on a tight budget or they simply don't get the contract at the next go around.

Oh well if that's the case, I can say that's not always so as I worked on a military base for a while. But, I believe it would be a better system then what we have.

MrktMkr1986 · Sep 26, 2005

///M-Spec
Core problem: people confuse rights with entitlements. They have this fantasy that an entitlement can exist without depriving the rights of at least one person.

I'm fully aware of what an entitlement is and what it takes to have one. People confuse common property with state property. They have this fantasy that land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it.

Duke
No, I wouldn't agree, and I'm confused as to why you think I would. It sounds like you're still using the incorrect definition of "freedom" as meaning "allowed to do whatever you want without regard for the rights of others".

How about restrictions on business activities? That is ultimately where I was trying to steer the discussion. Should businesses be free (by any meaning of the word)?

If you're selling yourself, then it's not slavery, is it? It may be a poor deal, but if you are exchanging ownership rights (of yourself) for a value (money), then you are not becoming a slave. Slavery is when a person's right of ownership to themselves is taken from them by force.

If a bank can seize property if debts are not paid, and people are considered property, shouldn't or couldn't a bank force someone to work their debts off?

It's not. Social Darwinism states that the people who are richest are better than other people, more or less by definition. That's not at all what I'm saying.

Then that was a misunderstanding on my part, sorry.

They need to do the best they can. Private charities can help them depending upon the criteria set by those charities.

That's not good enough (for me)... and hasn't it already been tried before (Chile, for example)?

I'm not even averse to a small public insurance fund for the absolutely permanently helpless people... but it would have to be very carefully watched and the definition of eligibility would have to be very carefully controlled.

Now we're getting somewhere. :sly:

There is always somebody more able, and somebody less able. I am less able than people smarter and more skilled than I. Should I be entitled to some kind of public assistance because of that?

Depends on the severity of the circumstances in my opinion. If you make well above a regional average, then no. With that amount of money you should be able to live comfortably. If you make well below the regional average, then yes.

Who sets the threshold, and where?

I would prefer local governments set the threshold as they are "closer to home" so-to-speak... "where" should be dependant on the cost of living in the given area. That's just my opinion, anyway.

I'm a David Kelley/IOS Objectivist. In my opinion, Leonard Peikoff holds to a far more dogmatic version of Objectivism. This probably arises from his association with Ayn Rand herself in his younger days; he seems to have a feeling of being 'blessed' by her as the standard-bearer for Objectivism. David Kelley, on the other hand, I feel has a much more realistic and fundamental grasp of what Objectivism truly means. He's also somewhat more Libertarian in his leanings.

Though I disagree with Objectivists on a lot of issues, I was hoping you'd say Kelley and not Peikoff. :dopey:

Thanks!

I was happy to be able to register as a Libertarian in Maryland. Unfortunately the rolls aren't large enough in Delaware, so when I moved I had to register as Independent.

I'd consider myself to be somewhere between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist.

I mean that she thought the Libertarian philosophy left too much undefined or open to interpretation on the subject of what constitutes acceptable behaviour.

Libertarians are happy to let people waste their lives if they choose to do so... Ayn Rand would not approve. Libertarians believe that what I may call "wasting" may well be considered "productive and satisfying" to the person doing it. So it's not my place to approve or disapprove of it.

So basically Objectivist philosophy "seals the holes" within Libertarian philosophy and gives a clear picture of what is or should be considered acceptable behavior? :confused:

Or am I misinterpreting? I'm not sure I fully understand the 2nd part either... :confused:

Duke
Read through the beginning of this thread again. No matter how hard a time Brian had understanding it, we (Libertarians) all pretty much stipulated that a certain amount of public services, funded by taxes, were acceptable: police/judicial, military, emergency services, roads/infrastructure - that sort of thing.

Most, but not all (see: anarcho-capitalist). And yes, I understand it just fine.

And NO, Brian, "emergency services" do NOT include welfare.

Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't have picked up on that. :sly:

You were talking about Social Security here right?

There is nothing wrong with Social Security.

ledhed · Sep 27, 2005

Swift
Ok, well it wouldn't make sense if you can spend money on law enforcement but not prison.

Man I'd love to totally get rid of welfare. Of course, I'd like to totally get rid of a lot of taxes too.

What would you replace welfare with ? What do you do with the people that truly need that safety net ? What harm would that do to society ?

Swift · Sep 27, 2005

ledhed
What would you replace welfare with ? What do you do with the people that truly need that safety net ? What harm would that do to society ?

Well, there was obviously a time when we DIDN'T have it. What happened then?

Duke · Sep 27, 2005

MrktMkr1986
I'm fully aware of what an entitlement is and what it takes to have one. People confuse common property with state property. They have this fantasy that land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it.

So, you're fundamentally saying that there is no such thing as private property? Since I can only buy property from a private owner, who must have bought it from a private owner, ad infinitum back to the first owner who must have stolen it from the greater society of mankind by claiming it as his own?

How about restrictions on business activities? That is ultimately where I was trying to steer the discussion. Should businesses be free (by any meaning of the word)?

