Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

This is just so stupid. The Libertarian party values life, but doesn't care if people kill themselves. Oh, it's your freedom to kill yourself because your life is yours. Nope, it's not. Nobody completely owns their own life.

I disagree. I completely own my own life. I have no desire to 'own' anyone else's life, either.

Let's not even talk about the spiritual world. Just the natural. Does Duke own his own life? Nope, he's got a family and that means that he needs to take care of them. If he decided to commit suicide in anyway, would that not be an extremely jacked up situation for his family? The idea that the individual owns themselves is just false.

But again, you're getting a false conclusion from a false assumption.

You are correct insofar as I have an obligation to my family.

But what you're missing is that I voluntarily courted and married my wife, and we voluntarily had two children (the fact that the two children were intentional is irrelevant; even if they were 'accidents', the fact remains that we voluntarily had sex).

So we created those obligations for ourselves. Therefore it is my obligation to fulfill my marriage contract with my wife (or let her dissolve it). It is my obligation to raise my children to majority or otherwise arrange for someone suitable to do it.

So yes, if I decide heroin is going to be my new career direction, I'll be violating my obligations to my family unless I make arrangements to sever those implied 'contracts'.

But the fact remains that if I decided I wanted to be a heroin addict before I CHOSE to start a family, and therefore I DIDN'T start a family, I would in no way be obligated to one... and the obligation I DO have now is the direct result of choices I've already made.

I don't have a problem with that. I can have obligations to others while maintaining 100% ownership of my own life - since I accepted those obligations by CHOOSING to start a family.

Remember, we're not just mouthing words when we say "complete responsibility" for ourselves. We mean it!

If you can't create something, how can you own it? Yes, we contributed to creation with procreation. But we still don't create it from nothing. Since we're not able to bring people back from the dead, do we truly own our life? I'm thinkin no.

I don't see this at all. Nature awarded me with my first possession as soon as I gained conciousness. The mere FACT of my existence as a human being gives me the rights afforded ALL human beings until they prove themselves deserving of the removal of their rights (primarily through violating the rights of others).

 

[Swift]

I disagree. I completely own my own life. I have no desire to 'own' anyone else's life, either.

But again, you're getting a false conclusion from a false assumption.

You are correct insofar as I have an obligation to my family.

I don't see this at all. Nature awarded me with my first possession as soon as I gained conciousness. The mere FACT of my existence as a human being gives me the rights afforded ALL human beings until they prove themselves deserving of the removal of their rights (primarily through violating the rights of others).

The view of the libertarian is much that of the founding fathers. And would work for that time. However, in a society with as many people and the technology that we have, it's a varitable impossibility. Basically, I have to hope that the other person is taking responsibility for themselves. If not, well, they're not breaking any laws at all, until they decide to hurt me.

I know some of you will say that I have blinders on, but I'm really not trying to depend on the goodness of my fellow man for my wellbeing.

 

[Danoff]

I'm really not trying to depend on the goodness of my fellow man for my wellbeing.

Me too.

 

[Swift]

Me too.

Then how is letting anyone do anything until I can prove demonstratable injury a good thing?

 

[Danoff]

Then how is letting anyone do anything until I can prove demonstratable injury a good thing?

Well that's a simplification but ok we'll go with it for now. Penalties for violating others' rights are a powerful thing (take the premeditated murder example I threw out earlier) - and it's just. I'm relying on people's own self of preservation to keep them in order, not their morality.

The implementation of the above quotes would be disruptive to the current banking system. The very things the Libertarians object to in our current system are the things that keeps the banking system working in an orderly and reasonably secure manner. Being anarchists, of course, the Libertarians feel compelled to insist on a system that has its own self destruction built in rather than safeguards against any foreseeable failures. For example: The function of the Federal Reserve is to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The FDIC protects YOUR savings account up to $100,000. Let’s say the Libertarians do get there way here, now that the they have systematically destroyed banking, one would be inclined to think people would still manage to make transactions with money -- WRONG. Despite the feeble attempt Libertarians make portraying themselves as ultra-Capitalists their anarchist hearts demand that money also be outlawed as money is a device that is used in an orderly society and by their nature anarchists hate money

I have discussed this with a few people and read a little background and I'm surpising myself at how viable a private currency system seems. I had dismissed this earlier but I'm starting to think that getting the government out of the business of money might actually make sense. I haven't made up my mind about it yet but it's an intriguing idea.

