It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America: Vote Libertarian or We're Finished

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

Reduced government bureaucracy, taxes, overhead, etc means that it is easier for anyone to start a business. With the resurge of small businesses that don't have the means to outsource will employ locally, creating more and more jobs for everyone else. Meanwhile, corporations that are too big too fail and require government subsidies just to stay afloat, would be forced to break apart allowing for room in the market for competition again.


I can understand and I completely agree with the premise that giving small businesses a tax break would encourage more small business and improve survival rates. I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to by "bureaucracy" but where applicable, I think that applying for licenses should be as painless as it can be and fees should always be as low as possible. However I think much of this is actually not at a federal level. Businesses with fewer than 50 full time employees are already exempt from many federal requirements including ESRP under the ACA.


The ACA is just newest example of federal bureaucracy. We have EPA regulations, FDA regulations, fair hiring guidelines, tax loopholes. Now I understand that these things are good things because they help reduce fraud, but the paperwork and guidelines are so strict and tight that you need a lot of money to navigate these things. Small businesses usually don't have access to the capital to navigate the bureaucracy. The government needs to streamline the process instead of just creating more paperwork and oversight from competing alphabet agencies.


Can you point to any examples of government subsidized corporations occupying a niche that would be better filled by small businesses? I certainly don't want to subsidize shareholder profits with my tax dollars. It should be noted that barring subsidies, there is nothing about Libertarian ideology that I'm aware of that holds that small business is more desirable than large corporations. In fact, is it not the natural evolution of the free market that large corporations will arise and in fact without regulation become monopolies?


Let's see, off the top of my head: banking, auto manufacturing, energy, utilities, isps, oil companies, agriculture (the government actually pays farmers NOT to farm), large retail centers like Walmart (yes walmart receives subsidies). All of these industries could serve to have some fresh blood and local competition infused in them to invigorate and evolve the businesses.

As for your monopoly concern, here is some reading on Libertarianism and monopolies:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly


It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.


Government and Microsoft:
a Libertarian View on Monopolies



Another false preconception about libertarianism is to misunderstand it as an economic doctrine opposed to monopolies, one that would recommend ``pure and perfect competition´´ as an economic model to seek and enforce. This is notably the gross misrepresentation of classical liberalism under which the statists from the european political institutions and other national parliaments claim that they act as libertarians when they enact a variety of laws and bills to ``regulate´´ the market.

However, libertarianism is not an economic doctrine, and it doesn't aim at promoting any kind of economic model [2]. It is a theory of Law, and seeks to promote a juridic model for the relationships between individuals, based on mutual consent, respect for each other's liberty, and individual responsibility. It rejects the very principle of coercion by a monopolist authority that underlies any kind of government intervention and regulation.

As applied to ``regulating monopolies´´, the authentic libertarian stance is that if a monopoly is evil in itself, how much greater an evil is the monopoly of force that the government constitutes when it has enough power to be capable of keeping the former in check! Government intervention and regulation is not and cannot be a way to deal with evil. The proper way to deal with evil is first to identify its very principle; only then can this evil be abolished. Intervention and regulation, instead of banishing evil, only institutionalize it, and use public coercion to promote and continue this evil in official ways, instead of dispelling it. If government somehow monopolized the efforts to keep other monopolies in check, the urgent thing to do is not to use this government monopoly, but to abolish it


Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads


And yet, few claims about the necessity or success of the transcontinental railroads are true. While none would argue that transcontinentals would not become economically feasible in the private market at some point, during the 1860s, as the first transcontinentals took shape, there was no economic justification. This is why the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad.

As creatures of government and of taxpayer-funded schemes to subsidize the railroads and their wealthy owners through cheap loans and outright subsidies, the railroads quickly became scandal-ridden, wasteful, and contemptuous of the public they were supposed to serve.


Please read the full articles to get the full picture. I had a tough time picking out good blurbs to post in this topic since all the information presented in the three articles is important.




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well said Krazyshot



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

I agree with the idea totally. The two party system is a total failure and has been used only to divide us more and more. Just like one poster said by the time we clean up the plastic, the glass piles up. Tptb have railroaded all of us in to only believing everything HAS to be only back or white and we are unamerican if we think otherwise. There are plenty of other colors in the crayon box.

