PDA

View Full Version : Social Libertarian?




electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 02:54 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.


"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Alex Libman
12-25-2007, 04:03 AM
In other words, everyone has a "right" to put a gun to someone else's head and extract the wealth that someone else created for their own needs? (Oh, that's right, only "special" people can do that, the government, then it's OK... Right?)

And who decides what's "adequate", is a ten-million-dollar operation to extend someone's life by a couple of years now a right? Is a team of doctors needed to perform the thousands of total hours necessary to take care of that patient expected to work for free? Who's going to pay them a competitive wage? If 30% of the population would benefit from a surgery like that to extend the end of their lives, what would the tax rate have to be to provide that?

Remember, you can't tax over 100%! In reality, actually, you can't even tax over 50%, because all the smart doctors will simply leave the country! Or, someday, if it comes to that, the planet. Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!

Did you know that after WW2 the Soviet Union, the country in which I was born, killed tens of thousands of its own disabled veterans, even decorated heroes in some cases? They herded them on barges and dumped them in the middle of the sea! Seriously! That's what socialized medicine gets you - not only no incentive to innovate, but no incentive to keep the patient alive!

Now, what I do believe in is voluntary charity. While I will fight the government for every penny it wants to steal from me, I'd gladly give half my income to non-governmental efforts that I find worth-while. I don't want to live in a community that doesn't take care of its own! And private charities must compete for funds, so there is no corruption and high incentive for innovation - teaching a man to fish instead of making him depended on someone else's fish. That's why I firmly believe that the most libertarian societies will also be the most humane!

noztnac
12-25-2007, 04:08 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

Just call yourself a benevolent idealistic socialist.

Antonius Stone
12-25-2007, 04:18 AM
the only "socialized service" that i support beyond the usual gimmes (fire dept, police) is education, because it teaches people how to fish and not be dependent on the government

I do think that civil/military service should be compulsory however. Everyone should serve at least 1 year

foofighter20x
12-25-2007, 04:44 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

If you honestly believe that a person has a right to anything which someone else must provide for free, then you aren't a libertarian.

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 04:44 AM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

JosephTheLibertarian
12-25-2007, 05:13 AM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

you lefties trying to steal our new name? you already fucked up the word 'liberal' for us :mad:

I think you're a libertarian-leaning liberal btw

Alex Libman
12-25-2007, 05:30 AM
Let's call ourselves "selfish capitalist pigs against all regulation and social services" - they'll never steal that! ;)

jorlowitz
12-25-2007, 05:37 AM
Don't know why people here get so nasty. It's not like you can't support Dr. Paul AND disagree with him or find different approaches interesting. The best way to make your argument would be to acknowledge that though you support preventing the government from limiting what people can do you also support programs at the government level which promote a certain level of equality. It's an interesting question how you can be against government force or coercion in one instance and for it in others... i think it is worth more discussion. Maybe people on this forum will at least allow it without pretending you're insane (though your label does seem like a bit of a stretch, I'd just ditch it... besides, what typically characterizes a social libertarian but a fiscal liberal is a word most people already know well: Democrat).

JosephTheLibertarian
12-25-2007, 05:45 AM
Let's call ourselves "selfish capitalist pigs against all regulation and social services" - they'll never steal that! ;)

Most libertarians aren't rich, common misconception :p I went to public schools!! middle class here

constituent
12-25-2007, 06:11 AM
actually, i believe the 'free market' is the only option if you consider yourself any stripe of "socialist"

why?

because we know that government never helps the poor... you don't even really get a say.

and when the government is screwing everyone (as happened in Russia), you don't have an
alternative and everyone really really suffers...

no bueno.

however, the burgeoning not for profit industry provides an excellent outlet for "socially" minded
individuals, particularly libertarians, to do their work on an entirely voluntary basis while those performing
the associated tasks still get paid competitive wages (or volunteer, w/e)....

w/out taxation. w/out coercion.

noxagol
12-25-2007, 07:48 AM
Well, if you aren't going to have the government steal all the money to fund all of these "rights", or force them to provide the service at gun point, then how will these people get their "right" fullfilled. You sir, are confused on what libertarian means.

werdd
12-25-2007, 07:51 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

While that truly would be the best of both worlds i think this is impossible. Without an income tax you cant perform these functions of a nanny state.

Fox McCloud
12-25-2007, 07:58 AM
Um, I don't believe that the government should provide any social services, except for protection, immigration control, minor regulation (ie: incredibly minor) here and there, and that's about it.

I support laissez-faire Free Markets, and just about as much social freedom.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, however, as I do think there needs to be some government...it just needs to be exceedingly small.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 08:08 AM
Just call yourself a benevolent idealistic socialist.

QFMFT!

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 08:11 AM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

Those "rights" have to be paid for by someone's efforts. Are you going to pay for those "rights"? Are those "rights" going to be paid for voluntarily? If not, you're a Socialist, and calling yourself a Libertarian is nothing but a LIE.

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 08:28 AM
I am a Social Libertarian.

My biggest concern in electing any libertarian to office would be that true libertarian principles might be corrupted by posers. Based on the so-called "rights" you described, you sound more like a communist.

Sandy
12-25-2007, 08:32 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

Where did this come from? Who wrote this? I would like a source and an internet link, I bet I could find something similar written by the UN. There is a difference between inalienable rights, and what certain people are calling 'human rights' in order to justify communism which is about slavery, oppression, and ends up involving genocide and much more. That Declaration sounds nice, but that's how communism is sold, by appealing to emotions and using fluffy, unrealistic idealism.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 08:50 AM
My biggest concern in electing any libertarian to office would be that true libertarian principles might be corrupted by posers. Based on the so-called "rights" you described, you sound more like a communist. You are one of the posers I fear.

No doubt this person is a poser. These "rights" fail the "Who Pays?" test.

ALWAYS ask the question "Who Pays?" That's the ONE question that will define a program or "right" as libertarian or not. If the issue is to be settled at the end of a gun, whether that gun is in private or public hands, then it's not libertarian.

The initiation of force can NEVER be libertarian. If you're going to pay for something with taxation, which is the initiation of force, it's not libertarian.

constituent
12-25-2007, 08:53 AM
wow. i was kinda hoping for a response from the OP... seems only interested in responding to those who disagree...


even though this is a thread for similarly minded individuals????


i don't get it.

mosquitobite
12-25-2007, 09:03 AM
LOL! perhaps he/she is a neo-con sent to infiltrate to see how many "liberals" there are supporting Dr Paul. So they could go back to their site and say "see?? A Ha! Soros IS funding Dr Paul's campaign!"

:D

querty
12-25-2007, 09:05 AM
You could say that the right to "life" includes such basic things that are necessary for living (food, water). I happen to disagree with this, but it's a valid argument.

Corydoras
12-25-2007, 09:06 AM
People having a "right" to a minimal standard of living and a safety net isn't an alternative way of phrasing "I think it would be good if people have" these things.

I conjecture that what you're really trying to do is to protest to your Inner Liberal Guilt that you don't like taxes but you aren't heartless.

But around here I don't think you'll find a lot of people calling you heartless for disliking taxes.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 09:07 AM
I've seen so many posts like this and the "Kuchinich for VP" that I'm about convinced the "Ron Paul Movement" will prove to be a Chimera in the long haul. Vote in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=65082

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 12:30 PM
The goverment could issue bonds and use that money to give loan to individuals who would form companies. A percentage of those companies profits would be used to help those with low income and pay for a proper basic healthcare and some welfare situations or etc.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 12:42 PM
The goverment could issue bonds and use that money to give loan to individuals who would form companies. A percentage of those companies profits would be used to help those with low income and pay for a proper basic healthcare and some welfare situations or etc.

Why would the government need to issue the bonds? A brokerage house could handle this no problem if the business plan is realistic. If the business plan's not good, why should taxpayers subsidize a business that can't make money? Why would companies give up their profits by being financed by the government when they could go to the free market and get financing there?

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 01:08 PM
The goverment could issue bonds and use that money to give loan to individuals who would form companies.

How is this not communistic? Dude, you're really in the wrong place! :rolleyes:

kalami
12-25-2007, 01:29 PM
The goverment could issue bonds and use that money to give loan to individuals who would form companies. A percentage of those companies profits would be used to help those with low income and pay for a proper basic healthcare and some welfare situations or etc.

You neglect what incentives would be created. The government sucks at making investments because they don't use their own money. The system you suggest would result in a lot of rent seeking. People would try to manipulate the system for gains, rather than trying to be productive by providing a good or service. Also, companies sharing profits to pay for equity, that already happens.

ThePieSwindler
12-25-2007, 02:03 PM
I know how we can help the poor! Increase everyones standard of living through 0 tariffs, unregulated businesses that can make wiser and more profitable decisions, thus they will have more earnings, more profit, and will be able to employ more workers (thus unemployment drops),

You see, the "poor" are alwasy getting richer with every generation - in the poorest county of the poorest state (mississippi), more than 50% of resident own televisions, more than 40% own cars, and 30% own washing machines.... think about that - thats the POOREST OF THE POOR in the united states. In fact, median household income in the united states has doubled in constant dollars at least 3-4 times in the past century (constant dollars meaning dollars adjusted for one time period's, thus it ignores inflation and just accounts for say, 1970 income equivalent in 1950 dollars, vs actual 1950 incomes). Of course all those times include before and after the new deal, but not during. Interesting. For the poorest of the poor, there is a decent network of chartiies that would be even more extensive if there was less of a general tax burden and if the rich were even more prosperous - for as profits and salaries and even wages fall, charitable giving falls even faster as there is less excess money for the kind-hearted rich to give to charity. Even better, is that there is so much economic mobility in the United States compared to many other countries, that its not the same people who remain in the "lower teirs". And as the rich get richer, the poor get somewhat richer, and in terms of purchasing power parity, the poor get alot richer. They can buy high quality food for cheap from massive super-chain grocery stores. They can buy cheap necessities at places like walmart and target. The biggest issue among poor people is not food nor utilities - the lower quartile has one of the higher obesity rates. Rent and utility payments are actually the biggest issue for low income single people. It is less of an issue for families, as marriage tends to decrease poverty significantly on the whole.

Capitalism, large capital concentration, high business profits, and low taxation of any sort (especially of foreign imports) are the key to "helping" the poor. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day... teach a man to fish, or at least allow him the freedom and means to do so, and he is fed for a lifetime.

To the OP, you seem more of a libertarian with some left-leaning tendancies, rather than a "social libertarian", which i see as someone who have a very live and let live social philosophy, as compared to social liberals, who have some different views which i would consider "social", but are actually very restrictive - for example, smoking bans, gun control, and racial politics are all "left" social views, but i would hardly consider them "socially permissive". I think social libertarianism is a distinct social view that blends some conservative positions (gun rights, meritocracy, perhaps pro life etc) and some liberal ones (freedom of sexuality, expression, perhaps pro-choice etc)

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 02:28 PM
I'm not a communist I simply think rights exist and one of those rights is the right to be healthy.

Corydoras
12-25-2007, 02:31 PM
Dude, that's seriously screwed up.
You just mean you wish all people were healthy...
I hope that's what you mean.

jamesmadison
12-25-2007, 02:34 PM
That stance is perfectly reasonable and people who disagree with it don't really understand the nature of liberty.

If such was not the case we would not expect a federal government to protect us against invasion - since, in that case it acts as an agent of security for the private property within its borders.

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 02:53 PM
I'm not a communist I simply think rights exist and one of those rights is the right to be healthy.

The idea that health is a right is absurd. If you have cancer, is government obligated to provide a cure? We're all supposed to go broke just trying to keep you alive? Who are you to deserve such special treatment anyway? Einstein? People die every day....that is part of life and is natural.

You have a right to seek healthcare, but not at anyone else's expense.

jamesmadison
12-25-2007, 02:56 PM
The idea that health is a right is absurd. If you have cancer, is government obligated to provide a cure? We're all supposed to go broke just trying to keep you alive? Who are you to deserve such special treatment anyway? Einstein? People die every day....that is part of life and is natural.

You have a right to seek healthcare, but not at anyone else's expense.

If you're invaded, by a foreign country, is the federal government obligated to come to your protection?

We're all supposed to go broke if Mexico wants california back? Do all the californians deserve such special treatment anyway? Einstein? People get invaded every decade... that is part of life and is natural.



You see, some people here love to make arguments in favor of something, or against something based on preconceptions of what they heard or opinions of other s- without really thinking logically of the positions for themselves.

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 03:05 PM
If you're invaded, by a foreign country, is the federal government obligated to come to your protection?

Under the US Constitution as currently adopted? Yes....in part. Under anarchy? No. My defense is my responsibility alone and/or those I might persuade to protect/defend me.

I can't believe this would be discussed on ronpaulforums.com. If you want universal healthcare, pursue an amendment....but don't expect it to get very far.

You and the OP are not voting for Ron Paul, are you?

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 03:14 PM
Cancer is not a curable disease but you do have every right to treatment for it.

jamesmadison
12-25-2007, 03:16 PM
Under the US Constitution as currently adopted? Yes....in part. Under anarchy? No. My defense is my responsibility alone and/or those I might persuade to protect/defend me.

I can't believe this would be discussed on ronpaulforums.com. If you want universal healthcare, pursue an amendment....but don't expect it to get very far.

You and the OP are not voting for Ron Paul, are you?

Uh.. so liberty is defined by the US constitution?

Try to come up with an original argument that withholds the scrutiny of logic next time.

If you support federal standing armies that protect citizens this is a form of socialism just as any healthcare is.

JosephTheLibertarian
12-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Uh.. so liberty is defined by the US constitution?

Try to come up with an original argument that withholds the scrutiny of logic next time.

If you support federal standing armies that protect citizens this is a form of socialism just as any healthcare is.

The Constitution was meant to be a contract with the states to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Will the US government come to our aid if we're invaded? Stupid question.

Fact is, you're a libertarian-leaning liberal.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Cancer is not a curable disease but you do have every right to treatment for it.

At whose expense? Who pays the medical bill incurred from the exercising of this "right"?

jamesmadison
12-25-2007, 03:23 PM
The Constitution was meant to be a contract with the states to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Will the US government come to our aid if we're invaded? Stupid question.

Fact is, you're a libertarian-leaning liberal.

No, i'm just a rational thinker.

1) the constitution does not guarantee liberty and should not be referenced when discussing liberty.
2) federal armies are a form of socialism.

