Calling all Libertarians! I have some questions.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Ok I have noticed a lot of people who say that they are libertarians on ATS so I decided this is an excellent place to ask some questions...since Ron Paul wont take my phone calls


I know libertarians are conservative economically, conservative on government, and progressive socially. But what else do true libertarians adhere to?

Also, a lot of libertarians I have heard speak are so anti-government that it seems they are advocating (IMO) the complete removal of the federal government, and in turn want to give all the power to the states. The idea does not seem totally unreasonable to me. However...wouldn't this be the destruction of the union and the advent of American nation states? Would the country at that point be alien in the eyes of the founders if they were to see it?

I welcome all out there to offer their insight.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
Ok I have noticed a lot of people who say that they are libertarians on ATS so I decided this is an excellent place to ask some questions...since Ron Paul wont take my phone calls


I know libertarians are conservative economically, conservative on government, and progressive socially. But what else do true libertarians adhere to?

I would have to add to that list the idea of non-aggression.


Also, a lot of libertarians I have heard speak are so anti-government that it seems they are advocating (IMO) the complete removal of the federal government, and in turn want to give all the power to the states. The idea does not seem totally unreasonable to me. However...wouldn't this be the destruction of the union and the advent of American nation states? Would the country at that point be alien in the eyes of the founders if they were to see it?
I welcome all out there to offer their insight.
When one begins to see the State for what it is, a violent monopoly on violence and the redistribution of wealth, the idea of non-aggression makes it very hard to accept any form of government in all honesty
edit on 29-7-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


I completely agree with non-aggression.


When one begins to see the State for what it is, a violent monopoly on violence and the redistribution of wealth, the idea of non-aggression makes it very hard to accept any form of government in all honesty.


But would this not warrant a heavy reform of present government, rather than descending into anarchy?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I identify myself is Libertarian-ish.

From my interpretation, a true Libertarian does seem to be in favor of abolishing the federal government entirely. I do not hold that belief. Maybe a better description of my sentiment would be "paleoconservative" or what I would call a "true" conservative. I think the federal government needs to be scaled way back. In our purest form, we were a confederation of nation-states. Almost completely independent of each other will mostly holding common values. I think we should operate as such while still promoting free trade among the states, freedom to roam, and a confederate military to provide for the common defense.

One of the issues I have, among many, is the federal government taking money from the states, only to give it back with stipulations. In my opinion, this amounts to thievery and intimidation.

I recognize government has an important role in the lives of citizens but at the same time, this "marble cake" federalism has gone too far.

ETA: I am also for non-aggression. Having been to war, I see it for what it truly is. When I say common defense, I literally mean defense, not offense. I am not Republican by any means but I guess my viewpoints would be similar to what they SAY were it not for their corrupt ulterior motives in taking huge "contributions" from corporations and such. I'm also in favor of establishments such as the CDC and FDA. At least the idea of what they're supposed to be doing, instead of screwing things up and seemingly having an agenda to poison the population, but that's another topic... Also, while the Department of Education has an important role imo, it is a bloated bureaucracy and it seems that any time they intervene or ask for more funding, things get worse. They should serve a standardization role but nothing more. They have gotten way out of control.
edit on 29-7-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: additional content



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


I completely agree with non-aggression.

But would this not warrant a heavy reform of present government, rather than descending into anarchy?

If government could in fact function without the threat of violence and theft of property then yes. I hope by Anarchy you are not referring to chaos as most do.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The problem I have with so called libertarians, should be NEO-libertarians as libertarian was originally a left wing term for Anarchism, is their support of capitalism.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, creates a hierarchy where the 'owners' basically lord over the workers. Your ability to survive is in the hands of capitalists, who have the monopoly on the means of producing what you need.

People used to live off the land, they didn't need someone to give them a 'job'. The capitalist system put people in factories, and took away the ability to survive without being subservient to capitalists, and relying on them for a 'job' and the needs of survival. That is not freedom, it is exploitation. Your labour is used to finance someone else.

