"They should be taxed." -ThinkProgress

[kylejack]

PAUL: I’m pretty critical of a lot of millionaires and billionaires because they ripped us off. They got the bailout, they enjoyed the benefits of the bubble, they get contracts from government, they’re part of the military industrial complex, the banking system is in bed with the government. So they don’t deserve this money. They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed.

But if you’re productive, and you’re producing jobs, and you’re rich because the consumer voted for your product and made you rich because you made an honest living, gave them a good product at the right price, they shouldn’t be punished. If we don’t sort the two out, it’s going to be very destructive.
h xxp://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/08/364056/ron-paul-billionaires-ripped-taxe/

[ronnilingus]

This is something that can easily be taken out of context from what Ron Paul was actually talking about. I'd be more careful when making points like these.

[kylejack]

Just showing what's out there so supporters are prepared when someone tries to take out of context.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

PAUL: I’m pretty critical of a lot of millionaires and billionaires because they ripped us off. They got the bailout, they enjoyed the benefits of the bubble, they get contracts from government, they’re part of the military industrial complex, the banking system is in bed with the government. So they don’t deserve this money. They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed.

In other words, these particular people stole money from people through government force. By taxing them, we are taking it back.

I agree with Ron. Not sure what the OP is trying to suggest.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Millionaires and Billionaires ripped us off through Government Intervention. =/= Thief
Thieves are considered bad in our country. =/= Laws
Sentenced to paying Taxes, and losing its benefits from Government. =/= Punished. Case Dismissed.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Oops! Hope this sort of thing doesn't lose Ron Paul support on this very forum! I agree with him almost 100%, by the way (I am not sure about the whole taxation thing because the last thing I want is for more money to be flowing towards the government for its nefarious purposes; maybe I am misunderstanding his argument here), but it's going to be very hard for him to extrapolate on those comments, as the article mentioned. I think our system as it actually exists now is going to be extremely hard to totally correct, because it's not always clear to what extent the rich benefit from government policies, and then the question becomes "what mechanisms do we use to correct the gap" between the rich and the middle class and poorer people. I don't agree with Ron that the solution is taxation. Maybe as a temporary measure, but it should not become permanent, as it most likely will once Ron is out of office.

Still, this definitely has a more "liberal" bent to it, and I just wonder how well this is actually going to go over with the GOP folks. I think if the comments are sufficiently explained, we can get people to agree. But if they are taken out of context, people are going to be alienated. We do have to be very, very careful about "explaining" this, I think.

[bluesc]

This is how The Blaze quoted him:


In regards to taxes on the wealthy and millionaires, Rep. Paul made a point to acknowledge where he may be distinct among other Republicans.

“I’m pretty critical of the wealth of lots of millionaires and billionaires because they ripped us off, they got the benefits and the tax breaks,” Paul said.

The spin has already begun. Him signing the letter to the Super Committee will not help either.

[Anti Federalist]

PAUL: I’m pretty critical of a lot of millionaires and billionaires because they ripped us off. They got the bailout, they enjoyed the benefits of the bubble, they get contracts from government, they’re part of the military industrial complex, the banking system is in bed with the government. So they don’t deserve this money. They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed.

But if you’re productive, and you’re producing jobs, and you’re rich because the consumer voted for your product and made you rich because you made an honest living, gave them a good product at the right price, they shouldn’t be punished. If we don’t sort the two out, it’s going to be very destructive.

Can't see what there is to argue with about that.

You take billions of taxpayer dollars to bail your sorry, "Too big to fail", ass out, yeah, you should get a bill.

Fuck 'em.

And it's with one eye towards the OWS folks that he makes the "sort them out comment".

And he's right about that as well.

[pcosmar]

Actually, I have another idea. Don't Tax or call it tax.

Declare the Federal Reserve an Enemy of the State and seize all the assets of anyone connected to them anywhere in the world.
Return that money to the US Treasury. Remove all Phony Dollars from circulation (declare null and void) and issue new currency at a 100 to 1 exchange.