What about businesses? They are subject to the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They may own property. They may not interfere with the negative rights of other businesses, or individuals: in other words, they may not steal (either by force or fraud), and purposely or knowingly injure anyone. But that doesn't mean they are restricted from aggressive business tactics that might interfere with someone's (or something's) perceived entitlement.

In other words, if you can take my customers by offering better value or a more attractive product, you're under no obligation to worry about putting me out of business. But you may not steal my ideas and you may not come around after hours and burn my factory down.

If a bank can seize property if debts are not paid, and people are considered property, shouldn't or couldn't a bank force someone to work their debts off?

You're missing the point. The bank can't preemptively consider me property, even if I owe them money. Only I can consider myself property, though I can assign temporary ownership of those rights to another entity if I willingly do so. In other words, like an indentureship. Say I get into debt I cannot pay. I indenture myself to the creditor and I do work assigned by them for an agreed-upon length of time until the debt is satisfied. Then my indentureship is over and I regain my full rights.

Or, if I decline, I go to jail, and my creditor writes off the bad debt or claims it against his bad-debt insurance.

As an aside, my great-great-great-great-grandfather, Benjamin Franklin Williams, came over from England on a 7-year indenture in about 1835. I have his indenture paper mounted in a frame.

That's not good enough (for me)... and hasn't it already been tried before (Chile, for example)?

I know that's not good enough for you. But who are you to decide what's "good enough"? It's not fair to arbitrarily take my property to satisfy your demands. Just like it's not fair to arbitrarily take your property to satisfy my demands. If it's not good enough for you, then become one of the active charity-givers who donates a large portion of your income to help the needy.

But you don't want to do that... you want everybody to be forced to meet your criteria.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Not really. I could easily argue myself out of that.

Depends on the severity of the circumstances in my opinion. If you make well above a regional average, then no. With that amount of money you should be able to live comfortably. If you make well below the regional average, then yes.

I would prefer local governments set the threshold as they are "closer to home" so-to-speak... "where" should be dependant on the cost of living in the given area. That's just my opinion, anyway.

So, there you go... assuming that the government can successfully and fairly set arbitrary levels. My local government can't even successfully approve a bypass that everybody agrees desperately needs to be built, and you think that they can fairly set a standard of living and an entitlement package?

Although I do applaud you for thinking at a regional level rather than a federal one, I still fundamentally disagree that such a thing can be done. And even if it could be, it's still philosophically unfair, for all the reasons I've outlined many times.

Though I disagree with Objectivists on a lot of issues, I was hoping you'd say Kelley and not Peikoff. Thanks!

Peikoff makes some good points from time to time, but overall Kelley is smarter and more able to apply the philosophy.

I'd consider myself to be somewhere between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist.

Except for those far-right anti-drug and anti-gay-marriage tendencies...

So basically Objectivist philosophy "seals the holes" within Libertarian philosophy and gives a clear picture of what is or should be considered acceptable behavior? Or am I misinterpreting? I'm not sure I fully understand the 2nd part either...

More or less. Both philosophies see free-market capitalism as the ideal. But lazy Libertarians don't expect to get rich, while hard-core Objectivists don't expect anyone to be lazy.

Most, but not all (see: anarcho-capitalist). And yes, I understand it just fine.

Then why did you waste hundreds of words telling me that I thought all taxes must be theft?

Damn, I was hoping you wouldn't have picked up on that.

There is nothing wrong with Social Security.

How could I not have thought of that? And, yes, there is something wrong with Social Security - it's compulsory.

ledhed · Sep 27, 2005

Swift
Well, there was obviously a time when we DIDN'T have it. What happened then?

People starved and died or turned into street beggars or crime . It was common during depressions for thousands of people to starve to death or suffer from severe malnutritian . not to mention dying from lack of any hospital or doctors care . Children of course took the brunt of it . God help you if you were retarded or just a bit stupid or weak and couldnt work. Old people who had no children to support them died . It was just accepted . Is that what you advocate going back to those conditions ?

///M-Spec · Sep 27, 2005

Swift
Hmm...I find that somewhat contradictory. The Gov't should either run it or just say what they can't teach in a private school and go from there.

What would your get out of a city or local government run school over a private school that conforms to government mandates about what is taught?

MrktMkr1986
I'm fully aware of what an entitlement is and what it takes to have one. People confuse common property with state property. They have this fantasy that land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it.

Do you take exception then, to people assuming what you know and how you think?

M

Danoff · Sep 27, 2005

ledhed
People starved and died or turned into street beggars or crime . It was common during depressions for thousands of people to starve to death or suffer from severe malnutritian . not to mention dying from lack of any hospital or doctors care . Children of course took the brunt of it . God help you if you were retarded or just a bit stupid or weak and couldnt work. Old people who had no children to support them died . It was just accepted . Is that what you advocate going back to those conditions ?

Yea, the depression was bad... for everyone. Redistributing wealth during a crisis isn't going to shorten the depression either.