Let's be real, not everyone can be a private owner, workers, those who have only their labour to sell will always be the majority. But now the capitalists are taking those 'jobs' away, leaving people with no way to fend for themselves. If the means of production were cooperatively owned by those who actually do the labour then the fruits of that labour would be more fairly distributed, and people could produce for their needs, as apposed to the greed of the 'private owner'.

The private owners cares nothing for their workers, all they want is max production for minimum pay out. This is why jobs are going to China, and India, leaving American workers unemployed. The Chinese are not benefiting from this, they get payed a dollar a day in crap work conditions, while capitalists take the profit. Billions in 'profits' going into less and less pockets, leaving the majority with nothing. The more capitalists centralize the economy the harder it becomes for the people to find a 'job'.

edit on 7/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Distilling Libertarianism down to its essence, recall the first settlers of America that came here a few hundred years ago. There was no bloated Government acting as a parent substitute. There were people who were free. And they got along just fine. There was minimal local Government here and there. There was no bureaucracy, no complexity, no tyranny. Communities were responsible for their own destiny. Things may have been a little harsher, but that made people stronger.

Socially liberal means you live and let live. Economically liberal means you live and let live. Libertarianism is native to humankind. It's natural enemies are socialism and fascism which both put Government before the individual.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Agreed. You know, political leanings are never "black & white" for anyone unless they refuse to open their eyes. No system will ever work perfectly for everyone. I just hope we can find a balance that satisfies most. We seem to have that now but too many are being left behind. So many people are just so... stupid, and they are preyed on. It's very unfortunate. while I like to say I am strictly against welfare, my issue is something you addressed. This system has made it virtually impossible for most to "opt-out" and live any other life than we are forced to. Most people really must hold some type of job and own a car to even get along in society. These are necessities being imposed on us by the system as it stands and it is wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 



If government could in fact function without the threat of violence and theft of property then yes.


Corruption and greed will be present in all forms of government. Do you think that the smaller the government the easier it would be to detect and contain it? Or do you think it would be easier to hide?


I hope by Anarchy you are not referring to chaos as most do.


Lol no I know what you mean. I dont think we will be seeing Mad Max style vehicle gangs anytime soon.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Additionally, I sometimes wonder if it would be acceptable for state lines to be redrawn or have sort of sectors or provinces that follow their own systems, with people migrating accordingly. No doubt that would be a supermassive and historic undertaking but it just might work. While everyone can flock to the province offering the system they support, hopefully all could work together while maintaining a loose central government, again to provide for the common defense. It worries me thought that such areas may declare war on each other and splinter off. But I guess I hold a fantasy of humans intellectually evolving past that point in order for us to respect the contributions of other sectors whole working towards common goals of peace and say, space exploration, the sciences, and so forth.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
It's natural enemies are socialism and fascism which both put Government before the individual.


Socialism has nothing to do with government.

Socialism is an economic system that requires no government or state.


Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, anarcho-collectivist


Why would Anarchists support socialism if it required government?

Libertarian socialism is Anarchism. The correct and original use of the term 'libertarian' was a left wing term for anarchism. Coined by the French anarchist, Joseph Déjacque in 1857.

The economic system of Capitalism on the other hand creates a state system by its very nature. Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, creates a hierarchy in that everyone becomes subservient to the owner in order to be able to provide what they need for their survival. The state is any system that allows one class of people to control, or have power, over another class of people. The state creates the class divide

The capitalist also has to protect their property and capital, they need the state system to do that.

Fascism is when government/state and corporations become like one governing body. Which is basically what we have now world-wide.

edit on 7/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The problem I have with so called libertarians, should be NEO-libertarians as libertarian was originally a left wing term for Anarchism, is their support of capitalism.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, creates a hierarchy where the 'owners' basically lord over the workers. Your ability to survive is in the hands of capitalists, who have the monopoly on the means of producing what you need.

In all actuality, its about property rights more then capitalism. Imn very simple terms it boils down to who owns your body, and with that the fruits of the labor of that body.