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 03:33 PM
No, i'm just a rational thinker.

Says who? Your mother?

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 03:39 PM
Cancer is not a curable disease but you do have every right to treatment for it.

You have a right to seek treatment for it, but I am under no obligation to pay for your treatment. If your so-called "right" involves the use of force to extract payment, the proper name for that is theft.:rolleyes:

literatim
12-25-2007, 04:19 PM
Marxism is like a cancer. It tries to adopt the name of an opposing view point and eat away at it until it takes over the name. It did it with liberal, conservative, and now libertarian.

foofighter20x
12-25-2007, 04:20 PM
The Constitution was meant to be a contract with the states to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Will the US government come to our aid if we're invaded? Stupid question.

Fact is, you're a libertarian-leaning liberal.

Uh, no. The Constitution was not put before the States for ratification. It was put before the people to decide.

Your state compact argument fails when held to the basic facts of history.

Now, the Articles of Confederation... Yeah, that was a compact between the states. But the Constitution never was such a thing.

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 06:50 PM
You have a right to seek treatment for it, but I am under no obligation to pay for your treatment. If your so-called "right" involves the use of force to extract payment, the proper name for that is theft.:rolleyes:

Wrong. You have every right to seek treatment and get it even if you can't afford it and if you can't afford it then it should not negatively effect your credit or your possibility of future attainments of any form.

RedLightning
12-25-2007, 07:43 PM
I've seen so many posts like this and the "Kuchinich for VP" that I'm about convinced the "Ron Paul Movement" will prove to be a Chimera in the long haul.

I agree, alot of "liberals" have been supporting Ron Paul which is great, just don't start calling yourselfs libertarians if your not.

Corydoras
12-25-2007, 07:46 PM
Wrong. You have every right to seek treatment and get it even if you can't afford it and if you can't afford it then it should not negatively effect your credit or your possibility of future attainments of any form.

This article explains the fallacy of the right to healthcare:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=5058

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 07:50 PM
Wrong. You have every right to seek treatment and get it even if you can't afford it and if you can't afford it then it should not negatively effect your credit or your possibility of future attainments of any form.

Who pays for it then? Are the doctors forced to work on your case for free? Is the hospital forced to give you room, board, and free procedures and tests? Those are all forms of theft from the rightful owners of the labor and the hospital.

noztnac
12-25-2007, 07:50 PM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

You can't post that you are a libertarian and then rant on about a right to health and not expect criticism. First you wanted to demand that we pay for other people's healthcare and now you want to lay claim to a thread and ban free speech. Face it: You are not a libertarian. Please refrain in the future from misusing the term.

xao
12-25-2007, 07:55 PM
dbl post

xao
12-25-2007, 07:56 PM
In other words, everyone has a "right" to put a gun to someone else's head and extract the wealth that someone else created for their own needs? (Oh, that's right, only "special" people can do that, the government, then it's OK... Right?)

And who decides what's "adequate", is a ten-million-dollar operation to extend someone's life by a couple of years now a right? Is a team of doctors needed to perform the thousands of total hours necessary to take care of that patient expected to work for free? Who's going to pay them a competitive wage? If 30% of the population would benefit from a surgery like that to extend the end of their lives, what would the tax rate have to be to provide that?

Remember, you can't tax over 100%! In reality, actually, you can't even tax over 50%, because all the smart doctors will simply leave the country! Or, someday, if it comes to that, the planet. Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!

Did you know that after WW2 the Soviet Union, the country in which I was born, killed tens of thousands of its own disabled veterans, even decorated heroes in some cases? They herded them on barges and dumped them in the middle of the sea! Seriously! That's what socialized medicine gets you - not only no incentive to innovate, but no incentive to keep the patient alive!

Now, what I do believe in is voluntary charity. While I will fight the government for every penny it wants to steal from me, I'd gladly give half my income to non-governmental efforts that I find worth-while. I don't want to live in a community that doesn't take care of its own! And private charities must compete for funds, so there is no corruption and high incentive for innovation - teaching a man to fish instead of making him depended on someone else's fish. That's why I firmly believe that the most libertarian societies will also be the most humane!


You nailed it.

xao
12-25-2007, 07:57 PM
If you honestly believe that a person has a right to anything which someone else must provide for free, then you aren't a libertarian.

Well said.

xao
12-25-2007, 08:05 PM
Um, I don't believe that the government should provide any social services, except for protection, immigration control, minor regulation (ie: incredibly minor) here and there, and that's about it.

I support laissez-faire Free Markets, and just about as much social freedom.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, however, as I do think there needs to be some government...it just needs to be exceedingly small.


Immigration control can be sorted out by modern day minutemen. At the borders. People would already be armed and protecting the borders if it wasn't for the govt trying to tell people that they can't do it.

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 08:15 PM
Basic goods are not taxable but something has to be taxed. Its unrealistic to havea goverment that doesn't tax things. I think luxury goods like recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco ought to be taxed. I think its completely realistic for the goverment to tax some things like those. And I also think that health is a right.

Yes taxation is theft. But you can't do away with all taxation thats anarchy. People have a right to health and there is no getting around that. Sorry.

Ronnec
12-25-2007, 08:33 PM
Taxation is theft? Taxation is the hallmark of civilization.

FreeTraveler
12-25-2007, 08:41 PM
Taxation is theft? Taxation is the hallmark of civilization.

OMG, I'm speechless... and that almost NEVER happens to me.

Free exchange, indoor plumbing, commerce, science; those are all much better hallmarks of civilization. Taxation is the carryover of pre-civilized man, where the strongest took what they wanted from the weak. Institutionalizing theft and giving it a fancy new name doesn't change the act at all.

noztnac
12-25-2007, 08:44 PM
Taxation is theft? Taxation is the hallmark of civilization.

You are either being sarcastic or you are on the wrong forum.

noztnac
12-25-2007, 08:53 PM
Uh, no. The Constitution was not put before the States for ratification. It was put before the people to decide.

Your state compact argument fails when held to the basic facts of history.

Now, the Articles of Confederation... Yeah, that was a compact between the states. But the Constitution never was such a thing.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The states ratified the constitution. What distinction are you making between the states and the people?
Do you mean that delegates from each state ratified the constitution in the name of the states? Please clarify. Thanks.

crashm1
12-25-2007, 09:17 PM
Why do people have a "right to health"? Who decided this, is it rational considering that sickness and disease and accident are part of life? Human do have certain inalienble rights but health isn't one of them. I remember when I was reading Heinleins The Moon is a Harsh Mistress the first time and coming upon a couple paragraphs where someone is complaining about being charged for the oxygen they breathed and how they thought they had a right to free air in a place with none. I had to think about it for awhile before realizing that there is no free lunch. I believe you have the right to seek treatment and freely contract for services to be rendered, but that's about as far as I go.

user
12-25-2007, 09:34 PM
Of course you have the right to your beliefs, but you are not a libertarian, so please stop calling yourself one.

CCTelander
12-25-2007, 09:37 PM
I didn't ask for criticism.

Ummm, I hate to have to break this to you but when you post an opinion, especially a controversial one, on a forum populated by thousnads of diverse individuals, you're not only asking for criticism, you're pretty much begging for it!

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 10:43 PM
Ummm, I hate to have to break this to you but when you post an opinion, especially a controversial one, on a forum populated by thousnads of diverse individuals, you're not only asking for criticism, you're pretty much begging for it!

Not at all this was designed for a meeting of similair minds.


Many like us feel the poor deserve a right to have a chance to do the same things that those better off do...

crashm1
12-25-2007, 10:56 PM
Not at all this was designed for a meeting of similair minds.


Many like us feel the poor deserve a right to have a chance to do the same things that those better off do...

We all have a chance thus the words "the pursuit of happiness" there is nothing promising any will catch it.

Goldwater Conservative
12-25-2007, 11:13 PM
the only "socialized service" that i support beyond the usual gimmes (fire dept, police) is education, because it teaches people how to fish and not be dependent on the government

I do think that civil/military service should be compulsory however. Everyone should serve at least 1 year

Interestingly, I think Thomas Jefferson, that great classical liberal, would agree with you:

"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation...I suppose an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied."

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 11:21 PM
Many like us feel the poor deserve a right to have a chance to do the same things that those better off do...

They do...as long as they pay for it themselves. Otherwise, it is theft. Everyone has equal opportunity, but you're expecting equal outcomes for everyone. Sorry, life isn't fair and never will be. Ever heard of Darwin?

Hell, some of the arguments you've made put into the context of the person being an illegal alien would be laughed at by a majority of the US population, i.e., most taxpayers are not at all happy about the number of illegals coming here and making use of "free" healthcare, schools, etc.. Why? Because they've finally recognized that it isn't "free"...they're paying for it and the illegals are not.

Your claim to being a libertarian is about as honest as Bush's claim to being a compassionate conservative. Own up to it! You're a communist!

You sound more like a Hillary supporter....taxpayer supported healthcare is something she supports, but Ron Paul doesn't.

Sey.Naci
12-25-2007, 11:31 PM
Many like us ['social libertarians'] feel the poor deserve a right to have a chance to do the same things that those better off do.For a brief time in my life, I believed as you do. That time coincided with my having been plunged precipitously into unexpected poverty. Didn't take long, however, to recover my original political principles, if not my former middle-class existence.

I remain a member of "the poor" and am now Coordinator of a national movement in Canada of low-income people who work to provide support and self-help to one another. We do not see ourselves as "the poor", "the needy", "the less fortunate", "the vulnerable", ad nauseam. Rather, we see ourselves as no less than individuals and human beings with something to contribute. We still have, e.g., our skills, intelligence, fortitude that we've always had.

Now when it comes to rights and whether we have a right to claim a basic income, minimum wage, health insurance, ..., we recognize that claiming what ethicists and philosophers call "positive rights" via government intervention means forcing others to support us and, ultimately, infringing upon their "negative rights" (those rights which we all have, without reference to manmade law or edict).

Just as we resent being referred to as the needy, the poor, etc., we reject the notion that we have any right to require people to help us. We are, in other words, as emphatically independent as anyone else, be they rich or poor.

Of course, I can speak only on behalf of the low-income people who are connected through my organization. But there are far more of us who think this way than may be supposed. It can be difficult, however, to combat the victimology and dependence that the nanny state encourages - which makes our ability to organize and connect up all the more important.

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 11:39 PM
We all have a chance thus the words "the pursuit of happiness" there is nothing promising any will catch it.

If a poor person is working in infrahuman conditions and gets sick and thefore a whole week or even month of his work week he is unable to work. Say he has a house and a mortage and because he can not work hes unable to pay for that. Say he loses his job. What then? What do you propose he do?

electronicmaji
12-25-2007, 11:43 PM
yes im a dirty communist

I guess ron paul just lost a vote..

ThePieSwindler
12-25-2007, 11:50 PM
yes im a dirty communist

I guess ron paul just lost a vote..

Oh come on now man. Ron paul has nothing to do with his supporters, i thought we learned this with the whole Don Black episode? Ron paul advocates not leaving people out in the streets, and cares deeply for the poor, and has shown this. You are seriously underestimating the power of charity in a healthy economy. That being said, you are free to have your views. Most peoples criticisms were simply that you were not really "libertarian" in the tradition "negative liberty" sense of the word, and i'd agree with that. Not voting for Ron Paul, who im sure you came to for reasons other than his wonderful platform of leaving to poor to die on the streets, would be utterly absurd simply because you received some criticism, maybe a bit too harsh, from some posters in an internet forum.

Think for a sec here, buddy.

Eponym_mi
12-25-2007, 11:55 PM
If a poor person is working in infrahuman conditions and gets sick and thefore a whole week or even month of his work week he is unable to work. Say he has a house and a mortage and because he can not work hes unable to pay for that. Say he loses his job. What then? What do you propose he do?

If the person hasn't bought insurance to address these potential circumstances, they would have to rely on the charity of others.

Insurance companies and charities take a more active role in addressing these situations. For example, they might examine why the person is sick. Do they use drugs and/or alcohol? What are their habits in respect to general health? If working conditions are causing the illness, the employer may be liable.

Government rarely performs well in this capacity because its concerns are political not financial.

Theocrat
12-25-2007, 11:56 PM
Since true liberty in any society comes, ultimately, from God (because He gives us our unalienable rights) when we obey His commandments and laws, I consider myself a social libertarian, based on these two moral precepts:

1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

2. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Social libertarianism is based on love, and only true love comes from God.

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 12:18 AM
If the person hasn't bought insurance to address these potential circumstances, they would have to rely on the charity of others.

Insurance companies and charities take a more active role in addressing these situations. For example, they might examine why the person is sick. Do they use drugs and/or alcohol? What are their habits in respect to general health? If working conditions are causing the illness, the employer may be liable.

Government rarely performs well in this capacity because its concerns are political not financial.

With what money? If your barely making ends meet do you have any idea what insurance would cost you? Jesus.

Eponym_mi
12-26-2007, 12:23 AM
With what money? If your barely making ends meet do you have any idea what insurance would cost you? Jesus.

Which is why I said they would have to rely on charity. Is reading a sentence completely beyond you?

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 02:10 AM
See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.

B9vot3r
12-26-2007, 02:37 AM
i took a couple of those internet polls earlier today to determine where on the 'grid' i stand, and it placed me as a 'commie liberal b****' as well :? When you think about the circumstances of lets say having only those wealthy enough to afford medicine, such as lets say mitt romney, over someone who cant even afford a rent and are evicted or something because they work in perhaps a kitchen which wages have been sunk rock bottom because of the overabundance of cheap, often illegal labor... and you think "wtf, thats just wrong. id much rather see some dude strip a digit's place off of romneys bank account and start treating medical conditions for those that cant afford their daily bread."

But then you also have to think about the expense of those services of which we all have a 'right' to, and how that would be far less of an issue to tackle if the cost of medical services were competitive like most other industries unsubsidized by government.

You could make another hypothetical case where a drug abuser and felon were dying of an illness of his/her own devices, and under that same creed, this person would be able to siphon money from joe-goodyboots who is trying to raise an honest family with moral values and just happened to have a little good fortune in his business affairs along the way. i think people like you and i that lean on that humanitarian side to be far less inclined to apply those same rules in this particular case.