Unlikely,, But one can dream.
;)

[undergroundrr]

That's some of the most stunning truth-to-power yet out of Ron Paul. Too bad he wasn't on NBC when he said it. What an amazing man.

[Travlyr]

Actually, I have another idea. Don't Tax or call it tax.

Declare the Federal Reserve an Enemy of the State and seize all the assets of anyone connected to them anywhere in the world.
Return that money to the US Treasury. Remove all Phony Dollars from circulation (declare null and void) and issue new currency at a 100 to 1 exchange.

Unlikely,, But one can dream.
;)
This. ^^^ Do This. ^^^

They absolutely know that they are stealing the wealth of the world.

"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"

[Kodaddy]

What should be emphasized is, "if we don't sort the two out ,its going to be very destructive".

[Todd]

In context he is referencing that these particular bailed out millionaires did in fact filch the money via "theft" of the taxpayers. They did not make their money legitimately. He goes on to clarify that someone who makes a product that wins in the market place is the real benefactor of their "earned" wealth. The bailout bandits "earned" nothing.

[pcosmar]

Can't see what there is to argue with about that.

You take billions of taxpayer dollars to bail your sorry, "Too big to fail", ass out, yeah, you should get a bill.

Fuck 'em.

And it's with one towards the OWS folks that he makes the "sort them out comment".

And he's right about that as well.

Actually the occupy movement is suggesting something like the Tobin Tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax

Perhaps,,

[Brett85]

"They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed."

What exactly does he mean by that?

[pcosmar]

"They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed."

What exactly does he mean by that?

I think he means what he said. (Ron is like that).
They should have their benefits removed.

Think Level Playing Field. Fairness and Honesty.

That does not exist at present.

[Travlyr]

"They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed."

What exactly does he mean by that?

Go to 10:20 in this video. Actually the entire video is pretty good from Ron Paul's standpoint. The interviewer is kind of a douche.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPNZdOEkVo0#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPNZdOEkVo0#!

[Pizzo]

Actually the occupy movement is suggesting something like the Tobin Tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax

Perhaps,,

Tobin tax is absolutely atrocious for several reasons. Most revenue estimates from the tax are based on current market volumes. However with a transaction tax, you can expect volume to dry up significantly because most traders (if not all) will be flushed out of the business. That would create thinner trading volumes in stocks and wider spreads to be exploited by the firms that they are trying to punish. Actually those firms will now control even more of the markets and just pass off the expense of the transaction tax onto their customers as they do with all expenses. Bear in mind it is not a tax on profits, but the value of the total transaction, even on losing trades. The globalists scum love the possibility of a transaction tax., I really, really hope Ron Paul does not now or ever support it.

[Danke]

This is how the income tax works. Federally privileged activities are taxed. That is why they call it a "Return."

[Brett85]

I think he means what he said. (Ron is like that).
They should have their benefits removed.

Think Level Playing Field. Fairness and Honesty.

That does not exist at present.

I have no problem at all with removing their benefits, but it sounds like Ron misspoke with the tax comment.

[Cowlesy]

heh, well, it'll be interesting to watch what happens to NYC when 66% of its revenue base is wiped out because people can't distinguish between capital allocators who've been trusted with individuals funds' to do so, and those who just trade in the ether backed by nothing.

[V3n]

What should be emphasized is, "if we don't sort the two out ,its going to be very destructive".

^^THIS^^ he was saying there's folks who cheated to get rich, and folks got rich from their hard work - he spent a significant time explaining the difference in the video, anything else is completely out of context.

(I think, too, he'd say under our current tax system they should be taxed; but he'd like to change the system so no one is taxed.)

