Sell me on Libertarianism...

originally posted by: Anonex
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.

Nice sentiment but that's totally impossible with the Fascist Corporate neocon oligarchy juggernaunt firmly in control and gaining more every day. The strategy is to foment division and you need look no further than the ATS mudpit or any political discussion. If you can look at it from the 1% elites viewpoint; it's truely brilliant population manipulation.

Sorry for the cynicism but I call it as I see it.

One of the things I really appreciate about the Libertarians, is they see the absurd reality of the system and can still find humor in it.



remember rule 62....

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Anonex

I was once where you are. The American version of Libertarianism isn't 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.

I am very familiar with Chomsky, thank you yes. You definitely have me pinned down it sounds like. Stories of the French Revolution and other similar events in history inspire and fill me with hope.

Try thinking of it this way.

democrat/republican= no change, more corruption, more degradation of personal fredoms

Libertarian= Change, and revamping tried and true constitutional law

a reply to: Anonex

I'm curious then as to why you're looking to be sold on the Right-wing version.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Anonex

I'm curious then as to why you're looking to be sold on the Right-wing version.

That is a good question. A couple of things I guess. I hear people like Ron Paul talk and make so much sense, and I'm right there with him, thinking "right on!" Then he says something crazy. He is like the silly uncle who comes off as really wise at family gatherings then says something so awful, you just cringe. I see people on ATS for example, angry about their freedoms being taken away, and liberty infringed upon, and I am right there with them. Then I realize what they really mean is they want freedom from government... I want freedom too, but I want it from Wall St. I don't feel like government is pushing down on me in my life every single day. I sure do feel that way about banks and other corporations though.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
Try thinking of it this way.

democrat/republican= no change, more corruption, more degradation of personal fredoms

Libertarian= Change, and revamping tried and true constitutional law

Ahh, I think that right there is why I just can't get on board. Despite what many around here seem to believe, the Constitution is in fact not a divine document, engraved into golden tablets, handed over from Moses, to Jesus to George Washington. I disagree with a lot of the Constitution actually, but can appreciate the fact that it's authors at least had the foresight to allow it to contain amendments...as in to amend something, to change it as needed with the times.

Besides, we never followed our own Constitution from day one anyhow. All man created equal? Yeah okay, we are still fighting that battle.

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Anonex
As a struggling lower middle class American, tell me WHY I should NOT vote for the guy (or lady) who is most likely to "give me stuff?" Even if you despise me or that question, if you want a pro-constitution pro-free market candidate to win something as high as the Presidency, its a question you MUST answer in this day and age.

Ask yourself where they are going to get that "free stuff" they are promising to you. They are going to take it from somebody else. Most likely, your children and your children's children.

They should "get that free stuff" by taxing the banks, and energy sector correctly just to start. There should be a strong minimum wage. Doubling the minimum wage isn't enough to really fix the horrible wealth disparity that we have right now. It's really, really inexcusably bad. It's pathetic we can't even get a $10 minimum wage. But hey if you want minimum wage workers to rely on government hand outs to survive, rather than forcing their employers to pay them appropriately, more power to you. We also need a maximum wage. John Adams (one of the founders of the holy constitution) said we should have a maximum wage of what today would be equal to about $500k. Even I would say that is too low. Warren Buffet said it best recently, that he should write a book on how to survive on $500 million a year because apparently some people can't.

To begin with, the problem with raising taxes on banks, energy, etc. is that companies like that just pass the taxes down the line. Look at your power bill, your cable bill, your cell phone bill, etc. Notice that they charge you for the taxes they have to pay. As Leona Helmsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes."

Secondly, as I tried to explain in another thread, raising the minimum wage with a fiat currency is pointless. Any raise in the minimum wage will be countered by a corresponding increase in prices. If you raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour, the price of bread will go up to $10 a loaf. The laws of supply and demand regulate the value of a fiat currency. The more Federal Reserve Notes in circulation, the less value they have. With fiat currency, minimum wage will always be poverty wages.

And so far as a maximum wage, anyone making over 500k these days is probably on salary, not wages. One notable exception would be lawyers, who might bill you hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour. Congress is mostly made up of lawyers. No way Congressmen are going to vote to limit how much lawyers can make in private practice.

a reply to: Anonex

Despite your opinion of the constitution choosing democrat/republican will keep us in this spiral.

