Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Red Eye Racer]

<--anxiously waiting to read the simularities between communism and libertarianism; along with the rest of the essay. 👍

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Sorry for being impatient but exactly how does communism relate to the ideal of self-government (Libertarianism)?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Sorry for being impatient but exactly how does communism relate to the ideal of self-government (Libertarianism)?

Communists and Libertarians are polar opposites in certain respects, but the way they deliver their ideology is practically identical. I'll get into more detail in the essay.

 

[Danoff]

Communists and Libertarians are polar opposites in certain respects, but the way they deliver their ideology is practically identical. I'll get into more detail in the essay.

I think the real similarity is that in your eyes, they're both extremes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think the real similarity is that in your eyes, they're both extremes.

What would lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Danoff]

What would lead you to that conclusion?

You've said it.

 

[Swift]

You've said it.

Anytime you have extremes, especially in politics, the methods usually have some parrallels. I'm not for one minute suggesting that Libertarian's are communist. Infact, they are the polar opposite. But it is as an extreme form of gov't as communism.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not for one minute suggesting that Libertarian's are communist. Infact, they are the polar opposite. But it is as an extreme form of gov't as communism.

I would say that anarchy is the opposite of communism, and that anarchy is as extreme a form of government as communism. Libertarianism recognizes some need for government, while communism basically refuses to recognize the individual.

 

[Swift]

I would say that anarchy is the opposite of communism, and that anarchy is as extreme a form of government as communism. Libertarianism recognizes some need for government, while communism basically refuses to recognize the individual.

This is true. But as far as gov't that are in existence or at the very least feasible. Communism and Libertarianism are polar opposites.

 

[Danoff]

This is true. But as far as gov't that are in existence or at the very least feasible. Communism and Libertarianism are polar opposites.

Anarchy exists and is just as feasible as communism (ie: it will destroy itself eventually).

 

[Swift]

Anarchy exists and is just as feasible as communism (ie: it will destroy itself eventually).

No argument here!

But I don't know of any countries where anarchy is there by choice of the people. Maybe I'm just not in the "know" though.

 

[Danoff]

But I don't know of any countries where anarchy is there by choice of the people. Maybe I'm just not in the "know" though.

It's the choice of some people in the country. Just like communism is the choice of some people. Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in a communist society is happy to be there or happy with the system.

 

[Swift]

It's the choice of some people in the country. Just like communism is the choice of some people. Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in a communist society is happy to be there or happy with the system.

My point exactly. I seriously doubt that communist gov'ts ask the people if they'd like communism. They simply imposed it.

 

[Danoff]

My point exactly. I seriously doubt that communist gov'ts ask the people if they'd like communism. They simply imposed it.

Yup, and so communism and anarchy are really the polar opposite government structures. Libertarianism has principles, but it isn't as extreme as communism.

Glad you agree.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It's the choice of some people in the country. Just like communism is the choice of some people. Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in a communist society is happy to be there or happy with the system.

It's funny you should mention that!

In a pure capitalist economy (such as the kind of economy the Libertarians hope for) with all the power and money shifting towards the highest income earners, Libertarianism is the choice of some people. Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in a Libertarian society will be happy to be there or happy with the system.

Yup, and so communism and anarchy are really the polar opposite government structures. Libertarianism has principles, but it isn't as extreme as communism.

Glad you agree.

I don't -- Libertarian principles have loopholes that lead right back to anarchy anyway.

My point exactly. I seriously doubt that communist gov'ts ask the people if they'd like communism. They simply imposed it.

The same would apply to a Libertarian government. It would have to be imposed.

 

[Danoff]

Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone in a Libertarian society will be happy to be there or happy with the system.

Everything besides the Libertarian system (or similar to it) results in the inalienable rights of one person being violated by another. Anarchy, Communism, Socialism etc... not libertarianism.


So if people aren't happy about it, it's because they don't get power they don't deserve over someone else.

The same would apply to a Libertarian government. It would have to be imposed.

True. In fact, my earlier statement was false. Anarchy is not imposed, it is complete freedom.

So I retract it. Libertarianism invovles imposing the rule of law. Anarchy imposes nothing but results in violation of human rights.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Everything besides the Libertarian system (or similar to it) results in the inalienable rights of one person being violated by another. Anarchy, Communism, Socialism etc... not libertarianism.

Wrong. Allowing someone total personal freedom will inevitably result in inalienable rights being violated.

So if people aren't happy about it, it's because they don't get power they don't deserve over someone else.

Or could it be that the people with the most money automatically get all the power and the poor don't have any power? You know where I'm going with this...

True. In fact, my earlier statement was false. Anarchy is not imposed, it is complete freedom.

This is why I like talking to you. 👍

So I retract it. Libertarianism invovles imposing the rule of law. Anarchy imposes nothing but results in violation of human rights.

