Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


damn libertarians.. (also kidding)

I respect the founding ideas of America because they were in line with my idea that we can evolve into anarchism over time. America's founding was based on giving more freedom and a radically smaller government than most could even dream of. Sadly, it has moved from that.. America has lost its way and moved further to the left over its history.. the wrong direction. I hate when I am labeled as a leftist because I espouse Anarchism. We are totally right, as complete left is domination by the state, the right being the total lack of the state.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Ireland was settled by stone age hunter gatherers at least as far back as 7500 BC.

They built various megalithic structures, some as early as 3200 BC.

The Celts originated in central Europe forming their culture as early as 1400 BC.

The Celts arrived in Britain around the 6th century BC and expanded into Ireland around that same time.





Whether or not the arrival of the Celts in Ireland was an actual invasion, or a more gradual assimilation, is an open question... Current academic opinion favours the theory that the Celts arrived in Ireland over the course of several centuries, beginning in the late Bronze Age with Celts of the early iron-using Hallstatt group of people, to be followed after 300BC by Celts of the La Tène cultural group which formed within the Hallstatt group.
P Harbinson: "Pre-Christian Ireland, from the First Settlers to the Early Celts", Thames and Hudson, 1994



The Celtic culture expanded because of thier skill with iron and displacement of the bronze age. So it was not by conquest but by assimilation. So most likely the people of Ireland were mostly native and adopted Celtic culture as it expanded into Britain and Ireland

[edit on 12-5-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
Libertarian or LIBERALtarian ?

The reason I no longer consider myself a Libertarian is:

Libertarians are supposed to be against the welfare state, yet many favor the idea of welcoming Illegal Aliens with open arms. (Welfare state)

Open Trade with slave nations will reduce your wages to that of a slave, yet many Libertarians blindly support open trade. (globalism)


Explain to me, if your currency is stable and the gubment is not allowed to take the fruits of your labor, taxes, how could another country compete with you here in the states? Especially since the other country has to pay for the shipping costs on top of their production.

Libertarians are all about protecting the borders. Where did you hear that they weren't? edit to add, I guess I was wrong here, I assumed that libertarians were more aligned with immigration laws allowing a controlled emigration of foreigners. Not willy nilly. Hmmm. I guess that maybe something I do not agree with completely.

Do you actually think that another country like china is having any problems right now shipping goods here?



[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by broahes
 


I knew that he meant lack of law enforcement under government, but it would seem that he was emplying that this would lead to chaos and/or lawlessness, to which I replied that anarchy doesn't mean lack of total law enforcement. So what if law enforcement was not done by a government, if law enforcement could be done by someone with vested interest in the outcome.

--airspoon


Point taken, I was just making a mountain out of a mole hill.


Government doesn't protect me better than I can. I wish more people could realize that.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by poet1b
 



Free market principles does not allow companies and individuals to become detrimental to the free market itself.



I hear this, help me understand in plain Engrish



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, regulation, minimalistic in nature.

Just as the Constitution calls for regulation of interstate commerce. This is not what the government has enacted now. This meant to make regular, make laws to enforce equality of trade.

I would also argue that monopolies and companies that become too big to fail, are a detriment to free markets. Hence; they would do harm to the very free market.

One of the things that people bring up is companies would be able to poison the air, commit fraud, all sorts of things.

Let us take for example BP and the other companies involved in this latest debacle.

In a Libertarian society, this company would be forced to pay each and everyone harmed by this for their harm. If it wiped out the company, so be it. That is what free markets are all about. A new company would take their place. If anything was found that could implicate criminal negligence. These people would end up in jail.

Now what is happening? The government will cover the backsides of the corporation that is their partner in crime.

If you are harmed by another, you have a case for civil litigation on top of the criminal litigation.

This is one of the sneaky ways of our system now. The government covers for their corporate partners.

The Bill of Rights has a couple components for this.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Grand juries use to be completely different then they are today. If you were to get together a certain quantity of people that agreed that a crime had been committed, you could push for a trial.

That last part I wrote, do you understand why this has been changed by government? It is because the government does not want people to have the right to push for criminal complaints, because the majority of crime is committed by government itself or by it's agencies.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Nice

I will let that roll around my head for a bit

Good breakdown non the less



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
There is one tenet of Libertarianism.

You have the RIGHT to do anything as long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

I will always be your friend and benefactor.

You have the right to your own world. You have the right to believe in what you want. You have the right to self determination.