There would be some issues with the constitution as it applies to modern times but to have leaders alter laws to abide by the constitution rather than the rich the country would be a lot better off.

What exactly in the constitution do you have an issue with btw?

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Anonex

I was once where you are. The American version of Libertarianism isn't 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.

I am very familiar with Chomsky, thank you yes. You definitely have me pinned down it sounds like. Stories of the French Revolution and other similar events in history inspire and fill me with hope.

I'm not sure what you found inspiring about the French Revolution. It was absolutely horrible. They did away with due process in the interests of the creating a reign of terror that started to eat its own in the end. It was anarchy not the end of tyranny and only brought the world Napoleon, another absolute ruler who then proceeded to try to conquer all of the rest of Europe.


What you see taking place in The Dark Knight Rises.

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Anonex

I was once where you are. The American version of Libertarianism isn't 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.

I am very familiar with Chomsky, thank you yes. You definitely have me pinned down it sounds like. Stories of the French Revolution and other similar events in history inspire and fill me with hope.

This just scares the hell outta me. The French Revolution inspires you and gives you hope? OMFG you gotta be kidding, right? As the song says "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

a reply to: Khaleesi
a reply to: ketsuko

How the hell can the French Revolution scare anyone? Do you know what came out of it? In addition to the overthrowing of the monarchy and feudalism there's this...

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Now if you're talking about the Reign of Terror, that had nothing to do with what and who started the French Revolution in the first place. That period came at the end with two political factions warring with each other for control of France and with ultimate sights on all of Europe. Completely antithetical to what Leftists find inspiring about the Libertaires. It's the same as Stalin being nothing like Marx and communism being nothing like the concept. What all that means is that these revolutions were never won by the people, including ours.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Khaleesi
a reply to: ketsuko

How the hell can the French Revolution scare anyone? Do you know what came out of it? In addition to the overthrowing of the monarchy and feudalism there's this...

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Now if you're talking about the Reign of Terror, that had nothing to do with what and who started the French Revolution in the first place. That period came at the end with two political factions warring with each other for control of France and with ultimate sights on all of Europe. Completely antithetical to what Leftists find inspiring about the Libertaires. It's the same as Stalin being nothing like Marx and communism being nothing like the concept. What all that means is that these revolutions were never won by the people, including ours.

Answered it far better than I could. The revolution itself was a beautiful thing. Overthrowing of the 1%. Revolutions are more often great than that. So many revolutions seem to have no idea how to proceed properly post-revolution.

Libertarian is the best because they believe in individual freedom. U can be both abortionist or anti abortionists and be libertarian so long as u don't used the state to force your views on others. They believe in Austrian economics instead of the Keynesian economics practice in the US where a few central bankers control the money supply.

They believe in limited government because government is almost always used to crony manners to help the insiders at the expense of the outsiders. They believe that the free market will allow the best competition and that more people would be successful than having a insider regulated economy like the one we currently have.

Libertarian is better than the current liberalism. Because modern day liberalism is too focus on government control to push the views that they believe fit for others. Liberalism are also too focus on Democracy and in a Democracy the wealthy has the money to buy votes and push agendas that they want. Libertarian tend to be strict constitutional Republic which would make it harder for wealthy individuals usurp America through the guise of Democracy.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Khaleesi
a reply to: ketsuko

How the hell can the French Revolution scare anyone? Do you know what came out of it? In addition to the overthrowing of the monarchy and feudalism there's this...

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Now if you're talking about the Reign of Terror, that had nothing to do with what and who started the French Revolution in the first place. That period came at the end with two political factions warring with each other for control of France and with ultimate sights on all of Europe. Completely antithetical to what Leftists find inspiring about the Libertaires. It's the same as Stalin being nothing like Marx and communism being nothing like the concept. What all that means is that these revolutions were never won by the people, including ours.