I think the main point standing that those here 'holier than thou' (curse you for being sympathetic at heart, you better leave! because we arent begging for all the supporting members we can find or anything </sarcasm> ) is that the constitution defends the rights of everyone by denying government the ability to meddle in individual affairs in perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately ill-mannered practices which in all cases forces someone to cover that cost (whether it be financial, through services, etc). So the moral argument isnt really what is in question, i think most people here are very sympathetic to those causes as well, they just believe that having government handle these programs at the federal level is unconstitutional and grossly inefficient.

crashm1
12-26-2007, 06:26 AM
If a poor person is working in infrahuman conditions and gets sick and thefore a whole week or even month of his work week he is unable to work. Say he has a house and a mortage and because he can not work hes unable to pay for that. Say he loses his job. What then? What do you propose he do?


Oddly enough I have a cousin who has renal cancer. His friends and coworkers give him money to help out, he has purchased health and disability insurance for years and that is helping him pay for some of his treatment. He will still probably have to sell his house to pay for some of his bills. He originally got disability insurance because he likes to do mountain and rock climbing and thought it might be a prudent investment, it seems to be paying off as are friendships he has made in his life.

constituent
12-26-2007, 06:35 AM
See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.

so, free healthcare is not charity on the part of someone? not the doctors? not the taxpayers whose money was stolen to fund it?

isn't that what you're suggesting when you say that healthcare is a basic right?

healthcare isn't a thing that appears out of thin air, there are material goods and
labor involved... if those are given up without compensation it is one of the following

1) theft
2) soft slavery
3) charity

so, which is it?

Eponym_mi
12-26-2007, 06:45 AM
See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.

Any time you try to compell another person to provide for your life through force, whether directly as an individual or indirectly through gov't, the proper name for this is theft. A person that does this has no morals.

Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf)

FreeTraveler
12-26-2007, 06:48 AM
If a poor person is working in infrahuman conditions and gets sick and thefore a whole week or even month of his work week he is unable to work. Say he has a house and a mortage and because he can not work hes unable to pay for that. Say he loses his job. What then? What do you propose he do?

That's what private charity is for, and YOU are welcome to contribute any amount of YOUR money you choose to, and so are others. You are NOT free, however, to point a gun at MY head and insist I help too. That choice is up to me.

Nevermind... I changed my mind. I've decided everybody has a right to a Ferrari, and we're gonna start with me. Send me $50,000 immediately or I'll send my government goons to collect. :D

aravoth
12-26-2007, 09:18 AM
If you honestly believe that a person has a right to anything which someone else must provide for free, then you aren't a libertarian.

bingo

FunkBuddha
12-26-2007, 09:22 AM
Just curious, electronicmaji, how much did you give to medical charities like St. Jude Children's Hospital last year?

Dr.3D
12-26-2007, 10:02 AM
Since true liberty in any society comes, ultimately, from God (because He gives us our unalienable rights) when we obey His commandments and laws, I consider myself a social libertarian, based on these two moral precepts:

1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

2. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Social libertarianism is based on love, and only true love comes from God.

Then, you shouldn't be worried! People who love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, would love their neighbor as themselves and thus, they would help each other as needed. There would be no need for the government to get involved in any way.

mosquitobite
12-26-2007, 10:17 AM
Basic goods are not taxable but something has to be taxed. Its unrealistic to havea goverment that doesn't tax things. I think luxury goods like recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco ought to be taxed. I think its completely realistic for the goverment to tax some things like those. And I also think that health is a right.

Yes taxation is theft. But you can't do away with all taxation thats anarchy. People have a right to health and there is no getting around that. Sorry.

So let me understand this... you support taxation, you support "free" (HA!) healthcare for the poor...

Why DO you support Dr Paul electronicmaji? Please explain which of his positions you do support, and why so that we can get some insight.

Also, just for the record, Dr Paul despises national healthcare. And please don't expect the man to change his position come Jan 2009 when you charge to Washington "I voted for you and I demand you support my position!"

If you want to believe he's like other politicians and will change his mind, then I suggest you vote for Hillary instead.

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Ron Paul isn't against taxation. Hes only against the irs and excessive taxation at a federal level. Now you can all be anarchists but I believe that taxations are a neccesary evil. While we should not tax basic goods like food and gas and things people need to survive luxury items should be taxed.

I also beleive that the poor have a right to health.

I haven't given any money to charity ever. My family makes less than 20 thousand dollars a year and I have 3 brothers and sisters. I am also the first member of my family to go to college.

Eponym_mi
12-26-2007, 04:23 PM
I haven't given any money to charity ever.

I've given $4500 so far this year to non-religious charities, 90% of that to a cancer support organization. You might prefer to tell me the how and who in respect to my contributions, but I'm very capable of deciding these things on my own quite well, thank you. You see, I really don't need you or government telling me where my money should go. I'll evaluate the needs of my community and act accordingly.

I'm sure you mean well, but you really have no business telling anyone what to do with their money. If this is an important issue to you, I suggest you contribute or volunteer.

BTW...imagine if I didn't have to pay 3 times that amount in taxes.:rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
12-26-2007, 05:48 PM
No, i'm just a rational thinker.

1) the constitution does not guarantee liberty and should not be referenced when discussing liberty.
2) federal armies are a form of socialism.

rational thinker? lol. You have no faith in the market, be honest with yourself.

Zack
12-26-2007, 06:13 PM
I hope everyone on this board is smart enough to know that Ron Paul NEEDS the votes of MANY people who support forced socialism, to win the primaries, or at least the general election. Yes, changing people's view of how government should work is the long term goal, but President Paul's term(s) will be but the first step of many. That road is long, if it exists at all (on a National level).

And there are MANY reasons for socialists to vote for Ron Paul... the obvious ones are that (if you really look at it) he's the only anti-corporatist anti-war candidate out there... but you can even take it further. Take California:

He's running for federal office, not state office. If the FEDERAL government had stayed at constitutional levels for the past 200 years, wouldn't states like California have used their relative power to try out ideas like say, socialized medicine by now, without trying to drag other states into the mud with them? Heck, they probably would have done it in the 1980/70's!! And do you think they would have let their border get out of control if they knew they had to pay for lifelong socialized medice for millions of Mexicans? No, they would have sealed the borders tight as crazy to prevent it. Domino effect.

Would it be a Utopia for socialists or would it be so inefficient by comparison to the other states, that econimic/moral reasons would cause them to drop their ideas? In any event, they'd be better off then they are now. Right now, freedom is outlawed by both the federal government, and the governments of the countries we compete with, so socialists can make claims about who would be hurt, and not have to back it up statistically.

Of corse, Ron Paul makes his views very clear:


In a free society, an individual benefits from wise and frugal decisions and suffers the consequences of bad judgment and wasteful habits. The state should neither guarantee nor tax success, nor compensate those who fail. The individual must be responsible for all of his decisions. Because some suffer from acts outside of their control, we cannot justify the use of violence to take from someone else to "help out." People in need are not excused when they rob their neighbors, and government should not be excused when it does the robbing for them. Providing for the general welfare means that the general conditions of freedom must be maintained. It should never be used to justify specific welfare or any transfer of wealth from one person to another.

-Ron Paul, "Freedom Under Siege"

Sey.Naci
12-26-2007, 07:00 PM
See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.Much of the problem is with the understanding and definition of 'rights'.

You are talking of positive rights as 'basic' rights. They aren't. These so-called rights have been decreed by, for example, supra-national bodies such as the United Nations. They are not god-given or held by us by virtue of our being born (I put it that way to cover the theists and non-theists among us).

We are born with life. Life, essentially, is the only right we have and with it comes the defense of our lives (and by extrapolation, liberty and the fruits of our labour) should anyone try to take it away - this is why negative rights is the term used to describe this type of right.

The rights you are talking about are positive rights, which by their very nature involve the trespassing of the negative rights of others - to take away from their liberty (by, e.g., legislating what they can and cannot do) and the fruits of their labour, both in order to provide for others.

In other words, everyone has negative rights. To encroach upon the negative rights of some in order to provide positive rights to others is wrong.

Theocrat
12-26-2007, 08:11 PM
Then, you shouldn't be worried! People who love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, would love their neighbor as themselves and thus, they would help each other as needed. There would be no need for the government to get involved in any way.

I agree with your observation, Dr.3D, except, as a social libertarian, I do believe that civil government has divine legitimacy to restrain evil and protect the innocent by enforcement of the law (Romans 13:1-4; I Timothy 2:1, 2). Justice and righteousness are hallmarks of any civil government because they reflect the character and love of God.

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 09:41 PM
Much of the problem is with the understanding and definition of 'rights'.

You are talking of positive rights as 'basic' rights. They aren't. These so-called rights have been decreed by, for example, supra-national bodies such as the United Nations. They are not god-given or held by us by virtue of our being born (I put it that way to cover the theists and non-theists among us).

We are born with life. Life, essentially, is the only right we have and with it comes the defense of our lives (and by extrapolation, liberty and the fruits of our labour) should anyone try to take it away - this is why negative rights is the term used to describe this type of right.

The rights you are talking about are positive rights, which by their very nature involve the trespassing of the negative rights of others - to take away from their liberty (by, e.g., legislating what they can and cannot do) and the fruits of their labour, both in order to provide for others.

In other words, everyone has negative rights. To encroach upon the negative rights of some in order to provide positive rights to others is wrong.

I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

user
12-26-2007, 09:43 PM
I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...
In that case, you do not believe in basic property rights, and you are not a libertarian. Do you agree?

JosephTheLibertarian
12-26-2007, 10:23 PM
I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

Basic rights? Government provides poor healthcare. More like a right for the government to burden people and imprison doctors.

Eponym_mi
12-26-2007, 10:43 PM
I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

Don't forget your guns.

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 10:44 PM
I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

forsmant
12-26-2007, 10:48 PM
The Declaration of Independence does not include property as one of the God given rights. If you recall, Jefferson thinks the pursuit of happiness is the third right. I think it was only included because of the Rule of Three. Life and Liberty sounds incomplete. It has no rhythm.

user
12-26-2007, 10:53 PM
I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.
Yes, it does. How do you provide socialist health care without infringing on the property rights of others?

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 11:00 PM
By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...

Eponym_mi
12-26-2007, 11:07 PM
I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

I think you're hopelessly confused. Come back when you actually have property. Maybe then you'll understand that your so-called "right" can only be provided by denying someone else's right to property. You can't get any farther away from libertarianism than that.

Click on the link in my sig...you might learn something.

forsmant
12-26-2007, 11:08 PM
By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...

One could argue that all things are property. If it is ok to tax alcohol than it would be ok to tax a house.

user
12-26-2007, 11:15 PM
By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...
You don't understand what property rights are. Taxes are never voluntary. Any definition of "luxury" you provide is arbitrary.

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 11:24 PM
Even Ron Paul is not crazy enought to think a goverment can not tax at all. Taxes are a evil necessity. I don't think essential goods and income should be taxed but it is not unreasonable for the state to tax uneeded items to build roads and maintain common infrastructure. Anything else is just plain Anarchy.

user
12-26-2007, 11:32 PM
I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people.


"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

You've already contradicted yourself here. Maybe we should just let this thread die so fewer people are tricked into reading your nonsense. This is like starting a thread called, "Short Tall Guy?"

electronicmaji
12-26-2007, 11:43 PM
I never contradicted myself. Just because your one track mind can not see a social service system working without taxation of ones private property does not mean that it can't be so.

The world is not black and white and you absolutism does nothing but discredit Paulites as crazies.

user
12-26-2007, 11:47 PM
I never contradicted myself.


I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people.


Yes taxation is theft. But you can't do away with all taxation

So you've admitted that you support something you call theft. But you also don't think the government has a right to steal. :rolleyes:

AFM
12-27-2007, 12:02 AM
You are what we call a commie.
Which is fine, you have a "right" to your beliefs. You just aren't a libertarian.

user
12-27-2007, 12:47 AM
Haha, here's more from our friend.


I doubt his evolution comments would alienate but the most loyal of the left and those guys are hardly with us anyway. They actually beleive in the Welfare state. It could only help among the right though...

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

I never contradicted myself.

:rolleyes:

topaz420
05-24-2008, 11:44 PM
electronicmaji:

I'm sorry you've been so vehemently attacked in this thread just for not being 112% libertarian (which even the Libertarian Party itself can't claim with their new platform).

I turn to our own Dr. Paul, and the respect with which he views his friend across the aisle, Mr. Dennis Kucinich:

"Dennis is saying things that I say... he and I would come very close on foreign policy... we interpret things in a very similar way. He and I both know we don't agree on a lot of the economic issues. But we're good friends and we talk to each other about it."

evilfunnystuff
05-25-2008, 01:04 AM
electronicmaji you should check out this video individualism vs collectivisim its broken up into 6 parts heres the first 1 i really think it might change your perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA

JosephTheLibertarian
05-25-2008, 01:13 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

Fine. But why imprison doctors into your state run program? Why can't they just opt out and start their own businesses?

foofighter20x
05-25-2008, 02:10 AM
The Constitution was meant to be a contract with the states to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Will the US government come to our aid if we're invaded? Stupid question.

Fact is, you're a libertarian-leaning liberal.


I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The states ratified the constitution. What distinction are you making between the states and the people?
Do you mean that delegates from each state ratified the constitution in the name of the states? Please clarify. Thanks.

The preamble and the fact that popularly-elected ratifying conventions--and not the state governments--put the Constitution into force lays waste to any assertion that the Constitution is a contract between the states.

The Articles of Confederation was a treaty between the 13 states. The Constitution was a popular act of the people.

On the flip side of the coin however, the state governments were given a place within the new federal government; that is, until they idiotically cast away with it under the 17th Amendment.

DriftWood
05-25-2008, 07:03 AM
If you're invaded, by a foreign country, is the federal government obligated to come to your protection?

We're all supposed to go broke if Mexico wants california back? Do all the californians deserve such special treatment anyway? Einstein? People get invaded every decade... that is part of life and is natural.

You see, some people here love to make arguments in favor of something, or against something based on preconceptions of what they heard or opinions of other s- without really thinking logically of the positions for themselves.