If you want to discuss it further, we should start another thread.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I have discussed this with a few people and read a little background and I'm surpising myself at how viable a private currency system seems. I had dismissed this earlier but I'm starting to think that getting the government out of the business of money might actually make sense. I haven't made up my mind about it yet but it's an intriguing idea.

If you want to discuss it further, we should start another thread.

I would happy to discuss the privitization of money.

Remember, we're not just mouthing words when we say "complete responsibility" for ourselves. We mean it!

Glad to hear that. However, in just the same way there are people out there who use religion to cover up their wrong-doings, there are people out there who will completely ignore the "total responsibility" part -- and if were to adopt policies in favor of Libertarian ideologies, more and more people will take advantage of the total freedom part while at the same time shirk their responsibilities.

 

[Duke]

...and then more and more people would get in trouble for either civil contract violations or criminal rights violations, or more people would kill themselves in easily avoided ways.

As the old saying goes, "think of it as Evolution in action".

 

[MrktMkr1986]

...and then more and more people would get in trouble for either civil contract violations or criminal rights violations, or more people would kill themselves in easily avoided ways.

As the old saying goes, "think of it as Evolution in action".

First, of all:

​

Second of all:

Paradoxically, if there are more and more people being incarcerated (or dying), that means that less and less people get to enjoy freedom...

Also, can I start a thread on the differences between Fascism and Conservatism?

 

[Duke]

Paradoxically, if there are more and more people being incarcerated (or dying), that means that less and less people get to enjoy freedom...

But more and more smart people getting to enjoy freedom!
👍

 

[Swift]

But more and more smart people getting to enjoy freedom!
👍

So, just kill off everyone else?

 

[Duke]

So, just kill off everyone else?

*sigh*

Still not getting it, I see. Killing them would be fascism.

Having them determine their own fates is Libertarianism.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

*sigh*

Still not getting it, I see. Killing them would be fascism.

Having them determine their own fates is Libertarianism.

I'll take that as a "YES" then...

I'll be back later that way I can present a good case. I think the term fascism has been thrown around too -- "liberally" -- in some of these posts. Time to make some things clear.

 

[Swift]

*sigh*

Still not getting it, I see. Killing them would be fascism.

Having them determine their own fates is Libertarianism.

My fault, bad wording.

Letting them just die off?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

My fault, bad wording.

Letting them just die off?

In either case, I don't think it's the right thing to do... that sounds like "population control" -- which is fascist.

 

[ledhed]

Your either free Brian or your not . Either all men are created equal with no one better than another in the eyes of the law or some are better and have a right to choose what everyone else should do with themselves. Its one or the other . You cant have a democracy if only some of us are capable of self government . It must be assumed that we all are . Thats the whole basis behind the United States of America .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Your either free Brian or your not . Either all men are created equal with no one better than another in the eyes of the law or some are better and have a right to choose what everyone else should do with themselves. Its one or the other . You cant have a democracy if only some of us are capable of self government . It must be assumed that we all are . Thats the whole basis behind the United States of America .

Perhaps...

...but to say that hooligans should wipe themselves out, to me, sounds like a cruel form of "indirect" population control. And as we all know [hopefully], population control is one element of fascism. I will explain why when I create the new thread...

"Fascism vs Conservatism"

 

[Duke]

My fault, bad wording.

Letting them just die off?

Indeed, that's closer. Letting them choose their own fate - be smart or die.

Perhaps...

...but to say that hooligans should wipe themselves out, to me, sounds like a cruel form of "indirect" population control. And as we all know [hopefully], population control is one element of fascism.

But you still seem to refuse to understand. It must be on purpose at this point.

Population control would be if I decided all my friends were allowed on this board and I banned everybody else, just because I could.

Or population control would be if I decided I only liked blonde haired blue eyed folks, and I killed everybody else... or even just PREVENTED them from getting jobs and FORCED them to live in a ghetto and BURNED their businesses.

But that's not what I'm talking about, and you should now it by now.

I don't just ban everybody but my friends. Everybody is welcome to be a member of this GTP society... unless they violate the rights of others, by choosing not to follow the rules. ONLY THEN does the banhammer come down on them - BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO ABUSE THEIR FREEDOM AND THEY MADE STUPID CHOICES.

Fair, is it not? And not the slightest bit fascist or whatever you choose to term it.

And letting people suffer the results of their own choices is in no way equivalent - in no way - to interfering with their rights or their lives, and CERTAINLY not the same as killing them myself.

ANYBODY and EVERYBODY is free to choose to make the most they can of their lives. They control their OWN population. They vote THEMSELVES on or off the island. Not me. Not you. Not the Law. Not the Majority. Not the Republicrats.

