Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[MrktMkr1986]

Libertarians scare me.

They seem to be unaware of the potential consequences their ideologies impose on society, either because they genuinely don't know, or they do know, but don't care.

 

[Danoff]

Libertarians scare me.

They seem to be unaware of the potential consequences their ideologies impose on society, either because they genuinely don't know, or they do know, but don't care.

The only thing libertarians want to impose on you, is the inability to impose your own ideology on others.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The only thing libertarians want to impose on you, is the inability to impose your own ideology on others.

That's still forcing me to do something... and I haven't finished explaining myself yet. I had to cut it short because my family and I were going out to dinner.

 

[Joey D]

Well after doing some research I'm starting to find that I am a Conservative Libertarian, whatever that means. Every polical quiz I take tells me thats what I am, and I tend to agree with some of their beliefs.

From what I can tell Libertarians want people to govern themselves more. The government should provide protection (police and military): I agree. I can also see that they want to get rid of social programs like welfare, which I agree with and they want a smaller government which I agree with.

I'm still very conservative though, however I'm liberal on a select number of things like religion.

I think I need to investigate this libertainism more though. I might not be right on my thinking of them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think I need to investigate this libertainism more though. I might not be right on my thinking of them.

I strongly suggest that you do.

Besides, if you work for a Union, you are NOT a Libertarian.

 

[Joey D]

After looking here is the run down:

Gun Control:
"Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that." I've always thought that, guns aren't the problem and more people should own them. But they should all be educated, I was taught from the time I could talk to respect guns.

Crime:
Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions. I agree completely with this, I'm tired of criminals having rights.

Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending. Great idea but it can't happen, so therefore I guess I don't support it.

Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets. Every political party does this, so it's no different.

Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns. Agree with. Reason's supported above.

Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education. Same as the Republicans. Democrats just want to make half hearted jobs, keep people on welfare, and screw education. At least my wonderful governor does.

Drugs:
From what I can tell Libertarians want to legalize drugs, which I am against. We don't need more dead beats in this country.

Environment:
Can't really grasp the Libertarians point of view on this one. So I'll stay undescided.

Taxes:
From what I can tell Libertarians want to cut taxes and make government spending more streamlined. I agree with this to, I hate paying taxes when I see my money going to things welfare and what not. I would rather pay taxes for more meaningful things. I'm still kinda half in half on the Libertarians approach though, because it's not possible to practically eliminate taxes.

Foreign Policy:
The way I see it is that Libertarians want to cut off foreign aid, I've thought we should have done that a long time ago. I don't see the point in giving more to a ton of countries when they never return the favor for us. I mean look when 9/11 how many countries gave us money? I think one.

I strongly suggest that you do.

Besides, if you work for a Union, you are NOT a Libertarian.

I don't work for a union, nor do I believe in them. I'm salaried at GM, but I have to work with the UAW. I think I would rather cut my foot off with a dull rusty knife then work with the UAW. They are the laziest, rudest, more inconsiderate works I've met in my entire life. I can see why cars cost so much. Err I can't get started on the UAW, I have a thread on it somewhere, but once I get going you'll never shut me up.

 

[Duke]

Libertarians support voluntary labor unions - they just categorically deny that a union can force an employer to deal with them.

So if you can corner the market on autoworkers, you're welcome to form a union. Just don't get mad when I move my factory to South Carolina... or Mexico.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Libertarians support voluntary labor unions - they just categorically deny that a union can force an employer to deal with them.

So if you can corner the market on autoworkers, you're welcome to form a union. Just don't get mad when I move my factory to South Carolina... or Mexico.

Which is precisely why union workers can't be Libertarian (at least in regard to unions anyway). I assumed Joey was one because he works for GM.

Gun Control:
"Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that." I've always thought that, guns aren't the problem and more people should own them. But they should all be educated, I was taught from the time I could talk to respect guns.

How about nuclear weapons? Is that covered under the 2nd Amendment?

Crime:
Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions. I agree completely with this, I'm tired of criminals having rights.

You might want to look up "victimless crimes".

Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending. Great idea but it can't happen, so therefore I guess I don't support it.

Exactly.

Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets. Every political party does this, so it's no different.