Well, I would say that there is a difference (between.. a govt keeping people from dying from violence, compared to sickness or starvation). People forget how and why governments are formed in "the wild". Govt is a natural thing.. its what happens when individuals seek protection from violence with a group. During anarchy and civil war etc.. its hard to stay alive. You really need a group, to protect you from the violence of others. You will pay protection money to the leaders of this group. This groups whole purpose is to have a monopoly on violence in the area that you live in. If someone kills you in the territory that belongs to the group, they have the power to revenge. They are the biggest bully on the block and people don't dear cross them, or anyone in their protection. A govt is much like the biggest bully in school, or the mafia, or the gang leader in prison, their whole purpose is to have a monopoly on violence. And you seek them out and pay them for the service of keeping you safe from violence. Thats all they should do, protect their people from violence of other groups. If some outside group starts to take over the territory, the group leaders will fight back because they don't want to loose out on the protection money that the people there pay. If the former group cant keep the territory, they dont have a monopoly on violence, and the new group is better. The people (if they survive the takeover) will pay the new group protection money instead.

So police, military and judges are necessary to the survival of the govt. Health care and other forms of "public kindness" is not as necessary.

The govt is necessary, but it not your friend.

Cheers

clouds
05-25-2008, 09:10 AM
The Declaration of Independence does not include property as one of the God given rights. If you recall, Jefferson thinks the pursuit of happiness is the third right. I think it was only included because of the Rule of Three. Life and Liberty sounds incomplete. It has no rhythm.

They tended to seek balance in their speeches and sentences, hence using 'pursuit of happiness' instead of 'private property.' The end effect of the line is the same, for you need the ability to acquire the tools required to pursue your happiness.

clouds
05-25-2008, 09:17 AM
Since true liberty in any society comes, ultimately, from God (because He gives us our unalienable rights) when we obey His commandments and laws, I consider myself a social libertarian, based on these two moral precepts:

1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

2. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Social libertarianism is based on love, and only true love comes from God.

These are the greatest verses in the Bible ever. That said, I don't know how you can use this for political thought, as it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

DriftWood
05-25-2008, 10:02 AM
Since true liberty in any society comes, ultimately, from God (because He gives us our unalienable rights) when we obey His commandments and laws, I consider myself a social libertarian, based on these two moral precepts:

1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

2. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Social libertarianism is based on love, and only true love comes from God.

I dont mean to be rude (well maybe a little)

But socialism is based on love.

Capitalism is based on selfishness.

It is very counter intuitive.. but selfishness leads to a society that is better for most people, while love leads to a society that is worse for most people.

Love works really good for small groups of people. Like a family, you know that if you are kind you will be repayed by kindness. And over a lifetime, it all kindof equals out in the end. If someone is only taking and not giving, it becomes clear to everybody and they will get kicked out off the family. Black sheep. Love does not work for big groups though because everyone does not know everyone else and they cant keep track of who takes more than he gives. Thats why money and the price system was invented. That way it all equals out in the end, people get as much as they give. They consume no more than they produce. Its amazing how effective it is. Hundreds of people where involved in making the pen you use to write. And none of them did it because they love you, and these people might even hate each other. The wood might have come from Russia, and the lead(?) might have come US, and it might have been glued together in China. Love could not have accomplished the amazing cooperation that is manifested in the most simple of mass produced items, as a pen.

Edit: I think socialist and conservatives really want the same thing, a society where people are happy. They just disagree on the method. There is a saying.. that anyone not a socialist by the age of 20 has no heart, and anyone still a socialist by the age of forty has no head.

Cheers

pcosmar
05-25-2008, 11:07 AM
I dont mean to be rude (well maybe a little)

But socialism is based on love.

Capitalism is based on selfishness.

It is very counter intuitive.. but selfishness leads to a society that is better for most people, while love leads to a society that is worse for most people.

Love works really good for small groups of people. Like a family, you know that if you are kind you will be repayed by kindness. And over a lifetime, it all kindof equals out in the end. If someone is only taking and not giving, it becomes clear to everybody and they will get kicked out off the family. Black sheep. Love does not work for big groups though because everyone does not know everyone else and they cant keep track of who takes more than he gives. Thats why money and the price system was invented. That way it all equals out in the end, people get as much as they give. They consume no more than they produce. Its amazing how effective it is. Hundreds of people where involved in making the pen you use to write. And none of them did it because they love you, and these people might even hate each other. The wood might have come from Russia, and the lead(?) might have come US, and it might have been glued together in China. Love could not have accomplished the amazing cooperation that is manifested in the most simple of mass produced items, as a pen.

Edit: I think socialist and conservatives really want the same thing, a society where people are happy. They just disagree on the method. There is a saying.. that anyone not a socialist by the age of 20 has no heart, and anyone still a socialist by the age of forty has no head.

Cheers
I believe that you are mistaken on a couple points.
Socialism is not based on love. It is based on control. It redistributes wealth and imposes laws based on an elitist attitude. "we know what is best for you."

DriftWood
05-25-2008, 12:33 PM
I believe that you are mistaken on a couple points.
Socialism is not based on love. It is based on control. It redistributes wealth and imposes laws based on an elitist attitude. "we know what is best for you."

We probably have a bit different definitions of love/selfishness/socialism.. they are not neutral words and are loaded with emotional baggage.

I dont think socialist are bad people, their hearts probably truly aches when they think about the poor. They think that if people just loved their neighbor as much as themselves then there would be no poor people. Clearly the problem is that rich people don't love the poor people enough. So the govt has to regulate the environment and peoples lives so that they would love each other more. They have to take taxes from the people that don't love enough, the rich, and give to the poor.

I don't think chavez or obama for example are a bad people, i just think they are badly misguided and short sighted. They don't understand that the path they walk down will not lead to less poverty and misery, but more. Even when things don't turn out as they hoped, they might think that it would have been worse if they had done nothing. They don't seem to learn from history and other past failures.

I might be a bit different from most RP fans, in that i dont justify morality or political positions from some inalienable fundamental right. I don't think rights are real unless people have the power to protect them. I do think the end justifies the means (consequentialism). The "end" being a society with more happiness, or less misery. The problem is that people are not very clever, and mostly the means don't lead to the end. Its better to do nothing at all than to make things worse. Thats why i think none-intervention is a good idea. Money might not buy happiness but it sure can buy food, shelter, education, a good job, more time with your family, things you enjoy etc. And those things are probably going to make you more happy and less miserable. Thats why i think free market capitalism and libertarianism is a good idea. Thats why i like RP.

If socialisms actually created more happiness and wealth and less misery than the alternatives then i think it would be inhuman not to be a socialist. However socialism clearly does not work in practice, and if you take human nature into account it does not even work in theory.

Cheers

clouds
05-27-2008, 05:51 PM
yeah, I believe most socialists are people with good intentions, but what's that old saying about the road to hell being paved by good intentions... capitalism is based on self-interest, not selfishness, I would say. It's saying an honest day's wages deserve an honest day's pay, and I am free to do with that pay what I want.

Michael Ingram
05-27-2008, 06:17 PM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

That is socialism, not libertarianism in the least.

Michael Ingram
05-28-2008, 10:19 AM
We have a Marxist in our midst.

weslinder
05-28-2008, 10:41 AM
FDR claimed to be a Social Libertarian (not in those words, but I digress).

His Four Freedoms:

Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

Notice that he has no qualms about taking your property. Social Libertarianism is another word for Utopian Socialism, and similarly based on flawed premises.

angelatc
05-28-2008, 10:52 AM
I'm not a communist I simply think rights exist and one of those rights is the right to be healthy.

I think you mean that you are a social liberal, not a social libertarian.

Libertarians don't believe in using force to redistribute wealth.

I also believe that we are born with rights, but i do not believe those rights extend beyond life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I do not believe we have a right to housing, health care, or even food and water.

I do not believe that any person has a "right" to any material thing that they haven't contracted for.

angelatc
05-28-2008, 10:57 AM
I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

Uhm, I think you mean that people have a right to healthcare. I mean, where would a right to health come from? Not all of us are born healthy, so we certainly can't presume it is a right that we are born with.

Money is property. If you support taking money from another person by the use of social force then you are negating your argument, because you do indeed make certain exclusions to property rights.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 11:34 AM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

The whole idea of positive government resulted from a deliberate act of socialism. In fact, compared with the primitive caste systems that existed before, the notion of a positive government itself is socialistic.
While I wouldn't worry about the idiot hot heads out there who get hostile at the sight of the word "social," I certainly wouldn't admit to them that I am social for this amounts to coming out of the political closet.
As Hillary would argue, one should never appear in politics to be without balls.

WRellim
05-28-2008, 11:55 AM
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

To be provided by and paid for by WHOM exactly?

Nice of you to preemptively and unilaterally GIVE AWAY other people's work and money.

I just have one question for you... what will you do if they those people refuse to "cooperate" with your plan? What means of force will you "persuade" them to "cooperate" and provide the work or money?

If you propose to use force (threatened or actual), how then can you call yourself a "libertarian"?

And if you are unwilling to use violence to "enforce" your proposition, how can you call youself a "socialist" ?



The term "socialist libertarian" is oxymoronic... it even tops "army intelligence" or "governmental assistance."

AutoDas
05-28-2008, 01:13 PM
We all have a right to our life and property otherwise you would not have either of them. Health-care is not an inalienable right because that is your decision to pursue it and some might not want to take care of their health.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-28-2008, 01:35 PM
To be provided by and paid for by WHOM exactly?

Nice of you to preemptively and unilaterally GIVE AWAY other people's work and money.

I just have one question for you... what will you do if they those people refuse to "cooperate" with your plan? What means of force will you "persuade" them to "cooperate" and provide the work or money?

If you propose to use force (threatened or actual), how then can you call yourself a "libertarian"?

And if you are unwilling to use violence to "enforce" your proposition, how can you call youself a "socialist" ?

We Americans aren't here for our health. We don't send unhealthy soldiers to fight in wars for our health; rather, we send healthy soldiers to fight for our happiness.
When an American mother notices that her child has a problem, she hasn't noticed that he or she is unhealthy but that he or she is unhappy. So, she proceeds to take the child to a doctor to find out why he or she is unhappy and then how to go about making him or her happy again.
The free market here is simply when the woman takes the child to go see a doctor. Any regulation created by the government to hinder this mother in her quest to seek help for her child should be considered socialistic.
In order to establish a social problem, the government focuses not on the contentment of health but on the responsibility of health. This type of government tries to divide the national dinner table by arguing we should all be healthy, wealthy and wise rather than we should all live as happy beings.
Marxism is this type of government because it attempts to sit its citizens down at the dinner table as a classless society. One never has to bind the master class to sit at the table in this type of socialist society because, legally speaking, no master class legally exists in a Marxist society.
The American system does not attempt to sit every citizen down as a classless society but as a classful society. It acheives this classful society by regulating liberty even to the extent of binding the master class to remain at the table while it also grants liberty to the slave class to come to the same table. When the king is not concerned with the thirst of the uncomely ones at the table as a king should be, then he or she is neglecting them as a tyrant.

Meatwasp
05-28-2008, 02:55 PM
When I was young before welfare the church helped the poor and also helped them to get a job. That's all there is too it.

Paulitician
05-28-2008, 05:41 PM
I believe Social Libertarians have the right for such opportunity, but they don't have the right to demand it from someone else.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Such subjective value has to be earned, or granted from someone else who's willing to earn it, but no one has the right to demand that against someone else's will, as I said before.

"including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

So save and work, and/or ask friends and family help you out if need be... It really isn't that hard.


As a Libertarian, I would assume you accept the non-agression axiom. In which case, the only "right" a you have is the right not to have force initiated on you.

This is what you're proposing:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/k/1/socialism_explained.jpg

user
08-22-2008, 06:06 AM
I believe Social Libertarians have the right for such opportunity, but they don't have the right to demand it from someone else.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Such subjective value has to be earned, or granted from someone else who's willing to earn it, but no one has the right to demand that against someone else's will, as I said before.

"including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

So save and work, and/or ask friends and family help you out if need be... It really isn't that hard.


As a Libertarian, I would assume you accept the non-agression axiom. In which case, the only "right" a you have is the right not to have force initiated on you.

This is what you're proposing:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/k/1/socialism_explained.jpg
That is a simple, excellent cartoon. Bump so more people see it.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 10:48 AM
I do support Laissez-faire capitalism. I also support a little bit of social services because I believe the government plays a little role. I want it done by local governments. Welfare should be cut down by 95%. I think only very few people should be in government services. As you all know, we spend and print to much. If we would stop doing that we'd have enough to help some people who actually need it. Yes there are some people(not to many) who actually need it. I want to steer people away from the government. I do belive in public schools for cities and towns. Only to be locally funded by everyone paying a little bit of taxes for the schools, or maybe people investing into one school and no taxation. I can't makeup my mind. This shall be locally run, if I did choose the local government one, it would be only funded by the goverment through taxation. No beaurocrat control, but parent and teacher control.


Don't criticize me and call me a big government socialist if you do choose to respond to my idea. Any questions will be accepted.
Carry on. :)

user
08-22-2008, 10:59 AM
I do support Laissez-faire capitalism. I also support a little bit of social services because I believe the government plays a little role. I want it done by local governments. Welfare should be cut down by 95%. I think only very few people should be in government services. As you all know, we spend and print to much. If we would stop doing that we'd have enough to help some people who actually need it. Yes there are some people(not to many) who actually need it. I want to steer people away from the government. I do belive in public schools for cities and towns. Only to be locally funded by everyone paying a little bit of taxes for the schools, or maybe people investing into one school and no taxation. I can't makeup my mind. This shall be locally run, if I did choose the local government one, it would be only funded by the goverment through taxation. No beaurocrat control, but parent and teacher control.


Don't criticize me and call me a big government socialist if you do choose to respond to my idea. Any questions will be accepted.
Carry on. :)
I think I have an idea of where you're coming from, and my honest guess would be that your positions will become more liberal (in the classical sense) as time passes. You are obviously already on the freedom path, but there are always going to be some contradictions when there's an attempt to combine capitalism and socialism.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 11:01 AM
I think I have an idea of where you're coming from, and my honest guess would be that your positions will become more liberal (in the classical sense) as time passes. You are obviously already on the freedom path, but there are always going to be some contradictions when there's an attempt to combine capitalism and socialism.

I'm a liberal-leaning libertarian. Maybe you'e right on the contradictions part, but I believe in what I'm saying. I do want to try and steer people away from the government, though.

Jeremy
08-22-2008, 11:02 AM
"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

user
08-22-2008, 11:06 AM
I do want to try and steer people away from the government, though.