[pcosmar]

Tobin tax is absolutely atrocious for several reasons. Most revenue estimates from the tax are based on current market volumes. However with a transaction tax, you can expect volume to dry up significantly because most traders (if not all) will be flushed out of the business. That would create thinner trading volumes in stocks and wider spreads to be exploited by the firms that they are trying to punish. Actually those firms will now control even more of the markets and just pass off the expense of the transaction tax onto their customers as they do with all expenses. Bear in mind it is not a tax on profits, but the value of the total transaction, even on losing trades. The globalists scum love the possibility of a transaction tax., I really, really hope Ron Paul does not now or ever support it.

Well in Honesty I had never heard of it before. There are discussions on the Idea,, and variations of the idea.
Particularly aimed at the speculators and the FED, to reign in the corruption and market manipulation.

How it would work exactly, or what form it would take is the subject of several discussions.
Perhaps not exactly what Tobin proposed,, but a variation on the theme.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I have no problem at all with removing their benefits, but it sounds like Ron misspoke with the tax comment.
I think he suggested it as a means of correcting the inequality. Just removing the benefits won't force them to give back all the money that they stole from taxpayers. Of course, taxes are an imperfect solution to this problem, because "returning things to the taxpayers" is extremely general, but I really can't see why these people should be able to keep the wealth that they illegitimately expropriated as a result of governmental policies.

(I think, too, he'd say under our current tax system they should be taxed; but he'd like to change the system so no one is taxed.)
I agree. We haven't quite reached our ideal society yet. I still think there has to be a means of correction, though, but I am unsure as to its exact form.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul is the only person who could bring together OWS and the Tea Party.

[Brett85]

I think he suggested it as a means of correcting the inequality. Just removing the benefits won't force them to give back all the money that they stole from taxpayers. Of course, taxes are an imperfect solution to this problem, because "returning things to the taxpayers" is extremely general, but I really can't see why these people should be able to keep the wealth that they illegitimately expropriated as a result of governmental policies.

But it still doesn't make sense to me since Ron has never voted for a tax increase. I wouldn't think he would support any tax increase, even a tax increase on people who got their money at the expense of other people.

[undergroundrr]

"Sorting the two out" is key. And one piece of federal financial regulation I wouldn't mind is required public reporting by corporations of any funds they've received from the federal government through either contracts or bailouts. Wouldn't it be nice if we could use such data to establish an index for individual corporations indicating whether they're tax-feeding parasites or honest producers?

[Rothbardian Girl]

But it still doesn't make sense to me since Ron has never voted for a tax increase. I wouldn't think he would support any tax increase, even a tax increase on people who got their money at the expense of other people.
You have a point there about Ron's seeming inconsistency on this issue. But I think there's a distinction to be made between raising taxes on the taxpayers who don't deserve to have more of their income stolen, and those who quite frankly do not deserve the money that they have "earned".

[Brett85]

You have a point there about Ron's seeming inconsistency on this issue. But I think there's a distinction to be made between raising taxes on the taxpayers who don't deserve to have more of their income stolen, and those who quite frankly do not deserve the money that they have "earned".

I don't support raising taxes on anyone. I simply think the policy should be changed going forward. The government shouldn't give subsidies to private companies or bail them out.

[Travlyr]

But it still doesn't make sense to me since Ron has never voted for a tax increase. I wouldn't think he would support any tax increase, even a tax increase on people who got their money at the expense of other people.
But of course that is not what he said. The video is posted to hear his exact words.

[jtstellar]

im not sure what's so surprising to liberals.. guy's said this for years. the whole point is how do you differentiate the two and liberals haven't been able to come up with an answer.. now they act like paul saying this is somehow shocking as if it was the first time

[Rothbardian Girl]

I don't support raising taxes on anyone. I simply think the policy should be changed going forward. The government shouldn't give subsidies to private companies or bail them out.
OK, so I can surmise you are okay with these individuals simply sitting on their wealth? I know that taxation isn't the best means of accomplishing a greater equality, and I know many conservatives don't concern themselves too much with these types of issues, but what is to be done here? I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you at all, because I don't know the answer to this question myself (I don't think anyone does, really), but do we simply let it go? I do agree with your point about the policy needing to be changed, obviously. :)

[Feeding the Abscess]

But it still doesn't make sense to me since Ron has never voted for a tax increase. I wouldn't think he would support any tax increase, even a tax increase on people who got their money at the expense of other people.

