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.

 

Sell me on Libertarianism...

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Anonex
I wanted the rich to pay their fair share.


Just to satisfy my curiosity ... what is your definition of 'rich' and 'fair share'. I will give you my own example. By USA standards, I am poor. Some would even say I am very poor, but I have seen people that are poorer than me. By 3rd world standards, I might be considered rich. Would that make it right for the government to take from me and give to someone else? The problem is we seem to think 'the government' is the answer to everything. People used to help each other. This would fall under your "it takes a village" analogy. Then people started relying on the government to 'fix' everything and we forgot how to help each other. So, imo when you vote for someone that 'gives you stuff', you voted for the bureaucracy that will always be wasteful. You just let someone buy your vote with a promise that you have no way of making him or her keep. Oh, you can say "I'll vote them out if they don't keep their promise." but that will not change what they did while in office. Then you vote him/her out and vote for the next promise. That promise is broken and rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

The 'villagers' stopped helping each other because 'the government' will do it for them. Yeah right. That's working great.


I love your name by the way. I do not believe that government is always the best answer, but I do believe it can be an answer, and can be the best answer to some situations. Particuarly in the economy, I feel it is absolutely required that a strong government step in to ensure a fair playing field.

As far as your question about who is rich and who is poor, okay I will bite. I live in a VERY poor area of Appalachia, were public school teachers are some of the best paid workers. It is an area decimated by the loss of coal jobs, where a literal majority rely upon government assistance to survive. Someone who makes $40,000-60,000 around here, is doing well. Someone making six figure would definitely be considered by anyone around here to be quite wealthy. If that seems unbelievable, it should. That's just how bad the wealth disparity really is. People forget how big the U.S. really is some areas have more food stamps than teeth. Some areas of this country are literally like third world countries.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Sell you on libertarianism?

Well, what's your philosophy on life?

My philosophy is that each individual has the right
live life as he chooses so long as he harms no other.
That each individual has a responsibility to care for
himself. That each individual has the right to reap
the rewards of his labor. That no individual should
be compelled to share that which he has earned.

Libertarianism is pretty much a "You do you, and I'll
do me" mentality.

There will always be achievers and non achievers,
regardless of the system of government in place.

Libertarianism rewards the achievers, communalism,
or communism, rewards the non-achievers

The one draw-back to libertarianism and free market
capitalism is that it will always eventually lead to a
two class society--the ultra-rich and everyone else.

That part of it can't be changed because wealth
buys influence, and influence creates wealth.

I'd still rather be born free, responsible only to myself,
than to be born into forced servitude as dictated
by those born before me.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I posted a response and you seem to be ignoring it.

Guess im done with my spiel now.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shaneslaughta

It wasn't my intention to ignore your post at all. I am trying not to double post and im not real sure how to reply to two people in one post.

I totally understand where you are coming from about the two party system. If we could convince everyone to give a third party consideration, then it would be great yes. It's a self fufilling prophecy really, like thinking your vote doesn't matter because it's just one in millions, so you end up with millions who do not even vote. So many people are sheep and just follow the mainstream media and if the MSM doesn't act like a third party is viable, then the people just go along with it. Maybe it really is true what they say, that if voting really changed anything, they wouldn't allow it. Also, I am following that thread you linked thanks



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

Except very little of the money in the banks is their actual money. Most of the cash they have on-hand belongs to others, and thanks to the ruling over MF Global and John Corzine, it is now totally acceptable for banks to liquidate and appropriate the assets they have on-hand to pay off a debt. So, if you want banks to start just nuking customer assets to pay off their taxes, sure, sound great.

The energy sector already gets taxed massively. You know why gas is so expensive? Gas tax, not because the oil company is gouging you. All of the other utilities are struggling under regulatory costs. Coal is being regulated out of existence. The U.S. could begin to have rolling brown outs because most existing coal power plants are going to start going out of business. Obama was deadly serious when he said that coal plants would be bankrupt. But, sure, let's tax them more.