That's such a simple concept that you must be avoiding it on purpose. You're trying to pound Libertarianism into a definition that it just doesn't fit.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

What is the theoretical Libertarian position towards regulating the rental and sale of Adult and Mature rated video games to minors?




ps - hi guys! did you miss me?

 

[Danoff]

What is the theoretical Libertarian position towards regulating the rental and sale of Adult and Mature rated video games to minors?

I don't know about the party, but I don't see it being at odds with libertarian views to restrict sales to children.

 

[Duke]

Correct. Sexuality is pretty much restricted to adults. While Libertarians try to maximize liberty and rights for minors, they recognize that children are not adults and they support restrictions on things about which children are not yet ready to make adult decisions.

Some kids are more mature at 15 then many 'adults' are at 25, but I think 18 is a workable number for assumed majority. There's reference in the platform to children being able to petition for adult status by demonstrating responsibility for themselves, but that certinaly isn't formalized. Mostly that has to do with responsible children emancipating themselves from irresponsible parents and arranging a surrogate-parent agreement with another adult.

 

[Nscale4]

This is just how I have seen it. I have hardly heard of them and I am too lazy to read the other 10 pages. So here goes nothing

Libertarian Party-Little Conservatives
Independent Party-Little Liberals
Republican Party-Big Conservatives
Democrat Party-Big Liberals

 

[MrktMkr1986]

This is just how I have seen it. I have hardly heard of them and I am too lazy to read the other 10 pages. So here goes nothing

Libertarian Party-Little Conservatives
Independent Party-Little Liberals
Republican Party-Big Conservatives
Democrat Party-Big Liberals

That's not entirely accurate.

It would read more like this:

Libertarian Party = Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative
Independant Pary = any combination possible?
Republican Party = Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative
Democatic Party = Social Liberal, Fiscal Liberal

 

[Swift]

Who do you feel about curfews? We have a situation here where they're about to initiate a 9pm curfew from a specific mall. I'm just wondering what you think of that? The teenagers are beginning to amass and be very disruptive to people and property. So, just wondering how you would feel on that subject.

 

[ledhed]

Thier parents need to kick some disrupive teenage butt . let the law raise your kids ..that works well...frickin morons..

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Thier parents need to kick some disrupive teenage butt . let the law raise your kids ..that works well...frickin morons..

Oh no! You can't say that here! They'll call you a statist/fascist!

Anyway, I have a few more things I would like to address in this thread. I remember saying eariler that economically, the Libertarian ideology sounds feasible -- upon closer inspection it does not.

A few things I would like to address in my next essay

• The similarities/differences between Communism and Libertarianism
• How Libertarian policy affects are economics today (positive and negative)
• How Libertarian economics was tried in the United States before -- and failed miserably
• How Libertarian economics widen the gap between the rich and the poor
• Libertarians hypocritical stance on taxes (which was addressed in my first essay, but I would like to expand on it)
• Based on previous responses throughout the thread, how the Libertarians will RESPOND to my essay -- and more.

 

[Nscale4]

Who do you feel about curfews? We have a situation here where they're about to initiate a 9pm curfew from a specific mall. I'm just wondering what you think of that? The teenagers are beginning to amass and be very disruptive to people and property. So, just wondering how you would feel on that subject.

I'm just another teenager so you probably know what I am going to say. NO, right? Not necessarily. One, I don't go to the mall. Besides, if I did, why go that night when I can always go down the next morning? The other is that our local mall has made a "rule" that teens must get out if they don't have an adult with them from 6PM until close (9PM) on Friday and Saturday night. Now as I said earlier, went to the mall Sat. morning and there was barely a soul in there. See? Even if you make a curfew, there are still ways to avoid it. Besides, I am somewhat against curfews not because I am a teen, but because at most malls that is where the most business is. Just keep getting rid of the troublemakers.

 

[Danoff]

Who do you feel about curfews? We have a situation here where they're about to initiate a 9pm curfew from a specific mall. I'm just wondering what you think of that? The teenagers are beginning to amass and be very disruptive to people and property. So, just wondering how you would feel on that subject.

It should be up to the mall.

# How Libertarian economics was tried in the United States before -- and failed miserably

Some fuel for your essay. Industrail Revolution = Good. Great Depression (government mingling badly) = Bad.

Libertarians 1, Big Government 0

# How Libertarian economics widen the gap between the rich and the poor

This is not necessarily a problem first of all. The objective of government is not to make all men end up equal - it's not possible or desirable. Secondly, programs like social security actually rob from the poor and give to the rich.