He's advocating taxing businesses that receive government benefits. It fits with the 1996 brochure he filled out that went down the memory hole that said he'd "greatly increase" taxes on businesses - ie, eliminate the income tax, keep taxes on businesses that receive government benefits, and by doing that, you've effectively "raised taxes" on businesses relative to individuals.

It's also voluntarist.

[harikaried]

OK, so I can surmise you are okay with these individuals simply sitting on their wealth?How do these individuals sit on their wealth?

[pcosmar]

But of course that is not what he said. The video is posted to hear his exact words.

But it is much more fun to argue about misconceptions and disinformation than honestly examining an issue.

:rolleyes:

[Pizzo]

Well in Honesty I had never heard of it before. There are discussions on the Idea,, and variations of the idea.
Particularly aimed at the speculators and the FED, to reign in the corruption and market manipulation.

How it would work exactly, or what form it would take is the subject of several discussions.
Perhaps not exactly what Tobin proposed,, but a variation on the theme.

Some supporters of the transaction tax : George Soros, Bill Gates, The Vatican, Many EU officials, The United Nations, etc. This tax is and always was about control. I don't see how this would hurt the Fed. I don't think there is anything wrong with speculation. Anyone who invests in anything is a speculator. The problem is bailing out those who should fail. This "tax" does nothing to stop that. The OWS protestors advocating the transaction tax probably do not realize they are playing into the very hands of the banks they are marching against by pushing something that would give more control to the big banks and while pension and retirement funds are churned to death. Also, this plan only really "works" if it is agreed upon and applied across the globe. If you have a global tax, you will likely get a global tax collector. I have no urge to see the creation of a United Internal Revenue Service.

[Ronulus]

OK, so I can surmise you are okay with these individuals simply sitting on their wealth? I know that taxation isn't the best means of accomplishing a greater equality, and I know many conservatives don't concern themselves too much with these types of issues, but what is to be done here? I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you at all, because I don't know the answer to this question myself (I don't think anyone does, really), but do we simply let it go? I do agree with your point about the policy needing to be changed, obviously. :)

If they sit on their wealth what do they themselves gain from it? How do they keep the wealth coming in when they do not use that wealth to hire employees and spend it on investments?

[Brian4Liberty]

OK, so I can surmise you are okay with these individuals simply sitting on their wealth? I know that taxation isn't the best means of accomplishing a greater equality, and I know many conservatives don't concern themselves too much with these types of issues, but what is to be done here? I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you at all, because I don't know the answer to this question myself (I don't think anyone does, really), but do we simply let it go? I do agree with your point about the policy needing to be changed, obviously. :)

If nothing illegal took place, there is no legitimate way to get the money back. Now if you prosecuted all of the crimes related to the financial crisis, you could get a portion back.

[pcosmar]

Some supporters of the transaction tax : George Soros, Bill Gates, The Vatican, Many EU officials, The United Nations, etc. This tax is and always was about control. I don't see how this would hurt the Fed. I don't think there is anything wrong with speculation. Anyone who invests in anything is a speculator. The problem is bailing out those who should fail. This "tax" does nothing to stop that. The OWS protestors advocating the transaction tax probably do not realize they are playing into the very hands of the banks they are marching against by pushing something that would give more control to the big banks and while pension and retirement funds are churned to death. Also, this plan only really "works" if it is agreed upon and applied across the globe. If you have a global tax, you will likely get a global tax collector. I have no urge to see the creation of a United Internal Revenue Service.

I agree with you. As i said,, the Idea, and variations of it have been floated.
I have heard it being mentioned but had never really studied it or even heard of it before this.