The other parties through the years were a direect reflection of this exact issue ie. Federalists, anti-Federalists, whigs etc. The only drawback seems too many are afraid of change to attempt something different or outside of the box.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for your considered response. I'll attempt to briefly address your many points.



Now I understand that these things are good things because they help reduce fraud, but the paperwork and guidelines are so strict and tight that you need a lot of money to navigate these things.


Yes, it can be a daunting task but as you've noted, there are valid reasons behind most of these requirements. I don't believe that there is a uniquely "Libertarian" magic bullet to address this issue. I do agree with you in principle, less impediments are a good thing and I think most people would concur but as with most things, there is a balance to be struck.



Let's see, off the top of my head: banking, auto manufacturing, energy, utilities, isps, oil companies, agriculture (the government actually pays farmers NOT to farm), large retail centers like Walmart (yes walmart receives subsidies). All of these industries could serve to have some fresh blood and local competition infused in them to invigorate and evolve the businesses.


Here again, I think most people would be hard pressed to profess a love of paying out over a hundred billion dollars a year in corporate welfare. This includes various subsidies and tax breaks that are ostensibly intended to provide incentive to "job creators" to create jobs or in the case of banks, an incentive to provide loans to individuals and new business. Essentially this is the same sort of failed hypothesis behind "supply-side economics."

As to your source regarding the Libertarian view of monopolies, particularly as described in the case of Microsoft and intellectual property, I again find much to agree with and stress that the view of intellectual property as being anti-consumer is not strictly held by Libertarians.

In fact, I argue that much disagreement between those commonly describing themselves as "Libertarians" and those who identify as "Liberals" stems from issues of semantics, some intentionally employed and some resulting from the imperfect nature of human attempts at classification.

Where I'm going with this is that just as the Democrats are allegedly the "Liberal" party and in practice are only marginally more liberal than the Republicans, the Libertarian Party is already the front for its own faction of elites who operate in the interest of their own agenda behind a facade of falsely professed ideology and as such calling oneself a "Libertarian" should not be synonymous with support of the Libertarian Party.

What prominent "Libertarian" Charles Koch says:



We are on dangerous terrain when government picks winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing favored products and industries.


What Koch Industries and it's subsidiaries do:

Spends tens of millions of dollars a year to lobby congress in the interest of preserving subsidies for the oil industry. Notice how he neglected to mention in his WSJ op-ed that Koch Industries, primarily involved in the oil industry, receives subsidies just like everyone else in the industry to the tune of billions a year. Of particular interest is something called "percentage depletion" that accounts for a lot of the increased profits oil companies have reaped as prices have skyrocketed.

What Charles Koch says:



Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.


What Koch Industries and it's subsidiaries do:

They've received well in excess of $100 million dollars in government contracts since 2000. Look into the heavily criticized Strategic Petroleum Reserve deals they made in 2002 and 2004.

There's also the fact that they use subsidies to build logging roads for GP, lobbied Sarah Palin for a bail-out for one of their failing plants in Alaska, have admitted to lying about the amount of oil they've extracted from public owned lands to avoid paying for it, etc etc etc.

edit on 2014-4-22 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it can be a daunting task but as you've noted, there are valid reasons behind most of these requirements. I don't believe that there is a uniquely "Libertarian" magic bullet to address this issue. I do agree with you in principle, less impediments are a good thing and I think most people would concur but as with most things, there is a balance to be struck.


Yes compromise, it is a lost art in politics, and it isn't a uniquely Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or any other political party thing either.


Here again, I think most people would be hard pressed to profess a love of paying out over a hundred billion dollars a year in corporate welfare. This includes various subsidies and tax breaks that are ostensibly intended to provide incentive to "job creators" to create jobs or in the case of banks, an incentive to provide loans to individuals and new business. Essentially this is the same sort of failed hypothesis behind "supply-side economics."

As to your source regarding the Libertarian view of monopolies, particularly as described in the case of Microsoft and intellectual property, I again find much to agree with and stress that the view of intellectual property as being anti-consumer is not strictly held by Libertarians.