People used to live off the land, they didn't need someone to give them a 'job'. The capitalist system put people in factories, and took away the ability to survive without being subservient to capitalists, and relying on them for a 'job' and the needs of survival. That is not freedom, it is exploitation. Your labour is used to finance someone else.

If we did live in a true free market capitalist system and things were as they are I would agree with you, but we do not, we live in a mixed market system with government granted monopolies that allows the corporations do do what they are doing. A very nasty snowball effect has happened.

A company gets its monopoly to do business from the government, it hires labours, it produces a product and pays the skilled worker a minimum amount of "property" to survive on. An entrepreneur decides to compete with this company producing a similar product at a lower price and possibly better quality. Now in a free market this new company would be more then able to start up, offer a better wage and push the entrenched one to increase wages and perhaps even quality. This is not the case and hurts the worker. The skilled work has little choices when it comes to employment at times.



Let's be real, not everyone can be a private owner, workers, those who have only their labour to sell will always be the majority. But now the capitalists are taking those 'jobs' away, leaving people with no way to fend for themselves. If the means of production were cooperatively owned by those who actually do the labour then the fruits of that labour would be more fairly distributed, and people could produce for their needs, as apposed to the greed of the 'private owner'.
what you describe is exactly what we have, labour unions and massive amounts of regulations allow the government to redistribute the wealth of the productive to the non productive.


The private owners cares nothing for their workers, all they want is max production for minimum pay out. This is why jobs are going to China, and India, leaving American workers unemployed. The Chinese are not benefiting from this, they get payed a dollar a day in crap work conditions, while capitalists take the profit. Billions in 'profits' going into less and less pockets, leaving the majority with nothing. The more capitalists centralize the economy the harder it becomes for the people to find a 'job'.

edit on 7/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo

The blame for the lose of jobs should fall on the shoulders of those who have caused this to happen, unions demanding outrageous pay and benefits and regulations that make it near impossible to start a business that competes on any scale with the entrenched. I can say I have never met anyone who understands the Austrian school of economics who would want a centralised economy. The more an economy gets centralised the less innovative and productive it becomes.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Here's a quiz you can take to see if you lean Libertarian:

Political Quiz

Here's how they describe Libertarianism:

Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
In all actuality, its about property rights more then capitalism. Imn very simple terms it boils down to who owns your body, and with that the fruits of the labor of that body.


Property rights, as in your own personal property is another issue.

What is wrong is that workers are coerced to work for a 'private owner' because there is no alternative, no choice. We are not taught that there is another economic model that we could be using ourselves right now.

Private owners can have their rights to do what they want with their property, but as a worker, if you had a choice, would you rather make what the owners is willing to pay you, or would you rather be an owner yourself, and share in the profits of your labour. Socialism in a sense makes all workers owners of their workplace and the tools needed. It is just a way to more fairly distribute the profits that we all help to create.


If we did live in a true free market capitalist system and things were as they are I would agree with you, but we do not, we live in a mixed market system with government granted monopolies that allows the corporations do do what they are doing. A very nasty snowball effect has happened.


Capitalism is not free-markets, it is the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. It's only free for the owners. In a true free market the means of production should be available for all, not just a lucky few who use it to exploit the rest.


The blame for the lose of jobs should fall on the shoulders of those who have caused this to happen, unions demanding outrageous pay and benefits and regulations that make it near impossible to start a business that competes on any scale with the entrenched. I can say I have never met anyone who understands the Austrian school of economics who would want a centralised economy. The more an economy gets centralised the less innovative and productive it becomes.


Oh so you think it's OK for workers to simply just accept what they're paid, in the face of ever increasing prices?
Resources are kept artificially scarse in order to maintain high prices and high profits. Money is an illusion used to control. People are not poor if they have food, housing, health care etc. What creates poverty is the exploitation of resources for the benefit of a minority classs.