The talk I had heard was related to high frequency trading,, and the idea was that it would effect the banks and securities rather than day traders or honest business.
The intention was to target the Fed and connected banks. But I have no idea really.
Just mentioning that the idea is floating around.

I prefer the idea of reclaiming treasure from the thieves, By force if necessary and issuing a new currency entirely separate from the world banks.

but, I'm just a guy,, you know

[spudea]

end subsidies, tax loopholes, BAILOUTS, and special privaliges. THANK YOU RON PAUL

[Brian4Liberty]

"They should not only be taxed, but they should have all their benefits removed."

What exactly does he mean by that?

I interpreted it to mean, in the context of the video, that there should be no crony favoritism in the tax code, or any part of government. (i.e. GE pays zero taxes now).


Go to 10:20 in this video. Actually the entire video is pretty good from Ron Paul's standpoint. The interviewer is kind of a douche.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPNZdOEkVo0#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPNZdOEkVo0#!

Thank you! Excellent video. As usual, Ron Paul gets it right.

[Rothbardian Girl]

If they sit on their wealth what do they themselves gain from it? How do they keep the wealth coming in when they do not use that wealth to hire employees and spend it on investments?
Why do the top 1% of this country control 42% of all wealth? (http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/) Unfortunately, this article doesn't mention the Federal Reserve as a cause of the 2008 meltdown, but when has it ever been more evident that something is seriously wrong with this corporate socialism model that we have today? I mean, this is all stuff we've been talking about here... but I guess my main point is that most of the wealth that has been amassed has been through a continuing system of moral hazard. I don't have problems with people investing, I have problems with people investing and then expecting a bailout by the American taxpayer when they do so. I think this has been a longstanding pattern of behavior, so that is what I meant with my "sitting on the wealth" comment.

EDIT: There was some hope in the comments on that article, where a Ron Paul supporter mentions the Federal Reserve's role in the crisis (and a quite funny reply by "alex" to that comment). The article has a somewhat weak conclusion, but it is full of perfectly justifiable outrage at the system of quasi-feudalism we have today.

[sailingaway]

Oops! Hope this sort of thing doesn't lose Ron Paul support on this very forum! I agree with him almost 100%, by the way (I am not sure about the whole taxation thing because the last thing I want is for more money to be flowing towards the government for its nefarious purposes; maybe I am misunderstanding his argument here), but it's going to be very hard for him to extrapolate on those comments, as the article mentioned. I think our system as it actually exists now is going to be extremely hard to totally correct, because it's not always clear to what extent the rich benefit from government policies, and then the question becomes "what mechanisms do we use to correct the gap" between the rich and the middle class and poorer people. I don't agree with Ron that the solution is taxation. Maybe as a temporary measure, but it should not become permanent, as it most likely will once Ron is out of office.

Still, this definitely has a more "liberal" bent to it, and I just wonder how well this is actually going to go over with the GOP folks. I think if the comments are sufficiently explained, we can get people to agree. But if they are taken out of context, people are going to be alienated. We do have to be very, very careful about "explaining" this, I think.

He was just speaking quickly. He just meant Warren had a point that those billionaires unfairly got their wealth, as opposed to others who got their wealth fairly. The whole point of the discussion was Ron arguing AGAINST Warren's statements that just generally because they too use public roads, billionaires should be taxed more than they are now.

[lucent]

I say go one step further. Seize the Federal Reserve assets and all the assets of all the top banks that have controlling interest in it and then auction the legitimate assets off.

[Brett85]

OK, so I can surmise you are okay with these individuals simply sitting on their wealth? I know that taxation isn't the best means of accomplishing a greater equality, and I know many conservatives don't concern themselves too much with these types of issues, but what is to be done here? I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you at all, because I don't know the answer to this question myself (I don't think anyone does, really), but do we simply let it go? I do agree with your point about the policy needing to be changed, obviously. :)

If these people actually did something illegal to get their wealth, they should be put in jail. If not, the government shouldn't do anything about it. Raising taxes should never be the answer.