Why the HELL are you not a Libertarian?



Why do I not support Libertarianism? Simple. America was founded on it. Look where it led. A country with so much freedom breeds irresponsibility. This freedom is granted to individuals who can form corporations, which then overcome the public. Irresponsible, large corporations will survive under the free market and libertarian values, thus I don't support such rubbish. People need to get over themselves and realize that there is someone out there aside from themselves, and that morales are not relative.

At the risk no one will read this post, I'll keep it short. However, I do have a lot to say on the issue should the situation arise.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


So, if you do not believe in freedom as you so pointedly said, what do you believe in, Slavery?


You bringing up corporations, tells me you are not a student of history.

Who created corporations? Care to tackle that one?

Who created the federal reserve? Who created the income tax?

Just a few questions for you. I see in your avatar you are a anti-libertarian.

Change it just for my thread? Or have you always hated freedom?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Ya I dunno what that guys talking about.. I've never met a single Libertarian that supported open borders OR free trade.
Where do ye guys get your information sheesh..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yes, free trade. Not through treaties with multiple nations. Individual agreements with different nations.

As for the free travel through borders. Does that include just allowing anyone to come to the US?

No immigration laws whatsoever?

Hmmm. I thought the borders were to be secure? The party has a solid stance on security.

Just wondering if the party would allow just anyone to move here?

I have to question that logic.

edit to fix my mistake.

[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Excellent response, the first I can recall to this question.

While the illegal drug market is not regulated by government, I would say that it is regulated by the gangs and drug cartels. Instead of the rules being enforced by the police and the courts, where you can be fined, imprisoned, or have your business shut down, the drug cartels will cut off a body part or kill you or a loved one for failure to follow their rules. It is not a market system I would like to see put in place.

I have to wonder if the drug market in Holland does better than in the countries where drugs are illegal.

The illegal immigration market is being subsidized by our government through medicaid and welfare, and a contract licensing system that keeps U.S. citizen from participating in their respective markets by giving all control over who is allowed to participate in these markets to current contractor who must sign off on work experience in order to obtain a contractors license. We have in place a government controlled system that limits access to the markets through a wide variety of controls that discriminate against U.S. citizens.

Prostitution might be the most unregulated market, but does prostitution thrive more in markets where it is legal and regulated, or in areas where it is illegal and unregulated. I would say it thrives more in the markets where it is legal and regulated.

Violent drug markets, modern day slavery subsidized by government, and prostitution hardly comprise a system that is viable for all markets. None of these examples are viable market systems, and there is considerable evidence that these markets do better when regulated. Take the alcohol industry as an example, I think it clearly demonstrates that such markets can do better under government regulation.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Do you guys realize that the anarchist theories you put forth are exactly what Marx theorized in his Communist Manifesto. You guys are calling for communism, which is the exact opposite of a market system. It simply doesn't work, and this has been proven over and over again.

You need an evenly enforced fair set of rules for a market system to function. There has to be a system in place that establishes standards, not only for weights and measurements, but also for licensing and safety requirements. Without these evenly enforced sets of rules, different groups are able to abuse the system, and the rights of others which prevents any level field to establish competition which creates market efficiency.

As far as state and local government rights verses federal government goes, state and local governments are more easily controlled and dominated by special interests which deny large portions of the population their ability to participate in the markets. State and local government have historically been far more abusive of individual rights.

The current system in place that subsidizes illegal slave labor is a prime example of how local governments can deprive individuals of their ability to participate in the markets.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


So, if you do not believe in freedom as you so pointedly said, what do you believe in, Slavery?


You bringing up corporations, tells me you are not a student of history.

Who created corporations? Care to tackle that one?

Who created the federal reserve? Who created the income tax?

Just a few questions for you. I see in your avatar you are a anti-libertarian.

Change it just for my thread? Or have you always hated freedom?


No, you are right. I am not a student of history, at least not American history. However, in my University studies I do have a solid understanding of the history of Western Civilization, primarily the industrial revolution. Libertarians can quote Adam Smith until they are blue in the face, but the truth is, an supposedly ideal "free market" as envisioned by Libertarians simply would not work.

During the industrial revolution, Capitalists faced little regulation in the work place. Those who could afford to start up factories had the FREEDOM and LIBERTY to coerce others into terrible working conditions. If you want to get into John Mill's ideas on Liberty, one would realize that those who decided to leave the country and living in urban centres to join the industrial work force were not FORCED to do so, but made their own free choice to do so. However, that doesn't change the fact that they had terrible working conditions.