Nothing wrong with that ;)

How do you feel about the non-aggression principle?

acptulsa
08-22-2008, 11:10 AM
"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

It will be interesting to see what luck China has over time in attempting to reap the benefits of economic freedom without suffering the 'inconveniences' of political freedom.

user
08-22-2008, 11:13 AM
It will be interesting to see what luck China has over time in attempting to reap the benefits of economic freedom without suffering the 'inconveniences' of political freedom.
Very true. We were just discussing this in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1624835); my feelings are mixed.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 11:17 AM
Nothing wrong with that ;)

How do you feel about the non-aggression principle?

Well, that's a pretty tough question. Well in my community, (Not saying everyone will for sure agree with me) but I don't believe in heavy taxes. See in my city there's a lot of big government liberals(I'm not for huge social programs ,but extremely small ones in order to steer people away from the government) who want all these social services like welfare to be huge. Now I'm not against social services entirely. A lot of people in my city depend on public transportation and in my city it's pretty damn good. Welfare should only be for people who need if they're freaking downright poor and can't work( ex; frail old ladies who have no one and just can't work). I don't want to throw people on the streets(homeless people can attack to you know). I'd work with people in my community to make it work so everyone can agree upon something.

Is that good enough? My explanations sometimes suck, but let me know if you have any questions.

It's a pretty tough question and I'll admit I can't answer everything.

user
08-22-2008, 11:22 AM
Well, that's a pretty tough question. Well in my community, (Not saying everyone will for sure agree with me) but I don't believe in heavy taxes. See in my city there's a lot of big government liberals(I'm not for huge social programs ,but extremely small ones in order to steer people away from the government) who want all these social services like welfare to be huge. Now I'm not against social services entirely. A lot of people in my city depend on public transportation and in my city it's pretty damn good. Welfare should only be for people who need if they're freaking downright poor and can't work( ex; frail old ladies who have no one and just can't work). I don't want to throw people on the streets(homeless people can attack to you know). I'd work with people in my community to make it work so everyone can agree upon something.

Is that good enough? My explanations sometimes suck, but let me know if you have any questions.

It's a pretty tough question and I'll admit I can't answer everything.

Well, you can probably see where I was going with that question. If you agree with the non-aggression principle, you oppose all taxes. On the other hand, if you could really make it so everyone agrees on something, that suggests it would be voluntary and not a tax. So I guess the question is, what would you do if a few people didn't agree with the rest of you? Tax them, or leave them alone?

Kade
08-22-2008, 11:43 AM
"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

Except some who believe in "economic freedom" use it now to justify the end of other freedoms.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 11:51 AM
Well, you can probably see where I was going with that question. If you agree with the non-aggression principle, you oppose all taxes. On the other hand, if you could really make it so everyone agrees on something, that suggests it would be voluntary and not a tax. So I guess the question is, what would you do if a few people didn't agree with the rest of you? Tax them, or leave them alone?

I'll have to think about that. I guess I oppose it on a local level, because taxes pay for a lot of things that benefit the people here. Yes I would leave schools to be controlled by the parents and teachers, and etc. about other things. If they didn't agree with me I'd honestly try and talk to them and work things out. Remember my taxes are localy run and funded and distributed by the government. The welfare state will be cut 95%"(only those who NEED it will get it). For healthcare I'll probably do what they did in the 60's. I think a lot of what I'm saying will fit my community as a good amount of it already does. Except the welfare state is too big.

This is my community ,or city only. ;)

Do as you please in yours. I can only set an example, if what I say somehow fails(which I don't think it won't) thou can always try again.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 12:42 PM
Does anyone disagree with me and why? What would you do in your community?

acptulsa
08-22-2008, 12:46 PM
Does anyone disagree with me and why? What would you do in your community?

Accountability works, tyrrany doesn't. Many things are possibly viable if attempted with good motives and a good heart. Many things can be stolen from, as well.

I've long said that our philosophy of federal government is just as good for liberals as for conservatives because things are more efficient on the local level and because states' rights means what your state wants and can afford, it can have. Even if that includes a welfare state.

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 01:23 PM
Accountability works, tyrrany doesn't. Many things are possibly viable if attempted with good motives and a good heart. Many things can be stolen from, as well.

I've long said that our philosophy of federal government is just as good for liberals as for conservatives because things are more efficient on the local level and because states' rights means what your state wants and can afford, it can have. Even if that includes a welfare state.

It's not a total welfare state, it's really small. Super small. MEGA small. ULTIMATELY small. :D

AutoDas
08-22-2008, 07:51 PM
I do support Laissez-faire capitalism. I also support a little bit of social services because I believe the government plays a little role. I want it done by local governments. Welfare should be cut down by 95%. I think only very few people should be in government services. As you all know, we spend and print to much. If we would stop doing that we'd have enough to help some people who actually need it. Yes there are some people(not to many) who actually need it. I want to steer people away from the government.

Isn't that how all welfare starts? Keep it small for only those who "need it" but who defines needs? The voter. Once you allow welfare of any kind the people will want more of it. Just look at the situation now. People think they're entitled to more welfare because they have new needs (ex. socialized health care, "fixing" social security for the baby boomers)


I do belive in public schools for cities and towns. Only to be locally funded by everyone paying a little bit of taxes for the schools, or maybe people investing into one school and no taxation. I can't makeup my mind. This shall be locally run, if I did choose the local government one, it would be only funded by the goverment through taxation. No beaurocrat control, but parent and teacher control.

Or you could just privatize the public schools.


Don't criticize me and call me a big government socialist if you do choose to respond to my idea. Any questions will be accepted.
Carry on. :)

I wouldn't say you're a big socialist like many other people, but you calling yourself a libertarian is incorrect.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

THE UDHR?????????????? <horrified>

DO you also believe in #29:3 of the UDHR which states that the UN will be sole determiner of whether you are allowed to HAVE those rights or not?


Geesh, get a clue!

Anyone who ascribes to or believes in anything the UN is doing and thinks it's pro-liberty has a lot of learnin' to do......

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:02 PM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

Oh well, I just noticed it's the socialist troll again who posted this.

If you don't understand by now that the UN is about SOCIALISM, worldwide, then you are NOT a libertarian.

I guess the public schools have really done some damage in that you are thoroughly brainwashed by this nonsense that is playing all over the media, even in our local public TV cable outlets..

Horrific.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:05 PM
The best way to make your argument would be to acknowledge that though you support preventing the government from limiting what people can do you also support programs at the government level which promote a certain level of equality.

But this is the point WE DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because it's called SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

Get it? Ron Paul is not for it and neither are we!!!!!!!!



This is why the feds and their UN propagandistic GARBAGE must be banned from the public schools....

user
08-22-2008, 08:08 PM
But this is the point WE DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because it's called SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

Get it? Ron Paul is not for it and neither are we!!!!!!!!



This is why the feds and their UN propagandistic GARBAGE must be banned from the public schools....
Let's ban the public schools instead

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:09 PM
Where did this come from? Who wrote this? I would like a source and an internet link, I bet I could find something similar written by the UN. There is a difference between inalienable rights, and what certain people are calling 'human rights' in order to justify communism which is about slavery, oppression, and ends up involving genocide and much more. That Declaration sounds nice, but that's how communism is sold, by appealing to emotions and using fluffy, unrealistic idealism.

Sandy of course you are right, the UDHR is the UN's version of the Bill of Rights, but it is CONDITIONAL, based on whether you are 'contrary to their principles and purposes'.

Since we all know the UN is for total gun control, that's a red flag right there.

THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE PROMOTING TO OUR CHILDREN!

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:12 PM
I'm not a communist I simply think rights exist and one of those rights is the right to be healthy.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE COMMUNISTS at the UN TEACH IN SCHOOL.

Shameful.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:14 PM
Marxism is like a cancer. It tries to adopt the name of an opposing view point and eat away at it until it takes over the name. It did it with liberal, conservative, and now libertarian.


You got it!

It's about the corruption of words.

This is why you need to homeschool your kids -- so they can learn the truth and not be propagandized by this nonsense, in the UN controlled curriculum.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:17 PM
Not at all this was designed for a meeting of similair minds.


Many like us feel the poor deserve a right to have a chance to do the same things that those better off do...


Yes they have the right to work hard just as we did.

And not have their dead husband's SS money stolen and given to some welfare family.

Kraig
08-22-2008, 08:20 PM
I didn't ask for criticism.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people. But I do think people have the rights represented in the former piece. Now please if you want to debate open another thread this is for people who think like I do...

So get out of fantasy land and tell us who is going to pay for that standard of living without having the government steal from other people.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:21 PM
Oh come on now man. Ron paul has nothing to do with his supporters, i thought we learned this with the whole Don Black episode? Ron paul advocates not leaving people out in the streets, and cares deeply for the poor, and has shown this. You are seriously underestimating the power of charity in a healthy economy. That being said, you are free to have your views. Most peoples criticisms were simply that you were not really "libertarian" in the tradition "negative liberty" sense of the word, and i'd agree with that. Not voting for Ron Paul, who im sure you came to for reasons other than his wonderful platform of leaving to poor to die on the streets, would be utterly absurd simply because you received some criticism, maybe a bit too harsh, from some posters in an internet forum.

Think for a sec here, buddy.

But NOT via the redistribution of the wealth with something like the ONE campaign, that's for sure. That's for Obamatards.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:23 PM
See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.

This is where strong FAMILIES come into play.

The family is the first unit of government and a voluntary collective.

With strong families who can help each other through the bad times (yeah, living on the couch in your parents home until you get back on your feet) you don't have to rely on the government putting a gun to your head to collect money to give to some unknown person here or worse yet, ABROAD....

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:26 PM
i took a couple of those internet polls earlier today to determine where on the 'grid' i stand, and it placed me as a 'commie liberal b****' as well :? When you think about the circumstances of lets say having only those wealthy enough to afford medicine, such as lets say mitt romney, over someone who cant even afford a rent and are evicted or something because they work in perhaps a kitchen which wages have been sunk rock bottom because of the overabundance of cheap, often illegal labor... and you think "wtf, thats just wrong. id much rather see some dude strip a digit's place off of romneys bank account and start treating medical conditions for those that cant afford their daily bread."

But then you also have to think about the expense of those services of which we all have a 'right' to, and how that would be far less of an issue to tackle if the cost of medical services were competitive like most other industries unsubsidized by government.

You could make another hypothetical case where a drug abuser and felon were dying of an illness of his/her own devices, and under that same creed, this person would be able to siphon money from joe-goodyboots who is trying to raise an honest family with moral values and just happened to have a little good fortune in his business affairs along the way. i think people like you and i that lean on that humanitarian side to be far less inclined to apply those same rules in this particular case.

I think the main point standing that those here 'holier than thou' (curse you for being sympathetic at heart, you better leave! because we arent begging for all the supporting members we can find or anything </sarcasm> ) is that the constitution defends the rights of everyone by denying government the ability to meddle in individual affairs in perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately ill-mannered practices which in all cases forces someone to cover that cost (whether it be financial, through services, etc). So the moral argument isnt really what is in question, i think most people here are very sympathetic to those causes as well, they just believe that having government handle these programs at the federal level is unconstitutional and grossly inefficient.


Good LORD! Methinks the class warfare CRAP that has been instilled in you youngsters by the public schools is APPALLING.

Unless Mitt Romney held a gun to your head and stole the money from you directly, he has every right to have been a good capitalist and made that money no matter how much you hate him.

I can see where this country is headed if we don't get these communists out of our schools systems teaching IB and Goals 2000 with the idea that they are going to make little liberal activists for world government out of you all.

Sheesh.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:29 PM
I've given $4500 so far this year to non-religious charities, 90% of that to a cancer support organization.

I've paid enough in forced taxes to support three families over my lifetime.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Now I can't get my husbands SS that he worked for 45 years and contributed to, but never collected.

That should be family money, private!

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:31 PM
These so-called rights have been decreed by, for example, supra-national bodies such as the United Nations.

F*** the UN, they don't rule over me and they are NOT a government and certainly not MY government...and I can't tell you what I'd do if I saw a blue-helmet near my home.



They are not god-given or held by us by virtue of our being born (I put it that way to cover the theists and non-theists among us).

WHAT? Bill of Rights guarantees rights by BIRTH. Not by some commie organization like the UN.
You cannot argue with a UN flunkie.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:35 PM
By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...


Because you obviously have class envy? GET LOST BUDDY.

WHO ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT I 'NEED'???

CLEARLY you have the twisted logic of a Marxist.

NH4RonPaul
08-22-2008, 08:41 PM
Let's ban the public schools instead

They have proven to be unable to deliver a product (education) without the poison of political bias, so yes, they deserve to have funds yanked and given back to the hapless who are forced to pay.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 10:28 AM
Isn't that how all welfare starts? Keep it small for only those who "need it" but who defines needs? The voter. Once you allow welfare of any kind the people will want more of it. Just look at the situation now. People think they're entitled to more welfare because they have new needs (ex. socialized health care, "fixing" social security for the baby boomers)

Learn to say no. And don't think I'd fall for that crap.




Or you could just privatize the public schools..

Maybe you're right. I don't see anything wrong with people funding it through taxes. Seems to work over here.



I wouldn't say you're a big socialist like many other people, but you calling yourself a libertarian is incorrect.

I wouldn't call myself a true libertarian, but even Ron Paul supports helping the people who "need" it. Dude, there are some people who need it. We should try and steer away from the government. There will be people who "need" it, but it's very very little compared to what the size is today. Stop calling me a welfare statist, I'm not handing out free checks to every lazy guy at the projects. Just a few old people who have no one in their life and are pretty much unable to work.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 10:38 AM
God damn it, we can leave public schools. Get this through your heads, not everyone has time to teach their kid. People go out and work for a living. If we left public schools in the hands of teachers and parents you wouldn't be so bitchy.
Hell, even in Milton Friedman's documentary "Free to Choose" when he was showing a crappy public school, he then showed a good public school. It was good because it wasn't in the hands of beaurocrats. No one is being a marxist here. I sure as hell ain't. There's nothing wrong with some social services done on a local level paid for by LOW taxes. I don't want a huge welfare state, I'll privatize public schools(I guess you changed my mind, no it's not flip-flopping). These taxes can pay for building up the city, public transportation, give welfare to those who need it(Yes there is a small percentage of people who need it).