Not true. The party platform actually calls for the release of certain criminals -- again because of so-called "victimless crimes".

Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns. Agree with. Reason's supported above.

I want a nuclear weapon. If I can afford one, do I have the right to own one?

Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education. Same as the Republicans. Democrats just want to make half hearted jobs, keep people on welfare, and screw education. At least my wonderful governor does.

They intend to create jobs by eliminating minimum wage. They intend to eliminate welfare dependence by eliminating government assistance. They intend to improve education by eliminating public schools. So, no, not the same as the Republicans.

Drugs:
From what I can tell Libertarians want to legalize drugs, which I am against. We don't need more dead beats in this country.

👍

Environment:
Can't really grasp the Libertarians point of view on this one. So I'll stay undescided.

They want all land to be privately owned (or owned by corporations). They're also aganist government regulation of pollution etc. such as the EPA.

Taxes:
From what I can tell Libertarians want to cut taxes and make government spending more streamlined. I agree with this to, I hate paying taxes when I see my money going to things welfare and what not. I would rather pay taxes for more meaningful things. I'm still kinda half in half on the Libertarians approach though, because it's not possible to practically eliminate taxes.

Eliminate/Reduce taxes = starve the beast. That pretty much says it all.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

http://www.rationalreview.com/guest/101303.shtml

^^ An interesting link I found.

 

[Danoff]

I have something to tell all those "moderate libertarians" out there. You’re either not moderate, or you’re not a libertarian.

👍

Which is precisely why union workers can't be Libertarian (at least in regard to unions anyway). I assumed Joey was one because he works for GM.

Not true. Union workers can be libertarian, they just can't support union favoring legislation.

How about nuclear weapons? Is that covered under the 2nd Amendment?

No, WMD's are not covered by the second amendment. Owning a nuclear weapon would give one person an unacceptible level of power of the US government - thereby removing their ability to enforce law. When one starts being able to say things like - make me president or I will blow up LA - the military starts to get invovled and one citizen has too much power in the country - libertarians do not like anything that gives elite status to a group or individual.

You might want to look up "victimless crimes".

Yes and think about how things should not be crimes if there are no victims.

The party platform actually calls for the release of certain criminals -- again because of so-called "victimless crimes".

Drug users are not criminals (by my definition) and so the party does not call for the release of "certain criminals" but rather the release of the "wrongfully imprisoned".

Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending. Great idea but it can't happen, so therefore I guess I don't support it.

Exactly.

First step is to stop wasting police resources preventing people from altering the chemical balance in their own bodies.

They intend to create jobs by eliminating minimum wage. They intend to eliminate welfare dependence by eliminating government assistance. They intend to improve education by eliminating public schools. So, no, not the same as the Republicans.

Eliminating minimum wage is not the only way libertarians would create jobs - but yes these are all valid and so libertarians > republicans.

They want all land to be privately owned (or owned by corporations). They're also aganist government regulation of pollution etc. such as the EPA.

Wrong. They're not all against government regulation of pollution - there are just better ways of doing it.

Eliminate/Reduce taxes = starve the beast. That pretty much says it all.

Wrong again. Have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

👍

I knew you'd enjoy the article!

Not true. Union workers can be libertarian, they just can't support union favoring legislation.

I meant to say that.

No, WMD's are not covered by the second amendment. Owning a nuclear weapon would give one person an unacceptible level of power of the US government - thereby removing their ability to enforce law. When one starts being able to say things like - make me president or I will blow up LA - the military starts to get invovled and one citizen has too much power in the country - libertarians do not like anything that gives elite status to a group or individual.

Suppose I wanted nuclear weapons for personal protection... still no? I'm not a terrorist, I don't want to be president, I'm not threatening anyone. However, if someone steps onto my private property, I should be able to defend it.

Yes and think about how things should not be crimes if there are no victims.

Victimless crime = oxymoron in my opinion.

First step is to stop wasting police resources preventing people from altering the chemical balance in their own bodies.

And after that? I'm just curious...

Eliminating minimum wage is not the only way libertarians would create jobs - but yes these are all valid and so libertarians > republicans.