# Libertarians hypocritical stance on taxes (which was addressed in my first essay, but I would like to expand on it)

I'm interested to see how a flat income tax or a consumption tax (or both) could possibly be hypocritical, since it by definition taxes everyone at an equal rate.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Some fuel for your essay. Industrail Revolution = Good. Great Depression (government mingling badly) = Bad.

Libertarians 1, Big Government 0

Not necessarily. The government had very little influence in the economy before the 1930s. It was in the aftermath of the Great Depression that the government decided that it needed to implement policies to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.

This is not necessarily a problem first of all.

I disagree. If you look at countries that have tried Libertarian economnics (or at least come very close to it) it didn't work, and these countries (namely in South America) have decided to start implementing "left-leaning" policies because of the economic conditions -- caused by the gap.

The objective of government is not to make all men end up equal - it's not possible or desirable.

I agree -- to certain extent.

Secondly, programs like social security actually rob from the poor and give to the rich.

...and I don't want that because it's not fair. However, a totally capitalist economy cannot work. It's been tried before (as I said) and it failed. The perfect economy (Japan for example) balances government control in the economy and free-market practices.

I'm interested to see how a flat income tax or a consumption tax (or both) could possibly be hypocritical, since it by definition taxes everyone at an equal rate.

I wasn't talking about flat income tax etc. I was referring to the fact that many Libertarians use governement-subsidized services despite the fact that they feel they shouldn't have to pay for them -- to me, that's hypocrisy.

*edit* I will take your arguments into consideration when writing this.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, well I don't want to jump the gun too much here, since you're still working on the essay. But...

Not necessarily. The government had very little influence in the economy before the 1930s. It was in the aftermath of the Great Depression that the government decided that it needed to implement policies to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.

The Great Depression was not a market failure, it was a government failure. I highly recommend "Free to Choose" by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman. He explains in great detail how the depression happened and what the government did to help cause it. It's an excellent read and I highly recommend it for someone as interested in economics as yourself.

I was referring to the fact that many Libertarians use governement-subsidized services despite the fact that they feel they shouldn't have to pay for them -- to me, that's hypocrisy.

Why is that hypocritical? I pay for those services. I don't think I should have to pay for them but I do. So I might as well TRY to get my money's worth from them.

I don't see the conflict here at all. If I don't believe I should be taxed for certain government services then I shouldn't use them after I'm taxed for them anyway? This is especially proposterous in th example of electricity. I don't think that the government should foster monopolies with the electric companies. But since they have, I'm going to use the electricity that the government dictates I have available because that's all there is to have. I don't want to go without electricity.

Same thing with private schools. I can't afford the expensive ones and the government has prevented low cost ones from existing by forcing me to pay for "free" ones. I don't agree with that system but that doesn't mean I can't try to get my money's worth out of the "free" public school I've been forced to pay for.

I'm really not seeing the hypocritical angle, but perhaps I will when you finish the essay. Have fun with it. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Again, I urge you to check out "free to choose". I think you'll really enjoy it as it's written from a macroeconomic point of view and is very insightful.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, well I don't want to jump the gun too much here, since you're still working on the essay. But...

The Great Depression was not a market failure, it was a government failure. I highly recommend "Free to Choose" by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman. He explains in great detail how the depression happened and what the government did to help cause it. It's an excellent read and I highly recommend it for someone as interested in economics as yourself.

I'll check it out, thanks. 👍

Why is that hypocritical? I pay for those services. I don't think I should have to pay for them but I do. So I might as well TRY to get my money's worth from them.

I don't see the conflict here at all. If I don't believe I should be taxed for certain government services then I shouldn't use them after I'm taxed for them anyway? This is especially proposterous in th example of electricity. I don't think that the government should foster monopolies with the electric companies. But since they have, I'm going to use the electricity that the government dictates I have available because that's all there is to have. I don't want to go without electricity.

Same thing with private schools. I can't afford the expensive ones and the government has prevented low cost ones from existing by forcing me to pay for "free" ones. I don't agree with that system but that doesn't mean I can't try to get my money's worth out of the "free" public school I've been forced to pay for.

I'm really not seeing the hypocritical angle, but perhaps I will when you finish the essay.

All issue will be addressed -- albeit in a much shorter form.

Have fun with it. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Cool!

Again, I urge you to check out "free to choose". I think you'll really enjoy it as it's written from a macroeconomic point of view and is very insightful.

Definitely.