In fact, I argue that much disagreement between those commonly describing themselves as "Libertarians" and those who identify as "Liberals" stems from issues of semantics, some intentionally employed and some resulting from the imperfect nature of human attempts at classification.


Libertarianism actually originates from the left side of the political spectrum. I like to say that we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal though.


Where I'm going with this is that just as the Democrats are allegedly the "Liberal" party and in practice are only marginally more liberal than the Republicans, the Libertarian Party is already the front for its own faction of elites who operate in the interest of their own agenda behind a facade of falsely professed ideology and as such calling oneself a "Libertarian" should not be synonymous with support of the Libertarian Party.

What prominent "Libertarian" Charles Koch says:



We are on dangerous terrain when government picks winners and losers in the economy by subsidizing favored products and industries.


What Koch Industries and it's subsidiaries do:

Spends tens of millions of dollars a year to lobby congress in the interest of preserving subsidies for the oil industry. Notice how he neglected to mention in his WSJ op-ed that Koch Industries, primarily involved in the oil industry, receives subsidies just like everyone else in the industry to the tune of billions a year. Of particular interest is something called "percentage depletion" that accounts for a lot of the increased profits oil companies have reaped as prices have skyrocketed.


Yes, no political party is free from interest groups and hypocrites. I'm sure if our party were to grow bigger, then even more people like the Koch brothers would join it and try to sideline it with their personal political agendas. The key is to try to maintain the purity of the ideals of Libertarianism and if someone co-opts the party, leave and form a new one that goes back to Libertarianism's roots. In the end, Libertarian is just a label. What really matters is what you stand for politically. Right now, the Libertarian ideals haven't been corrupted too badly yet and are easier to relate to.


What Charles Koch says:



Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.


What Koch Industries and it's subsidiaries do:

They've received well in excess of $100 million dollars in government contracts since 2000. Look into the heavily criticized Strategic Petroleum Reserve deals they made in 2002 and 2004.

There's also the fact that they use subsidies to build logging roads for GP, lobbied Sarah Palin for a bail-out for one of their failing plants in Alaska, have admitted to lying about the amount of oil they've extracted from public owned lands to avoid paying for it, etc etc etc.


It helps my conscience if I think of the Koch brothers as Tea Partiers instead of Libertarians because their ideology makes me sick. It's just close enough to Libertarianism that they can try to claim to be Libertarian, but if you look behind the curtain, you can see that they are the same as all the other people who co-opted the Republican and Democratic parties. They just care about helping big business and use the Libertarian ideals of hands off government to get their way while obviously (as you pointed out) receiving help from it.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

It is the "party line voting" which has contributed so much to our current situation. An election would be far better served if those who vote would concentrate on the person "applying for the position" and forget about the partisan politics.

Of course, I am speaking in "utopian terms"; I know this will not happen in the world we live in.
But, it is always nice to deam a little.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It's refreshing to see somebody who has well formed opinions and isn't regurgitating one line statements from some political party's publicly stated platform.



It helps my conscience if I think of the Koch brothers as Tea Partiers instead of Libertarians because their ideology makes me sick. It's just close enough to Libertarianism that they can try to claim to be Libertarian, but if you look behind the curtain, you can see that they are the same as all the other people who co-opted the Republican and Democratic parties. They just care about helping big business and use the Libertarian ideals of hands off government to get their way while obviously (as you pointed out) receiving help from it.





posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Like others have said, if this is going to happen, it's going to have to be done with some trickery and deception. I remember watching election day a couple years ago, I believe the big belief back then were Libs shooting for 5% of the total vote and that was going to be some massive accomplishment. By the end of the night, if I recall correctly, I think Libs hit just over a whopping 1%. It was more than a bit depressing and showed me how deep the citizens of this country are incapable of looking at the big picture. Instead of being able to see and address the horrifying turns this country is currently undergoing, most people would just rather engage in the 2 party war taking turns shooting off at one another in the media "ooo-ing and aahh-ing" waiting to see the next childish response from the other side.




top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join