Quick question if you don't mind. What other measures do Libertarians intend to implement to reduce unemployment? What level of unemployment is considered acceptable to Libertarians? 3%? 2%? 1%? 0?

Wrong. They're not all against government regulation of pollution - there are just better ways of doing it.

The platform calls for the elimination of the EPA. I apologize if I made it sound like all Libertarians are against government pollution control.

Wrong again. Have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan?

Yes. What are you implying? (some of the policies implemented during his administration could be considered "libertarian" in my opinion...)

 

[Danoff]

Yes. What are you implying?

Have you ever listened to Reagan's speeches? He's totally against everything you seem to be for.

The platform calls for the elimination of the EPA. I apologize if I made it sound like all Libertarians are against government pollution control.

Allow me to lead you through this - the elimination of the EPA is not the same as saying that government can't control pollution. The EPA's methods are poor - much better methods could be employed with very little effort on the government's part. The EPA still wouldn't be necessary but some new (very small) organization might be.

Quick question if you don't mind. What other measures do Libertarians intend to implement to reduce unemployment?

How about the reduction of taxes? Reduction of restrictions on businesses? Elimination of social security (and thereby a reduction in the cost of the American worker)? That's the tip of the iceberg.

What level of unemployment is considered acceptable to Libertarians? 3%? 2%? 1%? 0?

There isn't a preset level of unemployment that is considered acceptable (not by republicans democrats or libertarians). My goal in general is not to reduce unemployment but to make the market fair.

And after that? I'm just curious...

Take money from social programs for police, and give some of it back.

Victimless crime = oxymoron in my opinion.

It is an oxymoron and that's the POINT! It's not a crime.

Suppose I wanted nuclear weapons for personal protection... still no? I'm not a terrorist, I don't want to be president, I'm not threatening anyone. However, if someone steps onto my private property, I should be able to defend it.

Still no. My statements about elite groups and an individual having too much control over others still hold.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Have you ever listened to Reagan's speeches? He's totally against everything you seem to be for.

Interesting.

Allow me to lead you through this - the elimination of the EPA is not the same as saying that government can't control pollution.

I'm aware.

The EPA's methods are poor - much better methods could be employed with very little effort on the government's part. The EPA still wouldn't be necessary but some new (very small) organization might be.

Why not apply this "reformation" to other governmental organizations. I still don't see why they need to flat out eliminated.

How about the reduction of taxes?

That's fair. A flat income tax rate would be best.

Reduction of restrictions on businesses?

Depends on what "restrictions" we're talking about.

Elimination of social security (and thereby a reduction in the cost of the American worker)? That's the tip of the iceberg.

Social Security should be an option, not mandatory or eliminated.

There isn't a preset level of unemployment that is considered acceptable (not by republicans democrats or libertarians). My goal in general is not to reduce unemployment but to make the market fair.

Making the market "fair" is the same as making the market free. A totally unrestricted market ultimately is not fair.

It is an oxymoron and that's the POINT! It's not a crime.

Depending on who you ask.

I'll be back tomorrow with new topic(s). We still haven't discussed the privitization of currency.

 

[Danoff]

Why not apply this "reformation" to other governmental organizations. I still don't see why they need to flat out eliminated.

Some of them shouldn't exist at all. Others, like the EPA, need to start from scratch.

Social Security should be an option, not mandatory or eliminated.

You mean should be an option for some people to receive, but mandatory for everyone to pay for right?

Making the market "fair" is the same as making the market free. A totally unrestricted market ultimately is not fair.

As long as rights are protected this is not true.

(careful, rights can be defined very broadly)

We still haven't discussed the privitization of currency.

That's going to be a difficult discussion (which deserves its own thread). It's one of the few topics where I'm really on the fence. I'm not sure that I can be convinced either way either.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Some of them shouldn't exist at all. Others, like the EPA, need to start from scratch.

Will get into more detail about this tomorrow.

You mean should be an option for some people to receive, but mandatory for everyone to pay for right?

Not at all. Social Security should be similar to a mutual fund -- those who choose to invest in it pay for it. If you choose to pay for your own private investments then pay for private investments. There should be a tax incentive for people who do put money into the S.S. fund, though (that way people who would normally go private can add to the public fund to help with solvency etc).

