Libertarian Values

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Individualism and the constant strive to please yourself is the very ideologies that tear countries and the entire world apart. Isn't that what Libertarianism is? The strive to liberate people under freedom? Freedom is great until it reaches a point where the individual realizes that the very freedom he/she is granted leaves them the ability to not care about anyone else and consume until their flesh is satisfied.

I do not believe that working as individuals, all with our own personal agenda, is going to unite us.
We need some sort of divine-authoritarian rule if we are to put ourselves and our society back together so we can all exist peacefully. But of course, who is divine enough to not be corrupted by absolute power?




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
none of it matters. Half the stuff in there would describe the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but shouldn't matter to a true Libertarian.


Well put



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tsloan
 


A big ***YES*** on all of that. Got any "reformist" link?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Only by what looked like half a bar! ....

Ok, in fact.. I secretly have a shrine to Obama in my closet with pictures, candles, a pair of used underwear some guy on Ebay swore was Obama's. I think we need a new holiday to celebrate our beloved Leader! All hail the Leader!!



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Ok, I understand that.

But let's say take a state that has fifty counties.

Couldn't they make the same argument towards the state that you are making against the federal government?

Some counties might be wealthier than others, some might be urban, some rural, each with it's own sensibilities to a perceived injustice of having to foot the bill for other counties or for laws that they don't see applicable to them.

Do you see what I mean?

As I see it, this ultimately narrows down to individualism.

Btw, my questioning is earnest, I'm trying to figure out what I'm not getting.




[edit on 1 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

That's the bit that I find strange, even confusing.

What is the difference between a State government and a Federal Government?

All you are looking for is essentially substituting one authority structure for another.

Then what?

Will being Libertarian mean that you want to do away with the State gov. and narrow it down to District, County, City, neighborhood, to when each person is his own ruler?

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is anarchism.



Thats the direction we want to head...just a little bit. Heading toward it too much would then be Anarchism.

Not that Libertarians need to move in that direction - many are already fairly self-determined, even within the current system.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 




Couldn't they make the same argument towards the state that you are making against the federal government?


No, absolutely not. The Federal Government has a Constitution as a guideline for it's operations. It has essentially used the Constitution as toilet paper. If we move back to Constitutional Law, then the Federal Government would be slashed so drastically we would hardly notice it in our daily lives. At the State Level the state is bound by it's own Constitution, the Counties do not have Constitutions, are not free independent States, and are actually subjected to the same guidelines of the State Constitution.

The United States is only a Union of States. That's the biggest difference.

There have been several cases in American history where Counties have tried to move away from a state, never resulting in any thing serious.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
...induce TERM LIMITS of 2 years on ALL government offices and once your term is up your OUT forever! Period! Never to become career politicians again.


So, just about the time someone begins to fully grasp the many complexities that a Legislative/Administration job requires, esp. in order to be able to implement any necessary changes, you would permanently remove them from office... And you think that is a good idea or logical idea how?

Don't get me wrong, I think that career pols are an unnecessary evil, but think you have veered into the realm of fantasy in terms of how that scenario could ever work. Maybe 6 years... and even then, or either way, all you have is more money being spent (and raised) by the pols, more elections more corp. influence.

(Did I just go off topic?)





[edit on 1-4-2009 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Fair enough, but what indication is there that would lead one and yourself to believe that any individual state will be any more adept in following it's own constitution than the federal government does?

Power is power, isn't it?

Again, to me it seems like one is just switching masters so to speak.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
Individualism and the constant strive to please yourself is the very ideologies that tear countries and the entire world apart.


Critics do mistake Individualism with Egotism.



Isn't that what Libertarianism is? The strive to liberate people under freedom?


I dont know any Libertarians who "strive" to "liberate" others. Why? Because they do not need our "Liberation"...we'll leave them alone and let them be who they want to be.



I do not believe that working as individuals, all with our own personal agenda, is going to unite us.


On a small corporate level you will notice how each individual functions the best within the team if he is himself with his own unique talents which he contributes to the them.