Yes. That is only difference between Libertarians and anarchists. However, who makes the laws in a Libertarian society? The people with the higher overall incomes or the lower overall incomes. There seems to be an underlying element of plutocracy in Libertarian policies. Evidence will be provided in my essay.

 

[Danoff]

However, who makes the laws in a Libertarian society? The people with the higher overall incomes or the lower overall incomes. There seems to be an underlying element of plutocracy in Libertarian policies.

What? That's right out of left field. I don't know where you're getting this from. There aren't a lot of laws in libertarian society - only enough to protect basic human rights.

Wrong. Allowing someone total personal freedom will inevitably result in inalienable rights being violated.

Sure, but that's anarchy. Libertariansim is not total personal freedom and does not inevitably result in rights being violated.

Or could it be that the people with the most money automatically get all the power and the poor don't have any power? You know where I'm going with this...

I really don't know what you're talking about here. The system as we have it currently is more like what you're describing - in which large companies can lobby politicians to make obscure changes to the tax code or changes to regulations that affect their competition. In a libertarian world there would be fewer laws and they'd be simple. Laws would have to have very good reason to exist - which greatly reduces (if not eliminates) the lobby problem that we have now.

So libertarianism actually balances power as perfectly as possible among all people. In fact, even politicians would have substantially reduced power since rights would be more carefully protected and laws would be under great scrutiny.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What? That's right out of left field. I don't know where you're getting this from.

I'm not getting this "from" anywhere. I'm only expressing my opinions based on what I see and know. I'll be able to get into more detail when I finish the essay.

There aren't a lot of laws in libertarian society - only enough to protect basic human rights.

Precisely -- and these include laws relating to money, banking, and finance. Wages, hours worked etc. are also affected because there are "only enough laws to protect basic human rights". I'll elborate in my essay. Compression seems to be more difficult than actually writing it.

Sure, but that's anarchy. Libertariansim is not total personal freedom and does not inevitably result in rights being violated.

I'll rephrase then -- it increases the likelihood of rights being violated because there are less overall restrictions.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

You will soon enough.

The system as we have it currently is more like what you're describing - in which large companies can lobby politicians to make obscure changes to the tax code or changes to regulations that affect their competition.

I won't argue that.

In a libertarian world there would be fewer laws and they'd be simple. Laws would have to have very good reason to exist - which greatly reduces (if not eliminates) the lobby problem that we have now.

That's debatable.

So libertarianism actually balances power as perfectly as possible among all people.

If we can assume that money is not representative of power, then yes, you are correct. Libertarianism WOULD balance power as perfectly as possible among all people because every one is free to do what they want as long as it does not interfere with rights of others. Which leads me back to my previous statement -- Libertarianism is wholly-based on a utopia.

In the real world, money is power -- and when I post my essay, I will provide evidence as to how current Libertarian economics are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.

In fact, even politicians would have substantially reduced power since rights would be more carefully protected and laws would be under great scrutiny.

So the politicians have reduced power... OK. Then the person with the most amount of money steps in and acquires power for him/herself. Power cannot be evenly distributed in a pure-market economy (survival of the fittest).

 

[Danoff]

In the real world, money is power

Purchasing power maybe, but it's not power over others.

Sorry no. It's not.

I can have all the money in the world, but I can't use it to force you to work for me or force you to sell me your land or force you to dress up like a chicken.

Money is not power over others. Others may choose to behave a certain way to get money, but they aren't forced to behave a certain way until you start socializing the government.

Edit: Libertariansim offers citizens the least amount of real power over each other of all of the systems I know of. In anarchy if you get a gun you can force others to do your bidding. In communism you have no choices whatsoever, you're forced in every aspect. In socialism or socialized capitalism you're forced to do some things and perhaps free to do others.

In a libertarian society people would be free from force to the greatest possible extent.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Edit: Libertariansim offers citizens the least amount of real power over each other of all of the systems I know of. In anarchy if you get a gun you can force others to do your bidding. In communism you have no choices whatsoever, you're forced in every aspect. In socialism or socialized capitalism you're forced to do some things and perhaps free to do others.

In a libertarian society people would be free from force to the greatest possible extent.

In theory, however, I have evidence that would suggest otherwise.

 

[Danoff]

Do you agree with my statement that money does not equal power (ignoring lobbying which is a product of the flaws in our current system)?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Do you agree with my statement that money does not equal power (ignoring lobbying which is a product of the flaws in our current system)?

To a certain extent -- but what makes you think lobbying is a product of the flaws of our current system? History would also suggest that people with more money have more power (slaveowner vs slave, landlord vs tenant, noble vs serf)...

 

[ledhed]

Money = power. Its kind of hard for it not to . Unless of course we get to a point were no one wants money. Just having money gives you power over someone who wants it . Even if its only the power to motivate.

 

[Danoff]

Money = power. Its kind of hard for it not to . Unless of course we get to a point were no one wants money. Just having money gives you power over someone who wants it . Even if its only the power to motivate.