As long as rights are protected this is not true.

(careful, rights can be defined very broadly)

This still does not address common market failures, though. More details tomorrow.

That's going to be a difficult discussion (which deserves its own thread). It's one of the few topics where I'm really on the fence. I'm not sure that I can be convinced either way either.

Not necessarily. It's part of the platform and this thread IS about the Party.

 

[Danoff]

Not necessarily. It's part of the platform and this thread IS about the Party.

It's part of the platform but it's not part that libertarians typically push. I think the debate is going to get long enough and detailed enough that it would confuse this thread.

This still does not address common market failures, though. More details tomorrow.

Common? Failures?

Not at all. Social Security should be similar to a mutual fund -- those who choose to invest in it pay for it. If you choose to pay for your own private investments then pay for private investments.

👍 Private investments.

There should be a tax incentive for people who do put money into the S.S. fund, though (that way people who would normally go private can add to the public fund to help with solvency etc).

Tax incentive? How does it help S.S. if you give a tax incentive for paying payroll tax? You're saying I save money on my taxes if I pay more tax?? I'm lost.

 

[Swift]

I don't like Social Security. It's a bad pyramid scheme that is going to die soon after the baby boomers are all done.

Libertarians have a few things right. But as a whole, I'm just not down.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Tax incentive? How does it help S.S. if you give a tax incentive for paying payroll tax? You're saying I save money on my taxes if I pay more tax?? I'm lost.

Let's your taxable income amounts to $60,000 for 2012. No taxes are taken out for social security because you opt to invest by yourself. You give $1,000 as charity to the S.S. fund -- your taxable income is now $59,000.

 

[Danoff]

Eliminating SS will:
* Eliminate death and disability funds for families and workers

Uh what? How is that remotely related?

* The odds are usually against individual investing

The odds are against whether people will invest or against them if they invest. Because if they invest the odds are in their favor (depending on how they invest).

* Capital gains tax eats into retirement profits (I know about IRAs)

Ok so don't tax it. But secondly, so what? Everyone pays taxes. You're not claiming that captial gains tax makes it impossible to pay for your retirement right?

* Retirees on a fixed-income will usually not be protected against inflation

They can be protected against inflation and the government has a duty to prevent inflation. So as long as the government is doing its job, they'll be fine. If the government doesn't do its job - well then they could just as easily lose the SS check anyway.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You post too fast... I deleted that for a reason.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Robert Locke is a genius! And we live close by!!!

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

 

[Danoff]

You post too fast... I deleted that for a reason.

Oops.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Oops.

No problem. The article I posted is written from a Conservative's point of view. Is there anything in the article you disagree with? Anything at all you would like to address? I agree with much of what he has to say.

 

[Danoff]

Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions.

Ok

What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?

That shouldn’t be necessary – though taxes will get pretty steep in time of war if there is no draft.

What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners?

Totally unacceptable (with exception to issues of national security).

What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?

Parents should be forced to provide an education for their children up to age 18. Not doing so would be like not providing food or clothing. Laws like this protect the child's rights.

What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways?

Ah, a real tough one. I don’t think public roadways are necessary, I think private roads might actually work quite a bit better - but the public roadways work pretty well.

What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

What? I think some of the people who understand America’s economic structure best are foreigners… and socialistic wealth redistribution can (and should) be prevented with a few more anti-discriminatory clauses in the constitution.

 

[ledhed]

bumpety bump .

 

[87chevy]

my thoughts?

they are about a hairs breadth away from anarchists.




*waits around for danoff to show up*

 

[Duke]

Then you don't understand Libertarianism.

 

[87chevy]

Then you don't understand Libertarianism.

/sigh

it was a joke

 

[Duke]

/sigh

it was a joke

After listening to Brian (MrktMkr) go off in this thread, it could easily have been completely serious. Sorry my meter is worn out from overuse.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

After listening to Brian (MrktMkr) go off in this thread, it could easily have been completely serious. Sorry my meter is worn out from overuse.

I won't go off anymore... but I do have a question to ask (in general). Did you go to a private school or a public school (K-12, preferably)?