Not all taxation is a form of theft, especially when it's used to build up a community. Let me remind you this is LOCALLY done. Damn it, I sometimes get the feeling you guys are anarchists.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 10:45 AM
If a thief uses the money he steals only for good and worthwhile purposes does that mean that he didn't really steal it?


The end does NOT justify the means.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 10:47 AM
If a thief uses the money he steals only for good and worthwhile purposes does that mean that he didn't really steal it?

You know a lot of people agree with taxation, especially when it's used for the good of the community. If they agree to it, is it theft?

user
08-23-2008, 10:48 AM
God damn it, we can leave public schools. Get this through your heads, not everyone has time to teach their kid. People go out and work for a living. If we left public schools in the hands of teachers and parents you wouldn't be so bitchy.
Hell, even in Milton Friedman's documentary "Free to Choose" when he was showing a crappy public school, he then showed a good public school. It was good because it wasn't in the hands of beaurocrats. No one is being a marxist here. I sure as hell ain't. There's nothing wrong with some social services done on a local level paid for by LOW taxes. I don't want a huge welfare state, I'll privatize public schools(I guess you changed my mind, no it's not flip-flopping). These taxes can pay for building up the city, public transportation, give welfare to those who need it(Yes there is a small percentage of people who need it).

Not all taxation is a form of theft, especially when it's used to build up a community. Let me remind you this is LOCALLY done. Damn it, I sometimes get the feeling you guys are anarchists.

Taxation is theft. If you mean that it's being paid voluntarily, it's not a tax in the first place...

user
08-23-2008, 10:49 AM
You know a lot of people agree with taxation, especially when it's used for the good of the community. If they agree to it, is it theft?

Do you mean the people who are paying each agree to it, or the majority is forcing everyone to pay?

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 10:51 AM
You know a lot of people agree with taxation, especially when it's used for the good of the community. If they agree to it, is it theft? It is to the ones that didn't agree.<IMHO> Those that did agree, are merely enabling accomplices to the crime(s).

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 10:55 AM
Do you mean the people who are paying each agree to it, or the majority is forcing everyone to pay?

The minority doesn't have to use public transportation ,or public schools if they don't want to. So I guess they don't pay. So that means they can't use it. Fair enough?


But before we go on making people up. Can you find a person in my city that's against public schooling and transportation? So many people need it. Everyone uses it ,or has used it.

Instead of thinking I'm a dictator, I'd actually discuss this with the people.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:00 AM
The minority doesn't have to use public transportation ,or public schools if they don't want to. So I guess they don't pay. So that means they can't use it. Fair enough?


But before we go on making people up. Can you find a person in my city that's against public schooling and transportation? So many people need it. Everyone uses it ,or has used it.

Instead of thinking I'm a dictator, I'd actually discuss this with the people. Then why do those dissenting have to pay for it?

Unless your city is very atypical your public schooling and transportation sucks! :rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Then why do the dissenting have to pay for it?

They don't.

But can I ask you this, why are you against taxation( very low and only for the community) to build up the infrastructure of a city and it's public transportation?

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:05 AM
Then why do those dissenting have to pay for it?

Unless your city is very atypical your public schooling and transportation sucks! :rolleyes:

It doesn't "suck" we have pretty good schools. The country is broke if you haven't forgotten.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:10 AM
It doesn't "suck" we have pretty good schools. The country is broke if you haven't forgotten.
Pretty good, by what comparative standards?

Yes, I clearly remember and government and government theft have worked and helped mightily to break it, for a very long time now. :p :rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:12 AM
It doesn't "suck" we have pretty good schools. The country is broke if you haven't forgotten.

Good schools? HA! Maybe where you live, over at suburbia.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:16 AM
Pretty good, by what comparative standards?

Yes, I clearly remember and government and government theft have worked and helped mightily to break it, for a very long time now. :p :rolleyes:


Of course there are shitty schools. But that doesn't mean everything is shitty.

No matter how good the school. I want you to remember this, you can't learn everything from school.I learn from reading material outside of school. Beaurocrat control sucks. Parents and teachers should only control it. Funded by them only, either through taxation ,or if they want to privatize it. I don't really care.

Anyway, there are plenty of schools here with high test scores. There's also a lot of ghetto schools. Like you see we need to fix things.

I for one am all for homeschooling and I don't like these guys in government now(I might want to run when I'm older). I just believe public schooling should be available too.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:17 AM
Good schools? HA! Maybe where you live, over at suburbia.

Stereotype, stereotype.

When shall thou leave?

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:23 AM
Of course there are shitty schools. But that doesn't mean everything is shitty.

No matter how good the school. I want you to remember this, you can't learn everything from school.I learn from reading material outside of school. Beaurocrat control sucks. Parents and teachers should only control it. Funder by them only, either through taxation ,or if they want to privatize it. I don't really care.

Anyway, there are plenty of schools here with high test scores. There's also a lot of ghetto schools. Like you see we need to fix things.

I for one am all for homeschooling and I don't like these guys in government now(I might want to run when I'm older). I just believe public schooling should be available too.

Why? Why do I hav to pay for socialistic education? Maybe the free market comes up with a better solution? Maybe the free market would cut education time in half? Public schools are a hallmark of socialism. I'm not rich, but I know for a fact that I'd do better if we had a free market in education. I would be exposed to QUALITY, I would have gotten taught everything at a younger age, I would have been able to make payment arrangements, I could have explored charities, but wee are all subjected tothe assembly line treatment. Are we not a product? That's how I feel. The gov monitors and jots the numbers down of all graduates, all new college students, calculated % of people taking high management positions, this is all what I call central economic planning. The gov lets a strain of the free markt survive, but gives power to friends, creates a "one way path" to prosperity, hence cronyism. Fuck them!

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 11:24 AM
God damn it, we can leave public schools. Get this through your heads, not everyone has time to teach their kid. People go out and work for a living. If we left public schools in the hands of teachers and parents you wouldn't be so bitchy.
Hell, even in Milton Friedman's documentary "Free to Choose" when he was showing a crappy public school, he then showed a good public school. It was good because it wasn't in the hands of beaurocrats. No one is being a marxist here. I sure as hell ain't. There's nothing wrong with some social services done on a local level paid for by LOW taxes. I don't want a huge welfare state, I'll privatize public schools(I guess you changed my mind, no it's not flip-flopping). These taxes can pay for building up the city, public transportation, give welfare to those who need it(Yes there is a small percentage of people who need it).

Not all taxation is a form of theft, especially when it's used to build up a community. Let me remind you this is LOCALLY done. Damn it, I sometimes get the feeling you guys are anarchists.


Don't let the extremists get to you.

They bitch and complain about coercion, but the fact is the constitution allowed states to create public schools, and 99% of voters agree with the concept.

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:27 AM
Don't let the extremists get to you.

They bitch and complain about coercion, but the fact is the constitution allowed states to create public schools, and 99% of voters agree with the concept.

When did I sign the constitution? hm

acroso
08-23-2008, 11:28 AM
Social Libertarians suck. Property seizing bastards meanwhile they complain about their right to smoke pot.

Not that I have a problem with their right to put whatever it is they want into their body....but if you're supporting the IRS....then go to hell.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Of course there are shitty schools. But that doesn't mean everything is shitty.

No matter how good the school. I want you to remember this, you can't learn everything from school.I learn from reading material outside of school. Beaurocrat control sucks. Parents and teachers should only control it. Funded by them only, either through taxation ,or if they want to privatize it. I don't really care.

Anyway, there are plenty of schools here with high test scores. There's also a lot of ghetto schools. Like you see we need to fix things.

I for one am all for homeschooling and I don't like these guys in government now(I might want to run when I'm older). I just believe public schooling should be available too. So the folks paying for the shitty schools are merely getting ripped off again.

You have very little, if anything, new to remind or teach me about learning and schooling.<IMHO>

I've been hearing the very same "fix things" BS crapola for decades now. :rolleyes:

Which merely brings us back around full circle to the subject of taxation, as simply theft and stealing. :p

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Why? Why do I hav to pay for socialistic education? Maybe the free market comes up with a better solution? Maybe the free market would cut education time in half? Public schools are a hallmark of socialism. I'm not rich, but I know for a fact that I'd do better if we had a free market in education. I would be exposed to QUALITY, I would have gotten taught everything at a younger age, I would have been able to make payment arrangements, I could have explored charities, but wee are all subjected tothe assembly line treatment. Are we not a product? That's how I feel. The gov monitors and jots the numbers down of all graduates, all new college students, calculated % of people taking high management positions, this is all what I call central economic planning. The gov lets a strain of the free markt survive, but gives power to friends, creates a "one way path" to prosperity, hence cronyism. Fuck them!


Free market education? We have a mix, we have PRIVATE school and PUBLIC school. Go to private school. Not everyone can afford 3000-8000 dollars a year in schooling just to let you know. But if you can and want too, go for it.

Be homeschooled for all I fucking care.lic education
The community agrees for public schooling. I don't care if you call it "democratic."

Just because 5 people disagree with almost 3 million. I really don't care. Move out if you want to.

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 11:33 AM
When did I sign the constitution? hm

you didn't.

But you vote.

Truth Warrior may have the moral authority to question things, but you don't. :D

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:35 AM
So the folks paying for the shitty schools are merely getting ripped off again.
Let the parents and teachers control the schools not beaurocrats. The taxation is to pay for all schools. Not to have beaurocrat control.

[QUOTE=Truth Warrior;1626680]You have very little, if anything, new to remind or teach me about learning and schooling.<IMHO>

As do you. <IMHO>


I've been hearing the very same "fix things" BS crapola for decades now. :rolleyes:

Cool, don't want it in your community? Great, see if I care. I'm talking about my own community.


Which merely brings us back around full circle to the subject of taxation, as simply theft and stealing. :p

I've already explained this to you.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:36 AM
you didn't.

But you vote.

Truth Warrior may have the moral authority to question things, but you don't. :D

+1

Thank you.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:37 AM
Don't let the extremists get to you.

They bitch and complain about coercion, but the fact is the constitution allowed states to create public schools, and 99% of voters agree with the concept. Yeah, you and your "gangs" of thieves, robbers and murderers, and then you have the unmitigated gall to call us "extremists".

If it wasn't coming from YOU, I just might be surprised. :p :rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:41 AM
Yeah, you and your "gangs" are thieves, robbers and murderers, and then have the unmitigated gall to call us "extremists".

If it wasn't coming from YOU, I just might be surprised. :p :rolleyes:

Taxation is not always theft.

Almost everybody here(community) agrees for taxation.

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:44 AM
Free market education? We have a mix, we have PRIVATE school and PUBLIC school. Go to private school. Not everyone can afford 3000-8000 dollars a year in schooling just to let you know. But if you can and want too, go for it.

Be homeschooled for all I fucking care.lic education
The community agrees for public schooling. I don't care if you call it "democratic."

Just because 5 people disagree with almost 3 million. I really don't care. Move out if you want to.

It costs that much because of the lack of competition. What creates lack of competition? Socialized education funneling away most kids, that's why there aren't many private schools, and that's why they can charge so much. Our purchasing power is also crap, but that's another story...

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:45 AM
[quote=Truth Warrior;1626680]So the folks paying for the shitty schools are merely getting ripped off again.
Let the parents and teachers control the schools not beaurocrats. The taxation is to pay for all schools. Not to have beaurocrat control.

Control ain't the issue, junior. Theft is.


As do you. <IMHO>

< LMAO >



Cool, don't want it in your community? Great, see if I care. I'm talking about my own community.

Chicago? Does the mob and the historically corrupt Daley Machine still run things there?



I've already explained this to you.

No you didn't. Not even close. :D There's much more to explanation than merely typing. :rolleyes:


:p

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:46 AM
It costs that much because of the lack of competition. What creates lack of competition? Socialized education funneling away most kids, that's why there aren't many private schools, and that's why they can charge so much. Our purchasing power is also crap, but that's another story...

Wow, you really don't get it do you? There is competition. There are tons of private schools. Where do you get your information from, Joseph? Is this your community?

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 11:47 AM
you didn't.

But you vote.

Truth Warrior may have the moral authority to question things, but you don't. :D Thanks for that. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:47 AM
Wow, you really don't get it do you? There is competition. There are tons of private schools. Where do you get your information from, Joseph? Is this your community?

If there are tons, why don't I see more of them? I don't see much competition going on. Why can't I start a school in my house? And government has to accredit every private school, yes?

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:50 AM
[quote=The_Orlonater;1626686]

:p

I can't talk to you in real life so I type. :p

IT'S NOT FUCKING THEFT. For god's heavenly sake, there are families who don't have time to homeschool their children ,or have enough money for private education. So that's why there's public education. That should be controled by teachers and parents. Great, bash where I live. Just because there's some corrupt people here that doesn't mean my ideas are exactly the same as yours. You want to throw insults around where I live? You want to act like a fucking adolescent?

(I'm swaring because you're ignoring everything I say)

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 11:52 AM
If there are tons, why don't I see more of them? I don't see much competition going on. Why can't I start a school in my house? And government has to accredit every private school, yes?


First of all you don't look. Second of all the government accrediting private schools I don't agree with.

I agree with competition.

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 11:57 AM
First of all you don't look. Second of all the government accrediting private schools I don't agree with.

I agree with competition.

Better education will come with the eagerness of the parents to find their children a good eduation.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 12:06 PM
Better education will come with the eagerness of the parents to find their children a good eduation.

True, but there are poorer families. Hence, IMO they can pay a low tax for schools to be funded. They can control the school with the teachers so the kid can get good education.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 12:08 PM
[quote=Truth Warrior;1626703]

I can't talk to you in real life so I type. :p

IT'S NOT FUCKING THEFT. For god's heavenly sake, there are families who don't have time to homeschool their children ,or have enough money for private education. So that's why there's public education. That should be controled by teachers and parents. Great, bash where I live. Just because there's some corrupt people here that doesn't mean my ideas are exactly the same as yours. You want to throw insults around where I live? You want to act like a fucking adolescent?

(I'm swaring because you're ignoring everything I say)

Yes it is too FUCKING THEFT. Paid for with and by stolen money. This is not a difficult concept to understand AT ALL. Hey, I just asked you a question. Your over the top response clearly implies an answer of YES.

No, I'm NOT ignoring, I'm disagreeing. Didn't you learn the very simple differences in your "government" schools? :p :rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 12:14 PM
[quote=The_Orlonater;1626716]

Yes it is too FUCKING THEFT. Paid for with and by stolen money. This is not a difficult concept to understand AT ALL. Hey, I just asked you a question. Your over the top response clearly implies an answer of YES.