Yea I'm not talking about that. Yes money gives you market power. It gives you purchasing power, or "motivation" as you put it. I'm talking about real power. I'm talking about force - everything else is voluntary... a choice.

To a certain extent -- but what makes you think lobbying is a product of the flaws of our current system?

Because our current system invovles laws and regulations that are so specific and invasive, that it's easy for legislators to be pursuaded to add a little here and there.

For example. Let's say the tax code includes deductions for certain business expenses (which it does). Now in a libertarian world that wouldn't exist, but since it does, that means that every business will try hard to get their legislators to make things that they use often deductible and the things their competitors use not deductible.

How about a more concrete, straightforward answer. In a libertarian society, the FDA would not exist. But since it does, businesses will try to buy out the people in the FDA to allow their products through.

Maybe that was too straightforward. How about this? A rare type of roach which is on the endangered species list is preventing the construction of a new mall. The mall petitions to have the law changed such that the roach can be killed - but the competing mall down the road will lobby heavily to make sure that the roach is protected.

This is the kind of crap that goes on when you have lots of specific laws or regulations. It's exactly that kind of thing a libertarian society would avoid because libertarians don't try to force people into a mold - only to have them turn around and use your new rules to gain advantage.

History would also suggest that people with more money have more power (slaveowner vs slave, landlord vs tenant, noble vs serf)...

Ok slavery is not allowed... and again I'm not talking about purchasing power here. I'm talking about force.

I'm talking about how one company can get new legislation passed to force their competitors off of a certain plot of land, or out of a certain state - that's power. It's the power that money has in a system like ours where regulations abound.

Perhaps cigarrette companies are lobying heavily to prevent pot from becoming legal because they don't want to have to compete with it. Perhaps alcohol companies are doing the same thing...

 

[ledhed]

You need force ? Go buy some . Hire a body guard or a private investigator or a goon with a bat. Hire your own army of mercenarys and attempt a coup on a small island near Madasgascar. Power can be bought ergo sum money = power . if your goon gets caaught hire a lawyer to get out of jail . If you need to intimidate legaly hire a goon and a lawyer or a goony lawyer. I dont get the statement " money doesnt equal power " i kind of think it does and always has . Better yet just imply that if certain " problems ' disapear the responsibile partys will be well rewarded.

 

[Danoff]

You need force ? Go buy some . Hire a body guard or a private investigator or a goon with a bat. Hire your own army of mercenarys and attempt a coup on a small island near Madasgascar. Power can be bought ergo sum money = power . if your goon gets caaught hire a lawyer to get out of jail . If you need to intimidate legaly hire a goon and a lawyer or a goony lawyer.

You're talking about breaking the law, or abusing an overly complex legal system with lots of loopholes.

People will always break the law. That's why we have laws.

But within the law, money does not = power.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You're talking about breaking the law, or abusing an overly complex legal system with lots of loopholes.

I still don't understand something about Libertarianism/Libertarians... why is the government viewed with such disdain? That sentence just spoke volumes...

People will always break the law. That's why we have laws.

But within the law, money does not = power.

Libertarian laws have little weight. I'll explain later.

 

[Danoff]

Libertarian laws have little weight. I'll explain later.

The weight is determined by the penalty.

I still don't understand something about Libertarianism/Libertarians... why is the government viewed with such disdain?

Not all government, just unecessary government. And the reason is because government is force. When the government passes a law, everyone must follow it or be thrown in jail. That's serious business and only laws that pass the most stringent of examination should be adopted as a result.

Laws are a necessary evil. If man were naturally moral laws would be unecessary and we could all live in perfect freedom. Since man naturally seeks what is in his best interest (which often means screwing over others) laws are required. But great pains should be taken to ensure that no more laws exist than are required. Because otherwise they get abused in the way ledhed and I have suggested earlier.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The weight is determined by the penalty.

You're forgetting one thing, though. The enforcement behind the laws are also important -- something I feel Libertarians are against because it contradicts their belief of "victimless crimes".

Not all government, just unecessary government.

If we're talking about minarchists like yourself, then yes. If we're talking about the extremist "anarcho-capitalists", no -- they don't want any government at all (not even for national defense!!!).

And the reason is because government is force.

So any force for the benefit of others is bad, except when it comes to children...

When the government passes a law, everyone must follow it or be thrown in jail.

Even with Libertarian laws too -- so what's makes our current laws any different?

That's serious business and only laws that pass the most stringent of examination should be adopted as a result.

They aren't already...in your opinion?

Laws are a necessary evil. If man were naturally moral laws would be unecessary and we could all live in perfect freedom. Since man naturally seeks what is in his best interest (which often means screwing over others) laws are required. But great pains should be taken to ensure that no more laws exist than are required. Because otherwise they get abused in the way ledhed and I have suggested earlier.

Red = True.
Blue = Perhaps...