People are free to do what they want, but it doesn't always mean it's right. Libertarians idealize the notion that "you have the freedom to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others" when in truth, they seem to forget that we can brainwash people and coerce them into doing harmful things which would, without the brainwashing and manipulation, be against their will. Today's pop culture does exactly that, and that's what I have a problem with: Manipulation infiltrating people's lives, disguised as genuine want.

No, I don't support slavery. I support freedom to a certain extent. However, I don't condone complete freedom because complete freedom is merely a way of saying "I want to do whatever the hell I want cause I can" which is irresponsible and selfish.

As for who created corporations? My guess would simply be large tycoons of the industrial era. I wouldn't imagine it happening elsewhere.

The federal reserve? Sorry, I'm Canadian. I really don't know much about your central bank. However, in Canada, our central bank (The Bank of Canada) plays a crucial role in our economy. An entry level course in Economics would show you this. The central bank regulates the interest rate which regulates the inflation rate of the economy. Without the Bank of Canada, our economy would be full of depressions and hyper-inflation.

And no, I didn't change my avatar to "anti-libertarian" just for this thread. It's been like that for a while. Please don't take it personally.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Do you guys realize that the anarchist theories you put forth are exactly what Marx theorized in his Communist Manifesto. You guys are calling for communism, which is the exact opposite of a market system. It simply doesn't work, and this has been proven over and over again.

WHAT? Where the hell do you equate central planning to a free market? That is like comparing apples to the sun. Please, post a link to a libertarian market model and a communist model. I would be really interested in any proof that the US was founded by a bunch of Commies. PLEASE!



You need an evenly enforced fair set of rules for a market system to function. There has to be a system in place that establishes standards, not only for weights and measurements, but also for licensing and safety requirements. Without these evenly enforced sets of rules, different groups are able to abuse the system, and the rights of others which prevents any level field to establish competition which creates market efficiency.


I am going to state this again, Libertarian society is ruled by law. If you harm another, there are consequences. What, are you telling me NOW, that if a company caused harm, they would not be punished? That's right, because they only pay fines, because their partners in crime, the government, are controlled by the companies or vice versa. You arguing that a less centralized government would be easier to control, begs this question, what do we have now?



As far as state and local government rights verses federal government goes, state and local governments are more easily controlled and dominated by special interests which deny large portions of the population their ability to participate in the markets. State and local government have historically been far more abusive of individual rights.


Yes, I have seen vast numbers of decentralized government causing total havoc. No wait, it has always been a centralized government that has cause the atrocities of control and other nefarious things. I think you are attempting to twist facts to reach a conclusion. Historical facts, and what exists today is completely the opposite of what you are stating. Exactly the opposite. How about the HCR bill, no corporate interference there huh? Nope, all gumballs and lollipops! Central bank that has several intertwined monstrosities like Morgan, BofA, Goldman Sachs, all twisted together to NOT squash the little guys. Yep, your arguments are really beginning to get weak.



The current system in place that subsidizes illegal slave labor is a prime example of how local governments can deprive individuals of their ability to participate in the markets.


So now, with Arizona attempting to rid itself of the problem CAUSED by the federal government. You are going to actually argue that this was caused by the local and state governments.

PLEASE!

I swear you just argued from the BIZARRO WORLD!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


History tells you exactly what is happening. Where you been, where you are going.

After a quick perusal of your current debt to GDP, it seems Canada is heading down the same path the US took.

As for regulation, please tell me that you do not believe that the corporatists in the US are actually regulated evenly compared to the small business interests.

The US is completely different than any other country. We are used as the police of the world. Our government forces us to stick our nose in everything.

Comparing Canada to the US is comparing apples to oranges.

Now, pop culture and mass coercion. Oh well, I guess if we must be protected from ourselves, we might just as well lock everyone up in a prison cell and let them out when it is time to toil.

Entry level economics, aye? Macro and Micro economics in college. Sorry, been there, done that. It seems my Keynesian professor had it all wrong back then. I use to get in arguments with them about the inevitability of what is happening now. Hmmm, wonder who was right?

As for swings of hyper inflation and the likes. Like I said, study history much? Central banking when instituted was exactly when the markets started to fluctuated. I wonder why that is? Must be correlary and not causal?