No, I'm NOT ignoring, I'm disagreeing. Didn't you learn the very simple differences in your "government" schools? :p :rolleyes:



Sir, it ain't theft because people agree with it. I think of these taxes as buying something. Everyone agrees with the concept so they put in small amounts of money. Aand that money is used to pay for public schools, builidng roads and highways and whatnot, public transportation and all of its needs and whatnot.

Unless you want to live in an area like this.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/portrait_of_black_chicago/images/chicago_ghetto.jpg

You're ignoring my "everyone agrees" concept. This benefits the people in a better city.

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 12:15 PM
Thanks for that. :)

I understand your position more then you think, and maybe some day I too will throw my hands up in the air and state for the world to hear that it will never work this way.


But damn it TW, I want so badly to kick the current GOP to the curve, and it requires a powerful collective to achieve this.

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 12:17 PM
all taxation is theft.

The problem is that if the vast majority have no interest in prosecuting crimes, it is impossible to do so. This is true even in anarchy.

JosephTheLibertarian
08-23-2008, 12:30 PM
[QUOTE=Truth Warrior;1626742]



Sir, it ain't theft because people agree with it. I think of these taxes as buying something. Everyone agrees with the concept so they put in small amounts of money. Aand that money is used to pay for public schools, builidng roads and highways and whatnot, public transportation and all of its needs and whatnot.

Unless you want to live in an area like this.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/portrait_of_black_chicago/images/chicago_ghetto.jpg

You're ignoring my "everyone agrees" concept. This benefits the people in a better city.

Thee inner city is where the government intervenes the most ;)

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 12:31 PM
[quote=Truth Warrior;1626742]

Sir, it ain't theft because people agree with it. I think of these taxes as buying something. Everyone agrees with the concept so they put in small amounts of money. Aand that money is used to pay for public schools, builidng roads and highways and whatnot, public transportation and all of its needs and whatnot.

Unless you want to live in an area like this.

< irrelevant pic snipped >

You're ignoring my "everyone agrees" concept. This benefits the people in a better city.
So if I can just get enough people to agree with me and I take ALL of your money, against your will, then you have NOT been robbed. Is that correct? I already KNOW ALL of the bogus and BS "rationalizations" for theft and murder, so you can just save your keystrokes. :rolleyes:

Is that in Chicago, BTW? :eek: :D

Because EVERYONE DOES NOT AGREE. Thats why they vote ( biggest gang wins ) AND have COERCIVE tax ( extortion ) collections, at virtual gunpoint, along with other threats of violence and punishments for disobedience and not following orders. :p

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 12:38 PM
I understand your position more then you think, and maybe some day I too will throw my hands up in the air and state for the world to hear that it will never work this way.


But damn it TW, I want so badly to kick the current GOP to the curve, and it requires a powerful collective to achieve this. Perhaps you do understand. I grew up to adulthood and spent several adult years as ARealConservative. ;)

What do you have, if you succeed, AND if you don't succeed?

The end does NOT justify the means. ;)

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 12:42 PM
So if I can just get enough people to agree with me and I take ALL of your money, against your will, then you have NOT been robbed. Is that correct? I already KNOW ALL of the bogus and BS "rationalizations" for theft and murder, so you can just save your keystrokes. :rolleyes:

Whoever said anything about murder? Oh yeah, you. :rolleyes:
So are you implying that 1% of the population is more important then 99%? I never said "T4X 333M TO DEATH!" I'm keep my taxes low as posible. You chose to ignore me AGAIN!(I'm going to keep a chart about how many times you have ignored me if this kees up.)


[Is that in Chicago, BTW? :eek: :D

So where do you live? In the middle of the forest with 20 kids and a computer?
See this style of arguing doesn't do us any good. Stop acting like a prick.

Oh yeah to finish arguing like you. I must do the honorary ..."Post Emotes Like Crazy!"
:p;):D:o:)

EVERYONE DOES NOT AGREE. Thats why they vote ( biggest gang wins ) AND have COERCIVE tax ( extortion ) collections, at virtual gunpoint, along with other threats of violence and punishments for disobedience and not following orders. :p

Like I said, I don't care if 1 or 2% disagree with with the majority. I'm not going to tax every penny out of your pocket. Do as you please in your own community. In mine I'll fight for what I believe in. Thank god we're in a country like this. State's rights is a lovely thing.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm getting tired of being called the guy who'll tax you to death. Arguing each other like this makes me almost forget about the first line of my sig.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 01:03 PM
Whoever said anything about murder? Oh yeah, you. :rolleyes:
So are you implying that 1% of the population is more important then 99%? I never said "T4X 333M TO DEATH!" I'm keep my taxes low as posible. You chose to ignore me AGAIN!(I'm going to keep a chart about how many times you have ignored me if this kees up.)

So where do you live? In the middle of the forest with 20 kids and a computer?
See this style of arguing doesn't do us any good. Stop acting like a prick.

Oh yeah to finish arguing like you. I must do the honorary ..."Post Emotes Like Crazy!"
:p;)

Like I said, I don't care if 1 or 2% disagree with with the majority. I'm not going to tax every penny out of your pocket. Do as you please in your own community. In mine I'll fight for what I believe in. Thank god we're in a country like this. State's rights is a lovely thing.

Correct, I did. Have your government's agents EVER killed anyone? No, I'm STATING that numbers are BS. Any amount above ZERO IS THEFT, against those that do not agree to your silly and childish games. Period. The amount is irrelevant.
( Oh no, not the dreaded keeping a chart crap. :p :rolleyes: )

It's none of your frickin' business where I live. Besides, that too is totally irrelevant to the subject. :rolleyes:

Ah the bogus emoticon ridicule tactic, the final refuge for the truly reason and logically challenged, desparate. ;) Way to go there, kiddo.

Check the routine vote tally figures, very very few, if any, are anywhere near 98% to 2%, not that that amounts to diddely squat.

GROW UP!

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 01:38 PM
Correct, I did. Have your government's agents EVER killed anyone? No, I'm STATING that numbers are BS. Any amount above ZERO IS THEFT, against those that do not agree to your silly and childish games. Period. The amount is irrelevant.
( Oh no, not the dreaded keeping a chart crap. :p :rolleyes: )

Can't take a joke? You do it all the time. First of all I don't know if my government killed anyone. I'm not my government. Stop thinking I'm them. I have my own ideas. I support some taxation, but it's very little. Get over it. You're one of the few who doesn't support any taxation at all.


It's none of your frickin' business where I live. Besides, that too is totally irrelevant to the subject. :rolleyes:

But you can mock where I live. I see your logic.


Ah the bogus emoticon ridicule tactic, the final refuge for the truly reason and logically challenged, desparate. ;) Way to go there, kiddo.

Logically challenged desperate? Ooh, we're playing a word game. Oh shut up already, stop acting like a prick. So what you can insult me on the internet, feel better now? Since I'm the "BIG MEAN ANTI-FREEMARKET SOCIALIST" that's going to take every little fucking penny you make that ust mean I'm desperat.e(I wonder for what, maybe you should answer. You obviously more know about me then myself)


Check the routine vote tally figures, very very few, if any, are anywhere near 98% to 2%, not that that amounts to diddely squat.

...?

GROW UP![/QUOTE]

Shut up with your whole "GROW UP" retoric. That's one of the oldest internet insults.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 02:08 PM
Can't take a joke? You do it all the time. First of all I don't know if my government killed anyone. I'm not my government. Stop thinking I'm them. I have my own ideas. I support some taxation, but it's very little. Get over it. You're one of the few who doesn't support any taxation at all.

What joke? Ask the Afghans and Iraqis. Ain't mine either, so I guess that you too are a victim of the tyranny of others also. You get over it you theft, lame excuse maker, rationalizer and justifier.

Again, the BS NUMBERS do not matter. You're merely talking though your "brainwash" "government" school " bogus "programming". Human rights are INDIVIDUAL, NOT COLLECTIVE NOR ADDITIVE.



But you can mock where I live. I see your logic.

BS! I just asked a question. Show me the mock, hot shot. Get a clue!

Logically challenged desperate? Ooh, we're playing a word game. Oh shut up already, stop acting like a prick. So what you can insult me on the internet, feel better now? Since I'm the "BIG MEAN ANTI-FREEMARKET SOCIALIST" that's going to take every little fucking penny you make that ust mean I'm desperat.e(I wonder for what, maybe you should answer. You obviously more know about me then myself)

You're really losing it here. Fractured syntax, spelling and all. Merely putting bogus BS words in my mouth, ain't gonna win you many points, AT ALL. ;)

< LOL! >
...?

GROW UP!

Shut up with your whole "GROW UP" retoric. That's one of the oldest internet insults.

Kiss my ass! You're not my boss. And obviously, in your case, more than accurate and applicable. It's not rhetorical, It's FRICKIN' LITERAL, PS ####, Einstein. :p


:rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 03:37 PM
:rolleyes:

You're also talking from your point of view. Human rights is individual. You're just talking about what YOU think. Not what tohers think. Wwhat others think and need in the system. You just continue to insult me like usual(:rolleyes:) I'm talking through experience and people I have met.

And yes you did mock where I lived. I'll show you the post, but you can find it yourself. I only attacked back. You started it.

I'm not mispelling anything on purpose. I'm the master of typos. Literally. Sometimes I don't notice. I'm only "screaming" because you've ignored what I said. And think I believe in the status quo of Chicago. You've been putting words in my mouth.


Just forget it.

Truth Warrior
08-23-2008, 04:05 PM
You're also talking from your point of view. Human rights is individual. You're just talking about what YOU think. Not what tohers think. Wwhat others think and need in the system. You just continue to insult me like usual(:rolleyes:) I'm talking through experience and people I have met.

Aw geeze, just another BS subjectivist goober. Screw what others think. They're JUST individuals too, as are you, as am I. You ARE eminently insultable. You've gotten off very easy. How many THOUSANDS have you talked to about this stuff?

And yes you did mock where I lived. I'll show you the post, but you can find it yourself. I only attacked back. You started it.

BULL SHIT!!!

I'm not mispelling anything on purpose. I'm the master of typos. Literally. Sometimes I don't notice. I'm only "screaming" because you've ignored what I said. And think I believe in the status quo of Chicago. You've been putting words in my mouth.

Ever hear of a "spell checker"? We've covered "ignored vs. disagreed". :rolleyes: Where? What words? You feeding my exact lines back to me is exceedingly LAME.


Just forget it.

Before you will. ;) < LOL >

:D

acroso
08-23-2008, 07:39 PM
Social Libertarians are no different than Neocons.

Both are thugs.

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 07:51 PM
:D

Just to answer your questions.


1) Yes we're all individuals. And I haven't really talked to many about this. But I have.

2) You mocked where I live in one post.

Originally Posted by Truth Warrior
[Is that in Chicago, BTW?

I took it as an insult.

3) I'm too lazy to use the spell checker. I am SOOO sorry that I mispelled a word and didn't check through the whole thing. :rolleyes: But then again you're good at
picking out other arguments. And stop calling my responses lame, I think that way about you. It's kind of obvious we disagree with each other.

Kludge
08-23-2008, 07:52 PM
*snip*

:rolleyes:

The_Orlonater
08-23-2008, 07:54 PM
:rolleyes:


Oh hi, how are you doing..?

:rolleyes:

user
08-23-2008, 08:16 PM
Just because 5 people disagree with almost 3 million. I really don't care. Move out if you want to.

Orlonater, I don't know if you were just angry or something when you wrote this, but you call yourself a libertarian so you should understand that the rights of the individual are paramount. It doesn't matter even if it's just one person against 100 million.

Again, the important thing here, at least for me, is whether or not the "tax" is completely optional. If so, I wouldn't even call it a tax (maybe a user fee). On the other hand, if you would force a minority of ANY size, including a single person, to pay against their will then I would call that unlibertarian.

Joseph's point about private schools is also correct. Whatever number of private schools exist now and however much competition there is, there would be far, far more if government schools did not exist. This would lower the price of admission to those schools and increase their quality. In addition to this, the government interferes even with the few private schools that exist today.

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 09:43 PM
all taxation is theft.

The problem is that if the vast majority have no interest in prosecuting crimes, it is impossible to do so. This is true even in anarchy.

I notice nobody wanted to challenge this, so I'll bump it and see if I have any takers. :D

user
08-23-2008, 09:54 PM
I notice nobody wanted to challenge this, so I'll bump it and see if I have any takers. :D
Do you mean the part about prosecuting crimes? Could you go into more detail (in a new thread if you want)?

Kludge
08-23-2008, 09:54 PM
I notice nobody wanted to challenge this, so I'll bump it and see if I have any takers. :D

Theft is irrelevant as it's government that grants rights.


You would have no rights in an anarchy as they are created by man to minimize conflict in society. While our government isn't perfect, it can do a satisfactory job at creating as fair a society as possible if we keep our eyes open and our voices loud and unwavering.

user
08-23-2008, 09:57 PM
Theft is irrelevant as it's government that grants rights.

Many people, including the Founders, would disagree...but I guess that is for another thread.

ARealConservative
08-23-2008, 10:03 PM
Theft is irrelevant as it's government that grants rights.


You would have no rights in an anarchy as they are created by man to minimize conflict in society. While our government isn't perfect, it can do a satisfactory job at creating as fair a society as possible if we keep our eyes open and our voices loud and unwavering.

it's semantics now but government only protects rights, and some rights would be so universally recognized that even without government, you would retain them.

The_Orlonater
08-24-2008, 10:07 AM
So you guys believe in "no taxes" at all? So the state has no point to it?

ARealConservative
08-24-2008, 10:11 AM
So you guys believe in "no taxes" at all? So the state has no point to it?

Pretty much, but the point I'm making is that we are so far in the minority on this issue that it is irrelevant. If 99% of the people want to push me down and remove my kidney by force, it's going to happen. I can cry until I'm blue in the face how it is theft, rape, etc, but this right will go unprotected.

The_Orlonater
08-24-2008, 10:18 AM
Orlonater, I don't know if you were just angry or something when you wrote this, but you call yourself a libertarian so you should understand that the rights of the individual are paramount. It doesn't matter even if it's just one person against 100 million.