You can not talk about the French Revolution and exclude the Reign of Terror. It was a direct result of the French Revolution. Robespierre was there from the beginning. He began to believe "the ends justify the means" when he went against his own beliefs "for the good of the revolution". This scares the hell outta me because we as humans never seem to learn our lesson. He opposed the death penalty and yet he used it " in order to defend the Revolution against those who would destroy it,".

www.historytoday.com...

The Law of Suspects was passed. The definition of 'suspect' was very broad indeed. The libertarian ideals of the Revolution were suspended, indefinitely ... TO PROTECT THE REVOLUTION!!! OMG how could this not scare the # out of anyone that knows and understands HISTORY?

a reply to: Anonex

Well, I can't convince anyone to be a Libertarian because it's basic premise is flawed.

There will be rationalized arguments for keeping hands off of 1) personal stuff and 2) business. I'm all for number one (as long as no one gets raped, robbed or killed), with a caveat, and number two within reason... but business can value money over people and planet.

A govt of some heft with an armed force also needs to exist in this complex society and there are thugs that need arse kicking from time-to-time... but sharing when you have way too much isn't a bad idea... and agreeing what is 'way too much' isn't impossible.

It's a matter of degree and Libertarians go too far towards the illusion of self-reliance. Libertarianism is fine for folks that have their: income sorted out, have a support/family system in place, haven't been hit with a violent act of nature, can fix their own pot-holes, can hold off an invasion by themselves and have their health... but not so much if the poop hits the whirling blades.

I'm quite close to your views, OP, and I've experienced both sides of the wide economic spectrum... and that gap is getting far too wide, again, and how some can comfortably sleep at night while someone starves or is miserable is beyond me.

Some organized care system where all have a base to work up from is only logical... and some government that enables us all to work towards something greater as a species while keeping a large degree of our individual freedoms/rights intact is doable, too.

We simply have been told it is not possible by entrenched elites who have no reason to change the (oft) feudal system that is in place... so it will have to be the disenfranchised that push for it ... as usual.

In the U.S. the 2 parties are quite corrupted by money... but man, the GOP is laughably moronic and unapologetic about their elitist stance... while still wanting to control personal matters... so I guess the real answer is to get involved in politics precisely because sane, smart people would never want to... if that makes sense.

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Khaleesi
a reply to: ketsuko

How the hell can the French Revolution scare anyone? Do you know what came out of it? In addition to the overthrowing of the monarchy and feudalism there's this...

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Now if you're talking about the Reign of Terror, that had nothing to do with what and who started the French Revolution in the first place. That period came at the end with two political factions warring with each other for control of France and with ultimate sights on all of Europe. Completely antithetical to what Leftists find inspiring about the Libertaires. It's the same as Stalin being nothing like Marx and communism being nothing like the concept. What all that means is that these revolutions were never won by the people, including ours.

Answered it far better than I could. The revolution itself was a beautiful thing. Overthrowing of the 1%. Revolutions are more often great than that. So many revolutions seem to have no idea how to proceed properly post-revolution.

It's that old "law of unintended consequences" swatting us up side our heads!
If you are seeking personal freedom I would recommend Gerry Spence's writings, his books and his blog. More specifically, Seven Simple Steps to Personal Freedom: An Owner's Manual for Life as a starting point.
You seem to think the banks have some power over you, that your happiness is in their hands. Realizing that money is no more than in Spence's words, "pictures of dead presidents" is a step to personal freedom. It's a tough one but it provides a great deal of relief for the spirit.
If we all simply stopped supporting those things against which we rail, stopped doing business with the multi-national banks and credit card companies---they would find out that they are not, in fact, "too big to fail." We know that these corporate barons will lie, cheat, steal and even murder to protect their bottom lines. Why on earth would you want to do business with such a monster?
We must return to the "Think locally, act locally" and become a part of our communities. The solutions we seek are within us, if we can turn off the entertainment and sit down and seek those solutions. Simply ignore the political parties. If you see a problem in your community, talk with others who are like-minded. Consider solutions and the best route to those solutions. Take action against corporate interests by withdrawing your economic support. Turn off the mainstream media. They are not your friends if you are seeking freedom. Their fondest wish is to enslave you.
Get ready to be labeled a member of the "lunatic fringe" if you suggest abandoning political parties. Those whose hope, faith and trust lies with politics believe that their party can "get it right" if given just one more opportunity. But there are a whole mess of us that sit on the "lunatic fringe" according to the hired talking heads on media who have watched things progress from bad---as in when police beat protestors over the head or used fire hoses on them---to the routine use of pepper-spray and dogs on protestors and the use of SWAT teams to raid family businesses on civil matters. Those actions by my government do not represent me. I want them stopped and the only way that will happen is to deny the current holders of power any sort of endorsement of that power. Stop looking at parties and begin looking at people.
My general philosophy is one of do no harm and treat others as I would appreciate being treated. I view the government as an institution to protect the rights my Creator gave me. I'm rapidly coming to believe that our 50 state union's government has become as corrupt and bloating as that of the USSR prior to their downfall. So for our federal system, I fear there is no good end. What gives me hope is that my local community is solid, strong and depend on the federal government for very little in the way of local infrastructure. They have not loaded our county with debt. When systems fail, they have proven they can be counted on for assistance. So it is our local communities we must work to strengthen. Together we can do that, political parties aside. Don't let people box you into the party box.