Who wants a centralized economy? Socialism is not centralized in any way.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Libertarians lean different directions as most political parties do. However, the philosophy of libertarianism is not to be found in a political party. At its core, libertarian ideologies want the best for the individual, the maximum freedom. Some libertarians will advocate for next to anarchism, with no government telling them what to do. I tell those libertarians to go buy and island and become king of it, so they can tell others what to do. The form of libertarianism I have adopted is less central intervention, and more local control to regulate the needs of the community. Even in this there is some danger, but a central government that oversees these smaller local government can look for corruption more easily. Somewhere along the line our nation took away power from local governments and moved the power to a central location. There are some benefits to this and certainly a balance could be achieved between competing ideals of central and local governments.

As Ron Paul has advocated. To solve our current dilemma in our country we need to define the role of government. Once we do that, it may become more clear. Our constitution can be changed. We have a right to form any type of government we want in this country including a communist government if we so chose. We can change our financial system to socialism if we all decided. Our founders recognized the right of people, individuals to "collectively" decide to alter government or change it even for a period of time, if it were the will of the people. There's that word "collective" that many libertarians cringe at. Unfortunately, or founder could not predict the rise of capitalistic greed and corruption. Our founders could not predict that the means of survival of a person are now in the hands of corporations and no longer the individual. And who will help the individual when the corporation tramples on the individuals right to be work the land and drink from the lake. Only the government can. Although, it has erected this gigantic beast of corporations that steal the life blood of individuals, and the government attempts to tame this wild beast with regulations that the beast ignores. The people suffer and the government has to help the individual who was harmed by the beast.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with a lot of what you have said. Capitalism to me is not an economic policy more than it is a political ideology.

All corporations want is to make money, they do not care about the people who work for them (I know I unfortunately work for a really big one) and would rather fire them then give them a slight raise or benefits. The argument that people can simply leave a company and go to another one is very naive. Unless you have a very wide range of skills or a skill which is very specific and limited, your pretty much s%!t out of luck. People at the company are so afraid of losing their jobs, that they will do anything to keep them even if it means giving in to corporate fascism.

I do not agree completely agree with socialism. I do however think there are social programs that work and are necessary for the human race. Free health care and free education. I also think no one has any right to covet natural resources (i.e. the oil companies) these things are from the earth and no one should be able to capitalize upon them. They should be traded and sold to the people by those who represent the people, instead of those who would exploit them for profit.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism has nothing to do with government.


Then who distributes the goods?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with a lot of what you have said. Capitalism to me is not an economic policy more than it is a political ideology.


That is the problem, capitalism is NOT a political system and neither is socialism, but they have been politicized in order to confuse the population.


I do not agree completely agree with socialism. I do however think there are social programs that work and are necessary for the human race. Free health care and free education.


Once again socialism is NOT social programs! Please re-read my posts. Socialism has nothing to do with handouts from the government. Anarchists have always traditionally supported a socialist economy. Socialism can be state controlled, Marxism, Leninism etc., or it can be 'libertarian' in it's true original use of the word, Anarchism.

I think the confusion simply comes from the word 'social'. In most countries it is known as National Health Care, which is the more correct term. Social simply means it pertains to a group of people, not that it has anything to do with the economic system of socialism. Socialism also has the root social but again it simply means it pertains to a group of people, socialism being collective ownership as opposed to private. But of course private property in this context means property used to exploit workers, not your personal property. Even under socialism you could own property, as long as that ownership wasn't to the detriment of the community you are a part of.

If you own a factory for example and it was making good money, then your equal share of the profits should be enough. There is no reason for anyone to have more than another. If we all have what we need, it should be all we want. The hierarchy that divisions in wealth create is what is wrong, it feeds the ego/fear driven exploitative system.

I am convinced that if American libertarians realized what socialism and capitalism actually are they would embrace socialism as the better economic system.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism has nothing to do with government.


Then who distributes the goods?


Does government do that now? No they don't.

Goods are distributed as they are needed by those who supply them.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Distilling Libertarianism down to its essence, recall the first settlers of America that came here a few hundred years ago. There was no bloated Government acting as a parent substitute. There were people who were free. And they got along just fine.


And there were also people who were not free...

And they didn't get long "just fine".
edit on 29-7-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join