It doesn't matter what happens when we remove the government "safety net". The only thing that matters is that its existance is wrong. Taking money from some people and redistributing it how you see fit is wrong. Yes, some people will not do well - but that's not the fault of those who are made to pay for them now. Private charity may not cover everyone (though that's not for sure), but is the only kind of charity that is ethical.

Swift · Sep 27, 2005

ledhed
People starved and died or turned into street beggars or crime . It was common during depressions for thousands of people to starve to death or suffer from severe malnutritian . not to mention dying from lack of any hospital or doctors care . Children of course took the brunt of it . God help you if you were retarded or just a bit stupid or weak and couldnt work. Old people who had no children to support them died . It was just accepted . Is that what you advocate going back to those conditions ?

No, but there's a diffence between helping people get food and giving them a free handout for generations. Obviously there will be times when people genuinely need help. Especially in the situations you described. But at the same time, how is it even remotely fair or sensible to take money from the haves and give to the have-nots and not give me the opportunity to choose where that money goes and how it's distributed?

There's a big difference between helping the victims of katrina and Rita and giving people welfare.

EDIT

///M-Spec
What would your get out of a city or local government run school over a private school that conforms to government mandates about what is taught?
M

Competition...as Danoff has talked about before. With the curent school system, there really is no need to improve outside of just getting about the minimum skills(or relevant test) tests. But if they were battling for parents money, that would change a lot!

ledhed · Sep 27, 2005

Swift the first thing you must recognise is there are a group of people who through no fault of their own can not work and support themselves . If you are saying , "thats tough let nature follow its course " you are among a small minority . Most people do not want to live in a society that treats its weakest members in such a manner . " Welfare " also acts as a safety net for those in society that are living at the margin and have found themselves out of work and are in transition from unemployed to employed . Welfare also attempts to help familys where though employed do not earn enough to sustain a living condition that includes both food AND shelter .The conditions that exist in such a society are what forced this society to take action and develope a welfare system .
Since Reagan was in office Welfare has been greatly reformed , now its closer to workfare than ever before. Strict limits are placed on the amount of time a work eligable male can recieve benifits ..FIVE YEARS in his life time !And you must be either training for work or looking for work to recieve even these benifits. Single mothers recieve real welfare while raising children but are encouraged to train or look for work but child care benifits and programs are lacking . Children recieve welfare . That needs no explanation .
The thing is our society has evolved through the democratic proccess to this level of "socialism " as you say it is not being forced on you , you choose to still live here. If you are so stuck on the principle you hold dear and hold it in more esteem than the democratic proccess than you either must learn to accept it or work to change it or leave for better pastures . if you disagree with the majority then you either work within the system to reform or change it or you leave . The republican party chose to stay and the great amount of reforms to break the cycle of those making welfare a " career " was largely BROKEN if not obliterated .
It is to the great benifit of our society that welfare exist . It is an investment in the greatest resource this country has its people .

///M-Spec · Sep 27, 2005

Swift
Competition...as Danoff has talked about before. With the curent school system, there really is no need to improve outside of just getting about the minimum skills(or relevant test) tests. But if they were battling for parents money, that would change a lot!

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of improving efficiency while maintaining accountability for what was being taught. Long ago I used to believe in the total privatization of education until I realized that some crazy white supremisist group in Idaho could teach their kids that the holocaust didn't actually happen and that the government could read their minds. Or schools could teach kids intelligent design exclusively.

Truthfully, I still go back and forth on the issue myself. But recently, this has been my position.

M

Swift · Sep 27, 2005

ledhed
The thing is our society has evolved through the democratic proccess to this level of "socialism " as you say it is not being forced on you , you choose to still live here. If you are so stuck on the principle you hold dear and hold it in more esteem than the democratic proccess than you either must learn to accept it or work to change it or leave for better pastures . if you disagree with the majority then you either work within the system to reform or change it or you leave . The republican party chose to stay and the great amount of reforms to break the cycle of those making welfare a " career " was largely BROKEN if not obliterated .
It is to the great benifit of our society that welfare exist . It is an investment in the greatest resource this country has its people .

Good grief man. You make is sound like I hate people and wouldn't give a starving person a cup of water.

I also love this country very much. I simply don't like some of the ways that things are done. It's possible to be a patriot and still disagree with some stuff the gov't does right?

There's a HUGE difference to me between welfare and unemployment. Unemployment I feel has a place especially in todays world where companies are buying and selling each other all the time. YOu can easily loose your job through NO fault of your own.

As far as helping the handicapped. That's a given. Obviously mentally challenged people have a severe disadvantage and need help. And I think that almost nobody would have a problem with that train of thought.

I understand that there is and always will be people in need. But whenever you have a system like this there will be people that abuse it.

Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

GT Sport is looking good...

Keep 'em separated

GT Sport is looking good...

Keep 'em separated

GT Sport is looking good...

GT Sport is looking good...

GT Sport is looking good...

GT Sport is looking good...

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Keep 'em separated

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Ultraextreme sanity

GT Sport is looking good...

Similar threads