[Brett85]

He's advocating taxing businesses that receive government benefits. It fits with the 1996 brochure he filled out that went down the memory hole that said he'd "greatly increase" taxes on businesses - ie, eliminate the income tax, keep taxes on businesses that receive government benefits, and by doing that, you've effectively "raised taxes" on businesses relative to individuals.

It's also voluntarist.

I certainly hope that isn't the case. Having a special tax on certain businesses is clearly unconstitutional. The solution should be to simply get rid of the benefits. Raising taxes isn't "voluntarist." It's socialist.

[Brett85]

end subsidies, tax loopholes, BAILOUTS, and special privaliges. THANK YOU RON PAUL

I wouldn't end the tax loopholes. We need as many tax loopholes as possible. The less money flowing into the federal government, the better.

[Brian4Liberty]

I wouldn't end the tax loopholes. We need as many tax loopholes as possible. The less money flowing into the federal government, the better.

Tax loopholes are written by and for cronies.

[Brett85]

Tax loopholes are written by and for cronies.

I would go along with ending the tax loopholes if the overall rates were lowered as well. But simply eliminating tax loopholes would be a tax increase that I couldn't support.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I certainly hope that isn't the case. Having a special tax on certain businesses is clearly unconstitutional. The solution should be to simply get rid of the benefits. Raising taxes isn't "voluntarist." It's socialist.

Paying for services is voluntarist, and the example I provided would only raise taxes on corporations relative to their current share of taxation - not as a percentage of their business activity.

[Brett85]

Paying for services is voluntarist, and the example I provided would only raise taxes on corporations relative to their current share of taxation - not as a percentage of their business activity.

Never mind. I see what you mean now. But I think in Ron's most recent proposal, he advocated cutting the corporate income tax rate to 15%. Ultimately, I think he's said before that the only type of taxes we should have are tariffs and excise taxes.

[Acala]

Ron Paul is the only person who could bring together OWS and the Tea Party.

This exactly. Like a diamond cutter he strikes at the exact point that causes the crud to fall away and leave the gem.

The real, non-neocon Tea Party and the smart, non-socialist OWS have enough common ground to go forward together.

[Brett85]

This exactly. Like a diamond cutter he strikes at the exact point that causes the crud to fall away and leave the gem.

The real, non-neocon Tea Party and the smart, non-socialist OWS have enough common ground to go forward together.

I still haven't seen any evidence of a significant faction of OWS that's non-socialist.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Never mind. I see what you mean now. But I think in Ron's most recent proposal, he advocated cutting the corporate income tax rate to 15%. Ultimately, I think he's said before that the only type of taxes we should have are tariffs and excise taxes.

He wants zero tariffs, but you're right, in his ideal society, there wouldn't be income or corporate taxes.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why would you tax them? A tax is a theft, which the Government receives. You should absolutely seize their assets and give the money and property back to each individual who was robbed to give these rackets graft. You will never see a dime of that money that you are going to tax them, and of course, they aren't going to single out the companies who received Government grants, privileges, and immunities. They own the Government. Any money taken from these entities should go to the people, not to the Government! Other than that, I agree with Ron.

[Brian4Liberty]

I would go along with ending the tax loopholes if the overall rates were lowered as well. But simply eliminating tax loopholes would be a tax increase that I couldn't support.

Agree. Eliminate income tax altogether, or lower it and simplify it dramatically.

[Acala]

I still haven't seen any evidence of a significant faction of OWS that's non-socialist.

Just this morning I went over to the local version - Occupy Tucson. About fifty tents pitched in a small park in the center of downtown. It was clean and well-organized. No trash, porta pottys in place with a hand sanitizer table and instructions, a welcome area with instructive signs. Out of all the signs I saw, there was only one that I would quibble with because it called out "the rich" as a class. Other than that, it was all "end the war", "end crony capitalism", "end the bailouts" and "love is the answer". All ideas with which I agree. I couldn't stop to chat, but I left a stack of flyers I made with quotations from Lord Acton on corruption, banks, and liberty. And I tossed some cash in the pot. I think I will be going back.