Austrian economics predicted everything that has happened. Everything. The Keynesians kept uttering the same things. Nothing to see here. No problems. Keep throwing debt currency at it, it will be fixed. We just need to spend your children's children's slavery to the system to get out of the mess.

Well, market crashes happening all over. Wonder who saw that coming.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


quote a line from the book in which it states IRELAND is older than Sumeria. Honestly, it sounds like a bit of rubish to me, some kind of Irish ego crap. Everyone knwos that the dawn of man probably came out of Africa anyways. Religions and evolution even agree on that.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastzoroastrianleft
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


quote a line from the book in which it states IRELAND is older than Sumeria. Honestly, it sounds like a bit of rubish to me, some kind of Irish ego crap. Everyone knwos that the dawn of man probably came out of Africa anyways. Religions and evolution even agree on that.



Do you not believe in the stone age? Are you a creationist? I don't understand the issue here.

If you have any faith in modern anthropology, you would know humans spread all over the planet before Sumeria existed. Sumeria is considered the point when humans built city states. Before that humans lived in agrarian communities for thousands of years. Before that humans lived in hunter gatherer communities for thousands of years.

Humans crossed the Bering strait into North America during the Ice Age. They spread all over Europe during the Ice Age. That was thousands of years before Ireland was settled. Ireland would have been settled during the Ice Age as well if it wasn't under 300 meters of glacier ice.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



Please, post a link to a libertarian market model and a communist model.


I wouldn't want to let you down.

libcom.org...


Maximilien Rubel's 1973 article highlighting the libertarian elements within Marx's work and its importance to anarchism, regardless of Marx's lengthy critiques of famous anarchist theoreticians.

In the reflections which follow we will try to show that, under the name communism, Marx developed a theory of anarchism; and further, that in fact it was he who was the first to provide a rational basis for the anarchist utopia and to put forward a project for achieving it. In view of the limited scope of the present essay we will only put this forward as an item for discussion. Proof by means of quotations will be reduced to a minimum so as to better bring out the central argument: Marx theoretician of anarchism.


The U.S. constitution was written on the concept of Johnathan Locke. Locke believed that government is necessary for survival.

www.megaessays.com...


This democracy that we live in today still follows many of the guidelines set forth by John Locke hundreds of years ago. Today, in America, we have publicly elected leaders, from which we have the right to take our power. " (Locke) John Locke's thoughts and ideas are not only the beginning of a foundation of our country, but they are also an embodiment of what our country strives to maintain in its' function as a governmental system. (Locke) In Locke's writings, it is suggested that a judicial power is necessary for a proper system of government. Today, issues that Locke talked about still are discussed and argued. end result is that "men will unite under a commonwealth, and put themselves under a government, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates. "(Locke) Locke's ideas on the reasons for a governing body are mentioned in the Constitution. As a country, we are still working out the rights we should and should not have. He writes that in the society he has thought of, there will be "judges, who are to decide controversies by laws"(Locke) , and the judges purpose is to "dictate what is proportionate to a transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. Many people feel strongly about freedom of speech. In the documents that created and legitimized the United States of America, the founding fathers demanded the same type of government envisioned by Locke. "(Locke) Locke also states that the punishment of the court should be "proportionate to his [the offender's] transgressions, which so as much as may serve for reparation and restraint. Every law that is passed, and every decision that is made by the government, is assumed to be in the best interests of the American people. "(Locke) Locke believed in the idea of a governing body that can retain man's equality and natural rights. "(Locke) Locke believes that government is a natural occurrence, and that government is a necessity for survival.


I hope you enjoy. The free market concept is pure Marxism. If you believe in the U.S. constitution, study what Locke had to say. Locke saw the need for government and laws to protect our liberty and property rights.

I believe you know my position on immigration.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


From your link to article, Marx only believed in anarchism to THEN go to his model. Using anarchism to institute his theories is a far cry from saying Libertarianism has anything to do with Marxism.

I fail to compute your rationalization on this. Equating free markets with Marxism is completely off the mark.

As for a Libertarian society, do you not understand that Minimalistic Central government has nothing to do either with no government.

What you explain as Constitutional government is EXACTLY a Libertarian society.

You equating Libertarianism with Marxism is a downright lie. Period.

Yep, the founders were Marxist. Is this the new propagandist model. Equating Constitutional Law and Libertarianism with Marxism? Jeez.

Yep, the inmates have taken over the asylum.


[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]






top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join