a reply to: Anonex

I'm in my early 30's as well, and recently have found myself more interested in politics. My family upbringing was democrats, they are for the little people. That wasn't enough for me, i couldn't just be "told" what we are politically, it almost seemed a religion, and the religion I was told I am was even worse.

I did a little looking around, and a lot of personal judgement/critique, and i have come to the determination that i can't be classified, there is no single group or party I don't find a flaw in/disagree with. Political grouping in my opinion is nothing more than a separation tactic, because in the end all "political" parties have approximately the same ideas/agendas. They all have one thing in common as well, they are all people, and no matter how vile the person, they cannot defeat the genetic code instilled in them to feel compassion. Look at ANY POTUS before and after Presidency pics, while they serve 4-8 years, they age 20-30.

To dedicate yourself to any affiliation politically under the current system is not only speed-bump to true democracy, but a self-endured slap, because you know there are things your "party" sides with that you digress.

To answer your question, in my opinion, you fit in where you feel comfortable.

We tried Libertarianism already. It was called feudalism. The idea of little or no government is appealing if governance is a hinderance to you. This is why mostly wealthy robber baron types like it. It gets government out of the way of what they want to accomplish, which is to own and control mostly everything. For someone who works paycheck to paycheck it offers very little. A perfect example of this is the assertion that states can handle grievances better than the federal government. Lets suppose that The Coach brothers want to set up fracking in your town, and it poisons the water supply. You, a paycheck to paycheck worker, have to go to court against Coach industries, with a TEAM of lawyers whose only aim is to defeat you. Since the govt has been gutted and their are no environmental laws, a court will now decide what federal regulations used to. And, since political finance laws inhibited liberty and have been removed, the Kochs are now able to bankroll the state courts. So they can have pretty much whatever outcome they want to your little court case before it even starts. So basically ALL power has been given to the monied class and all power has been taken away from the working class (as if we needed that, but this will remove the sliver of power that was left). Things like Minimum wage, labor protections, environmental protections, and the social safety net are now gone. We are back in the gilded age.
The "freedom" that libertarianism espouses only applies to you if you are a wealthy land owner with capital holdings. It will work well for you if you have power in society already. Everyone else will lose what recourse we once had against the powerful and in effect, be a slave. Thats pretty much the way it was before the middle class, the rich lived well, and everyone else lived in fear. Some people want a return to this. They are of course the ones who will benefit the most from it.

a reply to: Anonex

Freedom is good and government is inherently limited, this is what makes libertarianism attractive. The more responsible a society is the more freedom can be embraced without taking away the freedom of minorities. So libertarianism is good, a libertarian government could still maintain liberal programs.

Sounds to me like you are a moderate, a moderate-libertarian would be more of the same except with a focus on the government role being restrained. Spend less regulating society and markets, spend more on liberal programs to foster lower income household progress, tax strategically towards the wealthier half of the population.

a reply to: openminded2011

Libertarianism isn't like communism, you don't have to scratch the entire government for it to become "libertarian". If our democracy endured our libertarian-democracy wouldn't look like feudalism, it would look more like the industrialization period of America.