Teams work much less well under Dictatorship or Communism.

Think about it.



We need some sort of divine-authoritarian rule if we are to put ourselves and our society back together so we can all exist peacefully.


This we've been having since thousands of years. Its worked OK but it has many limitations.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I got a good chuckle from your brain diagrams! Right on! I would only add one comment to the discussion of Libertarian ideology. Less government is great BUT as a former ardent capitalist, I have now come to the conclusion that a lassez-faire approach to free markets ie. NO government oversight, is even more dangerous than too much government. Our problems with the 'Illuminati' stems from the fact that these people have been allowed to accumulate so much wealth that they can literally bribe anyone they wish and that gives them way too much power. Just a police have a natural inclination to push the envelope of what they can get away with in terms of stepping on civil liberties so too will business owners push the envelope of what they can get away with when it comes to unfair competitive practices, ignoring environmental laws, exploiting workers, selling unsafe products, etc. etc. As a Libertarian, I think we need some government to act on behalf of the little guy when it comes to keeping these monolithic corporations in line.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Fair enough, but what indication is there that would lead one and yourself to believe that any individual state will be any more adept in following it's own constitution than the federal government does?

Power is power, isn't it?

Again, to me it seems like one is just switching masters so to speak.



There is none. In fact I would anticipate any form of government to be inheritably corrupt by nature. However Governments, even corrupt ones, offer regulation and control, which are essential to a working society. At the State level it is easier to deal with corruption, everything being more localized. The State Governments with more power would sooner bend to represent the wills of her people, being more distinguished from other states. I believe the Federal Government greatly aids in the corruption of state governments. Often States will bend to the Federal Governments will for more jobs, money, etc.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
At the State level it is easier to deal with corruption, everything being more localized.


See that's where the whole thing breaks down for me.

I think that what you said there is mostly wishful thinking, as you said there is no evidence for it. In fact I dare say that there's probably more evidence for corruption increasing as the governing structure gets smaller. Even if that's not accurate, things are at the very least equal across the board.

Listen, there are numerous nations smaller than most states in the US, and most are plagued by corruption.

The idea that somehow corruption will be minimized at a state level is kind of naive.

Again, same movie, just different actors imo.

Edit to clarify: I'm calling the notion naive, not you rockpuck.





[edit on 1 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I'm actually an ex-Libertarian, although I do still maintain what could be called "libertarian values" in a general sense.

My major break with mainstream Libertarians is laissez-faire economics, which frankly, I have no faith in.

I have tried to move away from ideology as much as possible in favor of pinciple and pragmatism, and I try to avoid getting stuck with any political label.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm actually an ex-Libertarian, although I do still maintain what could be called "libertarian values" in a general sense.

My major break with mainstream Libertarians is laissez-faire economics, which frankly, I have no faith in.

I have tried to move away from ideology as much as possible in favor of pinciple and pragmatism, and I try to avoid getting stuck with any political label.


Paradoxically the "avoid getting stuck with any political label" puts you squarely back into being a Libertarian...



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Fair enough, but what indication is there that would lead one and yourself to believe that any individual state will be any more adept in following it's own constitution than the federal government does?

Power is power, isn't it?

Again, to me it seems like one is just switching masters so to speak.


You as an individual and a Community have more overview, more say, more personal contact to a localized Government.

A localized Government will respect the uniqueness of your area and the people in it.

What New Yorkers need is something different than what North Dakotans need



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

What New Yorkers need is something different than what North Dakotans need


That is undoubtedly true.

Though the argument can also be made that what South Bronx residents need is different that what West Village residents do.

I also remember living in a condo building in NYC where all residents paid fees according to what floor they lived in and not the size of their apartment. As you can imagine even in that small government of the condo association there were issues of fairness, corruption, and power abuse.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I took that same test a while back, and I was exactly dead middle, right on the crosshairs, lol.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I just wanted to add ..

I am mindful that it is easy for me to sit here and knock holes in any form of government. Truth is they all are different variations of benefits and costs and anyone could pick them apart quite easily.