Have you visited your local OWS? Or are you basing your opinion on the tee vee news?

[Rothbardian Girl]

Why would you tax them? A tax is a theft, which the Government receives. You should absolutely seize their assets and give the money and property back to each individual who was robbed to give these rackets graft. You will never see a dime of that money that you are going to tax them, and of course, they aren't going to single out the companies who received Government grants, privileges, and immunities. They own the Government. Any money taken from these entities should go to the people, not to the Government! Other than that, I agree with Ron.

I agree, but I am not sure how the money could be returned to each individual.

Also, I don't have any exact proportions for anyone, but I am quite sure there are a few libertarian socialists at OWS - with whom I have no problem. Socialist != big government nanny-stater. I just want to make sure we're not subscribing to that misconception automatically.

[pcosmar]

I still haven't seen any evidence of a significant faction of OWS that's non-socialist.

That is only because you deliberately chose not to. I have posted plenty.

[Travlyr]

That is only because you deliberately chose not to. I have posted plenty.
Yes, Pcosmar, but that information doesn't fit the agenda.

[Brett85]

Just this morning I went over to the local version - Occupy Tucson. About fifty tents pitched in a small park in the center of downtown. It was clean and well-organized. No trash, porta pottys in place with a hand sanitizer table and instructions, a welcome area with instructive signs. Out of all the signs I saw, there was only one that I would quibble with because it called out "the rich" as a class. Other than that, it was all "end the war", "end crony capitalism", "end the bailouts" and "love is the answer". All ideas with which I agree. I couldn't stop to chat, but I left a stack of flyers I made with quotations from Lord Acton on corruption, banks, and liberty. And I tossed some cash in the pot. I think I will be going back.





Have you visited your local OWS? Or are you basing your opinion on the tee vee news?

I don't have a local OWS, as far as I know. I'm basing my opinion on the news and the fact that my two far left uncles are part of Occupy Wall Street. Believe me, they aren't simply protesting "crony capitalism." They're protesting capitalism in general.

[Brett85]

Also, I don't have any exact proportions for anyone, but I am quite sure there are a few libertarian socialistsat OWS.

Isn't that term an oxy-moron?

[Rothbardian Girl]

Isn't that term an oxy-moron?
If you want the brief answer, the answer would be no. A good example of a libertarian socialist would probably be Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker). It is an unfortunate fact of history that the Marxists kind of stole the term socialism and warped its meaning into an ideology advocating a giant state. Basically, the only thing that libertarian socialists and state socialists have in common is the acceptance of the labor theory of value, although contemporary libertarian socialist thinking has revised the LToV to rectify some common criticisms. I'm actually reading a book on it right now, and I'll be happy to share what I've learned once I finish it.

[Brett85]

If you want the brief answer, the answer would be no. A good example of a libertarian socialist would probably be Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker). It is an unfortunate fact of history that the Marxists kind of stole the term socialism and warped its meaning into an ideology advocating a giant state. Basically, the only thing that libertarian socialists and state socialists have in common is the acceptance of the labor theory of value, although contemporary libertarian socialist thinking has revised the LToV to rectify some common criticisms. I'm actually reading a book on it right now, and I'll be happy to share what I've learned once I finish it.

If that's the case, what's the difference between libertarian socialism and regular libertarianism?

[zade]

If you want the brief answer, the answer would be no. A good example of a libertarian socialist would probably be Benjamin Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker). It is an unfortunate fact of history that the Marxists kind of stole the term socialism and warped its meaning into an ideology advocating a giant state. Basically, the only thing that libertarian socialists and state socialists have in common is the acceptance of the labor theory of value, although contemporary libertarian socialist thinking has revised the LToV to rectify some common criticisms. I'm actually reading a book on it right now, and I'll be happy to share what I've learned once I finish it.

Exactly.

“There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other."