And why tax those industries and ignore all the others?

Either every one should be taxed the same or none at all. Fair means fair, not more for some and not as much for others. This goes the same with people "paying their fair share" by the way. Everyone needs to have skin in the game. It's far too easy for people to vote for "free stuff" without a proper sense of perspective on what it means for the rest of us. I'm tired of losing more than close to 40% of my yearly income. It sucks that my husband doesn't actually get to bring home money for our family until sometime on Wednesday, but they still expect him to put in his 8+/hours per day on Monday and Tuesday.

And having lived through a minimum wage hike I can tell that all the bad effects they talk about do happen. I had earned a healthy increase above the minimum wage on my own merit. Everyone else working there got a raise because it was mandated; I didn't. My wages were automatically devalued. Then, the extra help they had been going to hire they could no longer afford, so someone lost a job. Then, about two weeks later, I had to go around and price up everything in the store. So, the inflation occurred (as it did everywhere else in town). So, why should someone flipping a burger make $10/hour? Is their labor worth that?

The economic reality is that a person's labor is worth precisely as much as he agrees to sell it for and his employer agrees to pay him. You can demand $10 an hour to flip a burger, but if someone comes along who is willing to do it for less, then your employer will likely take them up on it and why not? Why should there be an artificial floor on wages? If there are people willing to take a lesser price for their labor, then they should be allowed to do the work.

The more in demand or rare your skills are, the higher a wage you can command because there are fewer people who can do that job. The key to earning more is to learn how to do things others can't or to go do things in places other people aren't willing to go to to do them. It's supply and demand economics. Why should there be an artificial ceiling on the wages? Do you know that the reason we have health insurance benefits married to labor in the US is because of artificial wage ceilings imposed decades ago? Employers needed other ways to attract and retain top talent when they couldn't just use money, so they started offering health insurance. We can all see how well that has worked out.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

Ahh. Its ok. I been trolled so many times here, i don't know when people want an honest answer or are just baiting me.

You got it exactly though. The people want to be led. The leaders want the power and control and will do everything to keep it.

The sad truth is if we cant unite as a nation and change our current line fo thinking were doomed to be stuck in this rut for all eternity or just until they sink this ship, i find that infinitely more plausible



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
if you have to be sold on libertarianism, then I suspect you are not prepared to be a libertarian.

Being of libertarian mindset typically means you don't "pick sides", and instead choose to mind your own business. That is difficult for both parties because it violates some of their core values (the welfare state vs the corporate welfare state, each supported with increased taxation).



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

Sure... do you like owning property, I mean REALLY owning property? Do you like being able to live your life without a bunch of red tape and bureaucrats telling you how to live, what to drive, what to eat, etc...? Do you have at least one active and functioning brain cell? If you answered yes to all of these questions, then you are a viable candidate for Libertarianism.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Anonex
I wanted the rich to pay their fair share.


Just to satisfy my curiosity ... what is your definition of 'rich' and 'fair share'. I will give you my own example. By USA standards, I am poor. Some would even say I am very poor, but I have seen people that are poorer than me. By 3rd world standards, I might be considered rich. Would that make it right for the government to take from me and give to someone else? The problem is we seem to think 'the government' is the answer to everything. People used to help each other. This would fall under your "it takes a village" analogy. Then people started relying on the government to 'fix' everything and we forgot how to help each other. So, imo when you vote for someone that 'gives you stuff', you voted for the bureaucracy that will always be wasteful. You just let someone buy your vote with a promise that you have no way of making him or her keep. Oh, you can say "I'll vote them out if they don't keep their promise." but that will not change what they did while in office. Then you vote him/her out and vote for the next promise. That promise is broken and rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

The 'villagers' stopped helping each other because 'the government' will do it for them. Yeah right. That's working great.