As to Libertarianism, it would make more sense to me if the premise was the reduction of government in ANY form and level rather than the substitution of the Federal for the State or from national to local.

Not that would embrace it, but simply acknowledge its advantages.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The state and federal relationship isn't that hard. The constitution doesn't tell congress and the federal government what it "can't" do, it tells the federal government what it MUST do.

The majority of the power is supposed to be with the states. These are domestic issues and so forth. Each state also has a constitution which also states not what the state "can't" do, but what the state must do. Anything which is not specifically listed, they are NOT supposed to have power over at all.

It is the job of the federal government to insure that the states do not infringe of the rights of the citizens. A prime example of this would be the civil rights movement in the south during the 60's. In which case the federal government not only had every right to step in and ensure people were allowed to vote and so forth, but it is there job to do things like this. Affirmative action and so forth was overstepping the boundaries however, but those people had every right to vote and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else, and it is the job of the federal government to make sure those rights aren't infringed upon.

All things not specifically listed are passed on down the line, with the majority of issues residing on the individual person, and personal choice/freedom. Thus to be "free".

None of these social programs and such we have now are legit/legal. They are all unconstitutional as these powers were never not once given to them, they have taken them and ignored the system. And now that the federal government has so much control, the checks and balances are destroyed, as there is no higher level of government to keep them in check. Thus the more things are centralized, the more the elites get power and the more the people lose power. Only in a decentralized system where the powers are very limited do the people get their freedom.

Even if you get the government programs and laws you ask for, you are still not free. Change your mind and you will quickly find that out. Only when the choice is yours and yours alone are you free in that area.

Decentralization is why the US was #1 in most all measurable fields. Math, Science, economy and so on. There is a perfectly logic reason for this as well.

When you centralize everything on a federal level, you get 1 program for the entire country. It takes between 4-8 years to get any chance at "change". And your vote is 1 in 100 million or so. You have very little say in what actually happens, as we can see now. If you decentralized these programs to only 1 level lower, the states, then you suddenly have 50 programs.

When you have 1 program, changes come slowly. If the change is bad, the entire country suffers. And whats good in 1 state might not work so well in another state. If you have 50 programs, each program is able to make changes they think will work. Rather than 1 slow program of change, you have multiple programs of change. Each program is able to try new things and see what works. Your vote in the state elections is much higher %, and you vote more often(more power to the people). If a state does something bad, only that state suffers, and to fix their problems they have 49 other programs to look at and see what works. When 1 program finds something good that works, the other programs can also make these changes.

If you take that down even further to the local levels, then rather than 50 programs, you get 1000's of programs. This allows for the greatest amount of change and things to be tried out. And if you don't like what a state is doing, you can still move to another state and keep the basic rights of being in the US. You vote on a local level much more often, and your 1 vote makes a huge difference, where it means practically nothing on a federal level. You could even become a councilmen yourself without too much effort(in comparison to president/congress etc). These people will have to answer directly to you, rather than ignoring you unless you are by chance in the majority of the nation.

This is what it means to bring "power to the people". The more things are centralized, that means "power to the elite". Thus why the more things are centralized in this country, the more the "elite" are involved, which is what allows for all these "conspiracies" in the first place. Of course, a NWO is about as centralized as you can get.

But more people don't really have a clue how the country was setup, or why it's better. And so they vote on the issues without any thought on the level or consequences. They give up these "powers" to the politican they think is good. Sure, I'll let Clinton or Obama control my education they might say, but it's only a GWB away from being screwed up and because you gave away that power, you have no say in it. You are stuck, just as we are now.

Did you know that if all issues had been decided on a federal level things like the underground railroad could have never existed. On the issue of slavery, rather than it being from state to state, what if the entire country was "pro-slavery". The slaves who managed to get freed would have had NO safe place to escape too. Easy to say they could have just made them all free nationwide, but you have to look at the fact that could go both ways and what you are opening up.






top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join