Again, the important thing here, at least for me, is whether or not the "tax" is completely optional. If so, I wouldn't even call it a tax (maybe a user fee). On the other hand, if you would force a minority of ANY size, including a single person, to pay against their will then I would call that unlibertarian.

Joseph's point about private schools is also correct. Whatever number of private schools exist now and however much competition there is, there would be far, far more if government schools did not exist. This would lower the price of admission to those schools and increase their quality. In addition to this, the government interferes even with the few private schools that exist today.

Fine maybe I'm not a pure 100% libertarian. I believe the states should allow comunities to go their own way. Now, no one has found a person for me in my community yet that is against low atxes for the greater good of the community. They pay for some public schools(Or I might privatize them), they build roads up. But then again I've been thinking. If we didn't have so much debt and spend like a preppy girl at the mall with her mom's credit card. We probably might have enough to pay for this stuff.
On your last paragraph. Why can't you have both? The state should have nothing to do with private schools. And by decrease the price, how low will it go?

I believe the local community government may have a role on some things.

Truth Warrior
08-24-2008, 10:56 AM
so you guys believe in "no taxes" at all? So the state has no point to it? :) Bingo!!!

The_Orlonater
08-24-2008, 11:20 AM
:) Bingo!!!

Fine, I respect your choice and what you believe in your community. I'm still a free market guy, I just want extremely low taxes to pay for the city's repair, abou 100 old frail people who have no one and can't work, some privatized public schools and public transportation.



I don't care if that part of me is "unlibertarian." But do what you want.

Truth Warrior
08-24-2008, 11:40 AM
Fine, I respect your choice and what you believe in your community. I'm still a free market guy, I just want extremely low taxes to pay for the city's repair, abou 100 old frail people who have no one and can't work, some privatized public schools and public transportation.



I don't care if that part of me is "unlibertarian." But do what you want.

Now, just try and figure out SOME way to accomplish your personal individual goals WITHOUT the state. ;)

And I'll then just get off your case. :)

JohnMeridith
08-24-2008, 12:17 PM
Theft is irrelevant as it's government that grants rights.


You would have no rights in an anarchy as they are created by man to minimize conflict in society. While our government isn't perfect, it can do a satisfactory job at creating as fair a society as possible if we keep our eyes open and our voices loud and unwavering.

The government does not grant rights, it only protects them, infringes upon them, or flat out takes them. Now when the latter occurs they grant priviliges. Now this fair society you speak of is only possible with a free market and protected "god given" rights.

user
08-24-2008, 04:20 PM
Fine maybe I'm not a pure 100% libertarian. I believe the states should allow comunities to go their own way. Now, no one has found a person for me in my community yet that is against low atxes for the greater good of the community. They pay for some public schools(Or I might privatize them), they build roads up. But then again I've been thinking. If we didn't have so much debt and spend like a preppy girl at the mall with her mom's credit card. We probably might have enough to pay for this stuff.
On your last paragraph. Why can't you have both? The state should have nothing to do with private schools. And by decrease the price, how low will it go?

I believe the local community government may have a role on some things.

You say everybody you know supports your taxes. That doesn't really answer my question, because I think we both know it's extremely unlikely that there isn't at least one person who wouldn't support them. I take your saying you're not 100% libertarian to mean that you would indeed take their money by force. Is this correct?

As for the schools, you can't have both because the government diverts resources away from the private sector to government schools. And realistically, a government that powerful will not keep their hands off of private schools for long. There's no lower limit on how low the price will go. For many people even private schools can be free, paid for by charity and/or voluntary subsidies.

The_Orlonater
08-24-2008, 04:46 PM
You say everybody you know supports your taxes. That doesn't really answer my question, because I think we both know it's extremely unlikely that there isn't at least one person who wouldn't support them. I take your saying you're not 100% libertarian to mean that you would indeed take their money by force. Is this correct?

As for the schools, you can't have both because the government diverts resources away from the private sector to government schools. And realistically, a government that powerful will not keep their hands off of private schools for long. There's no lower limit on how low the price will go. For many people even private schools can be free, paid for by charity and/or voluntary subsidies.

I have yet to find one . Honestly, low taxes that build roads, fund schools(parent control ;)), and community goals. If one person doesn't want to pay the taxes to say fixing a ton of pot holes on the road. What am I suppose to do say "Oh that's fine, but you're forbidden to use the roads."I wouldn't allow my government to do that to private schools. My government won't be powerful. It just organizes things that need to be done. I'm not controlling anything. Heck, even the public transportation won't be controlled by government officials. It isn't even now. IMO, free market public transportation(as in buses and trains) is impossible.

You know, they can always talk it over with me. You can never just order something and not discuss it.

I admit it, on a local level. For the community that I live in, I am not 100% libertarian.

P.S. I'm still leaving the libertarian in my signature, I'm not going to write

The last libertarian who wants some extremely small social programs and taxes. :D

user
08-24-2008, 05:06 PM
I have yet to find one . Honestly, low taxes that build roads, fund schools(parent control ;)), and community goals. If one person doesn't want to pay the taxes to say fixing a ton of pot holes on the road. What am I suppose to do say "Oh that's fine, but you're forbidden to use the roads."
Yes?


I wouldn't allow my government to do that to private schools.
To do what? Divert resources away? The government does that just by existing and taking people's wealth.


My government won't be powerful. It just organizes things that need to be done.
Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean a government has to do it.


I'm not controlling anything.
It really sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because by any reasonable standard a government that takes citzens' money by force and spends it on things is exercising some control.


Heck, even the public transportation won't be controlled by government officials. It isn't even now.
Where is it not being controlled by government officials?


IMO, free market public transportation(as in buses and trains) is impossible.
Fortunately, we know that it is possible. There is a long history of successful public transportation being run completely by the private sector.


You know, they can always talk it over with me. You can never just order something and not discuss it.
Again this is just dodging the real issue. What happens when they disagree? Is your community a utopia where disagreements are impossible?


I admit it, on a local level. For the community that I live in, I am not 100% libertarian.

P.S. I'm still leaving the libertarian in my signature, I'm not going to write

The last libertarian who wants some extremely small social programs and taxes. :D
I doubt anyone is going to force you to change your signature, but based on what you've said, your signature isn't really accurate...:eek:

The_Orlonater
08-25-2008, 09:19 AM
Yes?

Well that wouldn't work. How the hell would you do it? Put cameras everywhere and police everywhere looking for that one guy who can't use our roads and sidewalks? Is he/she suppose to stay inside all day? What if he needs to use the public transportation? Am I suppose to start something where they have a picture of every guy that doesn't pay taxes? It just wouldn't work.



To do what? Divert resources away? The government does that just by existing and taking people's wealth.?

Do you view every form of taxation? I see it as community's paying in so they can get things done.


Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean a government has to do it.
They do organize, it. Not all government's are evil.


It really sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because by any reasonable standard a government that takes citzens' money by force and spends it on things is exercising some control.

Spending it on a few things. What I said is what I said, I don't intend on spending it on other things. What is so wrong with street cleaners, and garbagemen, and some privatized public schooling?


Where is it not being controlled by government officials?

Ugh, made a mistake typing that. Sorry, you win on this one.


Fortunately, we know that it is possible. There is a long history of successful public transportation being run completely by the private sector.

So a city, can't have it's locally run and funded public transportation? Is there suppose to be a free market in that too? 20 different train and bus companies?


Again this is just dodging the real issue. What happens when they disagree? Is your community a utopia where disagreements are impossible?

Things shall be talked over. I'm just sayng my ideas on the internet.


I doubt anyone is going to force you to change your signature, but based on what you've said, your signature isn't really accurate...:eek:

So are you saying I'm completely not libertarian? Look I'm for low taxes, not no taxes. I believe in community rights, I disagree with huge government, I like homeschooling, I support non-interventionism, etc. Just because I'm for low taxes that help the community(i.e. privatized public schools funded by taxes controlled by parents, a local pubic transportation, building roads, replacing street lights, etc. Just because I'm not an anarchist, I'm not Libertarian? I believe the state has a small role.

This is what I want you to answer. What do you have against paying very low taxes to fund building roads, sidewalks, lights, signs, funding the public transportation, privatize public schools? Just curious.

Truth Warrior
08-25-2008, 09:27 AM
I'd say not libertarian. Maybe Libertarian AKA statist, however. ;)

The_Orlonater
08-25-2008, 04:57 PM
I'd say not libertarian. Maybe Libertarian AKA statist, however. ;)

Don't hurt my feelings. :(

user
08-25-2008, 05:10 PM
Well that wouldn't work. How the hell would you do it? Put cameras everywhere and police everywhere looking for that one guy who can't use our roads and sidewalks? Is he/she suppose to stay inside all day? What if he needs to use the public transportation? Am I suppose to start something where they have a picture of every guy that doesn't pay taxes? It just wouldn't work.

Tolls? Or just let people use them whether they paid or not. Or have property owners pay for the roads adjacent to their property. There are ways to do it without resorting to force.


Do you view every form of taxation? I see it as community's paying in so they can get things done.

Again, is it voluntary or not? I've asked this many times and I don't think you've answered.


They do organize, it. Not all government's are evil.

Not sure what you mean here...


Spending it on a few things. What I said is what I said, I don't intend on spending it on other things. What is so wrong with street cleaners, and garbagemen, and some privatized public schooling?

Is it voluntary? And what do you mean by privatized public schooling anyway? If it's privatized, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless you're using the typical Republican definition of "privatization", which is to take taxpayer funds and give it to private firms as corporate welfare. There is a HUGE difference.


So a city, can't have it's locally run and funded public transportation?

Sure it can...if it's voluntary.


Is there suppose to be a free market in that too? 20 different train and bus companies?

Yes, and I doubt there would be 20. Again, free market public transportation has been very successful in the past, and even in the present in at least one case.


Things shall be talked over. I'm just sayng my ideas on the internet.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. What happens when someone disagrees? Are they left alone or forced to comply?


So are you saying I'm completely not libertarian? Look I'm for low taxes, not no taxes. I believe in community rights, I disagree with huge government, I like homeschooling, I support non-interventionism, etc. Just because I'm for low taxes that help the community(i.e. privatized public schools funded by taxes controlled by parents, a local pubic transportation, building roads, replacing street lights, etc. Just because I'm not an anarchist, I'm not Libertarian? I believe the state has a small role.

I understand that you are closer to a libertarian than most people, but for example "privatized" schools funded by taxes? That's not libertarian at all.


This is what I want you to answer. What do you have against paying very low taxes to fund building roads, sidewalks, lights, signs, funding the public transportation, privatize public schools? Just curious.

Once again, I take the word "tax" to mean it is not voluntary. That's my problem with it. If it were voluntary instead, I'd have no problem with it.

The_Orlonater
08-26-2008, 04:11 PM
Tolls? Or just let people use them whether they paid or not. Or have property owners pay for the roads adjacent to their property. There are ways to do it without resorting to force.

So their should be a toll everywhere? I don't think you understand, let's say like 50-100 people in a city of a million didn't pay their taxes. Their is suppose to be a toll everywhere to look for these people? Why would anyone make their life like that? Who would pay for the tolls too? If it's a small tax and you can use the roads, what the hell is the problem? I sometimes get the feeSling people just say "no" for fun.


Again, is it voluntary or not? I've asked this many times and I don't think you've answered.

I don't think it should be. The previous example I gave is a good reason.


Not sure what you mean here.

Sorry, what I mean is that if there should a small government that a community that organizes to build roads, schools, etc. It's not like all government's are evil that want to take all your money away and eat lobster every night.




Is it voluntary? And what do you mean by privatized public schooling anyway? If it's privatized, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless you're using the typical Republican definition of "privatization", which is to take taxpayer funds and give it to private firms as corporate welfare. There is a HUGE difference.

What I meant was that every public school could be paid for by taxes. Privatized menaing that parents and teachers control it. Not beaurocrats.

I'm still debating myself on this and abolish public schools, but this might work.

Yes, I debate myself. :D


Sure it can...if it's voluntary.

Wouldn't it just be easier with a low tax?


Yes, and I doubt there would be 20. Again, free market public transportation has been very successful in the past, and even in the present in at least one case.

I'd like an example please. Wouldn't it just be easier for one? I mean it's for a city, controlled by the city.


Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. What happens when someone disagrees? Are they left alone or forced to comply?

Well, I can convince them. But if all fails. Why not make them? It would make life hard for everyone? Can't use the Roads, can't use the plumbing, can't send your kid to public school(well this one goes either way, but if said person has no time for homeschooling or money for private schooling)?

Instead of just saying no, why not talk it over? Why would you say no?

Would you? Why?



I understand that you are closer to a libertarian than most people, but for example "privatized" schools funded by taxes? That's not libertarian at all.

Maybe that's not libertarian ,but I think I might be a good idea. If the people in the community don't want it. I won't do it. Even if it fails after I try it, I can do it the other way.


Once again, I take the word "tax" to mean it is not voluntary. That's my problem with it. If it were voluntary instead, I'd have no problem with it.

But why depend on some people donating? There's people who never donate, but pay their taxes.

I just want to know why you wouldn't want to pay a small tax for all this and make life easier?

brandon
12-31-2009, 06:15 PM
best of rpf

dealerjim
12-31-2009, 06:25 PM
If you honestly believe that a person has a right to anything which someone else must provide for free, then you aren't a libertarian.

+1

SimpleName
12-31-2009, 09:33 PM
I thought "Social Libertarian" meant somebody who dislikes moral standards and whatnot, as in, they don't personally mind prostitution, pornography, drug use, abortion, or any other social stigmas. Whatever else in that realm. Mostly, i think I fit in that crowd (see Penn Jillette). So yes, I am a social libertarian. But in the right way. Not in your skewed progressive way.

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-31-2009, 09:36 PM
I thought "Social Libertarian" meant somebody who dislikes moral standards and whatnot, as in, they don't personally mind prostitution, pornography, drug use, abortion, or any other social stigmas. Whatever else in that realm. Mostly, i think I fit in that crowd (see Penn Jillette). So yes, I am a social libertarian. But in the right way. Not in your skewed progressive way.

Penn Jillete is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Social Libertarian is basically a contradiction in terms...I suppose the closest you can get to is Noam Chomsky and his ilk.

Dreamofunity
01-01-2010, 01:56 AM
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Libertarian.

Bman
01-01-2010, 04:09 AM
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Libertarian.

To clarify, socially liberal means we don't want to be told how to live our lives and we won't tell you how to live yours.