I love your name by the way. I do not believe that government is always the best answer, but I do believe it can be an answer, and can be the best answer to some situations. Particuarly in the economy, I feel it is absolutely required that a strong government step in to ensure a fair playing field.

As far as your question about who is rich and who is poor, okay I will bite. I live in a VERY poor area of Appalachia, were public school teachers are some of the best paid workers. It is an area decimated by the loss of coal jobs, where a literal majority rely upon government assistance to survive. Someone who makes $40,000-60,000 around here, is doing well. Someone making six figure would definitely be considered by anyone around here to be quite wealthy. If that seems unbelievable, it should. That's just how bad the wealth disparity really is. People forget how big the U.S. really is some areas have more food stamps than teeth. Some areas of this country are literally like third world countries.


I know the Appalachia area very well. I grew up in that area. You are correct about the best paid jobs. I know from personal experience. I am from one of the poorest counties in my home state. Anyone making $40k - 60k a year is considered rich( not just doing well... RICH!) As I said, most would consider me poor, but by some standards I would be considered middle class. I'm not complaining. I manage to get by, but there is not much left over at the end of the month (sometimes there is close to nothing). I don't live extravagantly. The car is old and paid for and I don't have a mortgage. My bills are basically utilities, food and gasoline for the car. I know people have it worse than me and I really wish I could help them but even with the few bills I have, some months I am stretched to the limit. For those that are truly poor, I feel for them. For those that live way beyond their means, I could care less. If you just have to have that brand new car because you are too embarrassed to drive an older, paid for car, or you bought a house with a mortgage that you knew would stretch your budget to the limits .... I have no sympathy. Stop trying to keep up with the Joneses.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

Why is that unbelievable? I live in Missouri, and that about the standard of living here, too. Why would you call that poor? If everyone around is making the same and the economy is priced to fit, you aren't poor. Maybe you are if you are comparing yourself to the coasts and standards of living like they have in NYC and LA, but I don't live there, so why do I care what they make or have to make?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if you have to be sold on libertarianism, then I suspect you are not prepared to be a libertarian.

Being of libertarian mindset typically means you don't "pick sides", and instead choose to mind your own business. That is difficult for both parties because it violates some of their core values (the welfare state vs the corporate welfare state, each supported with increased taxation).


I think you are right. I don't think this country is prepared for libertarianism right now. Whether it is good or bad is a seprate argument. No one minds their own business. Most peoples privacy is freely given to things like google of facebook, or even sold. Everyone is nosy, "reality" tv is king. Watching other peoples lives is a fetish. And everyone has an opinion on what everyone else should or should not be doing. Everyone picks a side.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
We are Americans...

We pride ourselves on not taking government handouts.

We are 11-3 and looking for a playoff spot.

Just threw that in to see if you are even reading the replies.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if you have to be sold on libertarianism, then I suspect you are not prepared to be a libertarian.

Being of libertarian mindset typically means you don't "pick sides", and instead choose to mind your own business. That is difficult for both parties because it violates some of their core values (the welfare state vs the corporate welfare state, each supported with increased taxation).


I think you are right. I don't think this country is prepared for libertarianism right now. Whether it is good or bad is a seprate argument. No one minds their own business. Most peoples privacy is freely given to things like google of facebook, or even sold. Everyone is nosy, "reality" tv is king. Watching other peoples lives is a fetish. And everyone has an opinion on what everyone else should or should not be doing. Everyone picks a side.


You have a great grasp on American culture. That alone puts you in the Libertarian camp. All the other parties, Tea Party included are so driven by agendas and ideologies that they actually are just compounding the current paradigm of greed, corruption and lameass thought processes. Political fantasy land if you will...
edit on 21-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
We are Americans...

We pride ourselves on not taking government handouts.

We are 11-3 and looking for a playoff spot.

Just threw that in to see if you are even reading the replies.


I am reading every reply, if I don't respond to every specific one, I am definitely nodding at them


YOU may pride yourself on not taking hand outs but I think you severely underestimate the number of voters who are looking for nothing but.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

I was once where you are. I don't think the American version of Libertarianism is what you are looking for (they stole the term anyway). I think what you're looking for comes closer to the origin of the term which was the French Revolution... Libertaire, which is also known as Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism. It is a far, far Left ideology that is anti-authoritarian.

Try reading some Noam Chomsky.


edit on 4/21/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuko, sometimes I think you can read my mind ( and reorganize my thoughts to make them more coherent). Great post!



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I like the analogy of the Wheel of Samsara from Buddhism. So, take reincarnation as a given for the moment. Over the course of an eternity, all life will rise up and down, accumulating negative and positive karma as it goes. So, bacterium will rise in awareness to become a Buddha, Buddhas will eventually lose awareness and sink into bacterial life.

An insight that arises from visualizing a spinning wheel, with some souls ascending to higher complexity while others are on their way down, is that neither situation is really good, bad, desirable, or valued above any other. They all exist, they will all always exist, they're all part of the way things are. So I don't judge anybody too harshly, even your John McCains and John Kerrys, because (at least in the Buddhist cosmology), we've all been there. We're all learning from our experiences, each lesson arising from the previous.

I try to ground myself in that awareness - that everything that can happen, probably will. Some of it we have learned to call "good" and some of it "bad," but really, we're in a big sandbox. None of it is inherently good or bad, but all of it is miraculous.

So, what are you going to do? Force everybody to live your experience? Take center stage and demand that you understand how things should be done, that you have found the best rationale? I don't want to do that. I don't judge others that do because, hey, we've all been there at some point in this eternity. But me, I want to watch it unfold in all its endless permutations. I'll live me life the best that I can as far as I can tell, and I agree with you that that means helping people in need, as much as possible. Yet, it's miraculous, isn't it, that everybody sees it a little differently?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anonex
YOU may pride yourself on not taking hand outs but I think you severely underestimate the number of voters who are looking for nothing but.


I agree there. Its the instant gratification age. Everyone wants it now and no one wants to do anything to get it.

Whatever the want in question may be.

Gime Gime Gime




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

Well, I'll tell you this much. We had better get ready because on way or another libertarianism is coming. Either we do it voluntarily and rediscover our personal independence and self-reliance or our economy crashes because no government can support the trillions of dollars in debt being run up at all levels trying to provide "free-stuff" to those of you who aren't ready to be independent and self-reliant and would rather reach deep into my pockets every year and we are forced to become libertarian the hard way after a good dose of anarchy in which many, many will die.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
if you have to be sold on libertarianism, then I suspect you are not prepared to be a libertarian.

Being of libertarian mindset typically means you don't "pick sides", and instead choose to mind your own business. That is difficult for both parties because it violates some of their core values (the welfare state vs the corporate welfare state, each supported with increased taxation).


I think you are right. I don't think this country is prepared for libertarianism right now. Whether it is good or bad is a seprate argument. No one minds their own business. Most peoples privacy is freely given to things like google of facebook, or even sold. Everyone is nosy, "reality" tv is king. Watching other peoples lives is a fetish. And everyone has an opinion on what everyone else should or should not be doing. Everyone picks a side.


You have a great grasp on American culture. That alone puts you in the Libertarian camp. All the other parties, Tea Party included are so driven by agendas and ideologies that they actually are just compounding the current paradigm of greed, corruption and lameass thought processes ala Rush and Sean.


Thanks, I think...I keep telling myself I am going to be done with what I consider extremist websites, filled with people that I imagine are like Dale from King of the Kill. I am so indoctrinated as a liberal, that I see threads with people practically verbally spitting on the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that I am filled with disgust...but then I see the same people lashing out against Rush Limbaugh, John McCain and even Bush. It's just bizzaro land to me that there can be disgust at BOTH sides...but then it makes sense when I think about it. We just need it to make sense to more people. We may not agree on everything but I still believe there is enough common ground to come to solutions.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join