Complete Freedom for ourself, as long as you do not harm another man you are allowed to do what you wish. And yes, I am all for competition in the economy, I inherit it from my love of the works of Ayn Rand, I suppose.sirbryghtside said:
Libetarianism (In Brief)
- Thread starter CosmicCommander
- Start date
Recommended Videos
so is libertarianism basically the regular "fuck you, got mine" anti-tax bullshit, or is it better than that?
that video was shit. seems like it's designed to appeal to your sense of "I AM MY OWN MAN", resorting to stating things that make people go "FUCK YEAH THEY'RE RIGHT" without them really meaning very much.
edit: seriously that video is terrible. runs at a snail's pace, gets boring.
that video was shit. seems like it's designed to appeal to your sense of "I AM MY OWN MAN", resorting to stating things that make people go "FUCK YEAH THEY'RE RIGHT" without them really meaning very much.
edit: seriously that video is terrible. runs at a snail's pace, gets boring.
You Like saying FuckMusicalFreedom said:
Libertarianism is not Anarchy for posh people, Libertarianism is the belief in freedon to do what you wish, as long as you do not harm another being directly. Essentially it's Karl Marx's Second-worst Enemy.
welp, since I'm more in favour of large governments and all that stuff, I guess libertarianism just isn't for me.CosmicCommander said:
I'll say what I usually say in threads about Objectivism, because it applies to the majority of libertarians as well:
Your political philosophy is based on an overly narrow understanding of coercion and therefore, if put into practice, will not create a system that's meaningfully any less coercive or exploitative than the ideologically less pure ones most "Western" nations have now.
-- Alex
Your political philosophy is based on an overly narrow understanding of coercion and therefore, if put into practice, will not create a system that's meaningfully any less coercive or exploitative than the ideologically less pure ones most "Western" nations have now.
-- Alex
"Flat Tax: Well, firstly, to maintain a modern government (even a minimal one) under flat taxation, you would have to keep to such a level of taxation that it would seriously hurt poorer people. Yes, I'm sure it would seem entirely fair to you, but you should realise that U$100 is, to a billionaire, disposable, to a normal man, sizeable, to a poor man, indispensable, and to a Mexican immigrant, a fortune to send back home. Money is fiscally relative - it's value is not the same to everybody."
wrong with a flat tax you would get more tax from the rich person then you would get from the poor person.
what you made - taxes you payed "lets say tax is a flat 10%
1000 - 100
1000000 - 100000
both paid 10% looks fair to me
"Secondly, the notion that it is intriniscally unfair that a rich man pay more tax than a poor man. Well, that is also silly. Your tax, at a most basic level, pays for the maintenance of law and order in your nation by means of an army, police force and so on. Thus, you are paying for a service. However, a wealthy man benefits far more from this service than a poor man. Put simply - if you own a nice car, you are more likely to have that car stolen. If you own two cars, you are twice as likely to be the victim of automoblie theft. In short, the rich have a great deal more to lose from the breakdown of law and order - and thus gain more from it's maintenance - than the poor."
look above .. the rich man would pay more under a flat tax "btw the top 3-5% of the wage earners pay 90% of the tax so currently "poor" people do not PAY tax"
"Thirdly, we come to the pragmatics. Simply put, without a degree of a welfare state, much as I am loathe to argue this, economic recovery is considerably slower. The recent macroeconomic crises of these times have all been that of demand-depression - where demand slumps, and thus suppliers begin to make cutbacks, cutting labour costs, thus worsening the situation blah blah blah. Without government intervention, this cycle would eventually continue until much of the nation was simply bankrupt and unemployed - rock bottom, as it were. With government intervention, a level of demand is maintained in the economy by means of a welfare payout. Yes, it is taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, but the fact remains that that money will soon cycle back to the rich again. Secondly, since the wealthier you are, the higher your MPS (marginal propensity to save), the fact is that in an economic downturn, that money is less useful in your hands (or bank account) than it is in a poorer man's (being spent). Yes, it sucks, but it also stands between you, and total economic ruin. So cease complaining so loudly."
the current problem started in 2000 with programs to help people who could not afford a house buy one compounded with 8 years of the news media harping on how "bad" things was going .. even when it was only on an upward movement
wrong with a flat tax you would get more tax from the rich person then you would get from the poor person.
what you made - taxes you payed "lets say tax is a flat 10%
1000 - 100
1000000 - 100000
both paid 10% looks fair to me
"Secondly, the notion that it is intriniscally unfair that a rich man pay more tax than a poor man. Well, that is also silly. Your tax, at a most basic level, pays for the maintenance of law and order in your nation by means of an army, police force and so on. Thus, you are paying for a service. However, a wealthy man benefits far more from this service than a poor man. Put simply - if you own a nice car, you are more likely to have that car stolen. If you own two cars, you are twice as likely to be the victim of automoblie theft. In short, the rich have a great deal more to lose from the breakdown of law and order - and thus gain more from it's maintenance - than the poor."
look above .. the rich man would pay more under a flat tax "btw the top 3-5% of the wage earners pay 90% of the tax so currently "poor" people do not PAY tax"
"Thirdly, we come to the pragmatics. Simply put, without a degree of a welfare state, much as I am loathe to argue this, economic recovery is considerably slower. The recent macroeconomic crises of these times have all been that of demand-depression - where demand slumps, and thus suppliers begin to make cutbacks, cutting labour costs, thus worsening the situation blah blah blah. Without government intervention, this cycle would eventually continue until much of the nation was simply bankrupt and unemployed - rock bottom, as it were. With government intervention, a level of demand is maintained in the economy by means of a welfare payout. Yes, it is taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, but the fact remains that that money will soon cycle back to the rich again. Secondly, since the wealthier you are, the higher your MPS (marginal propensity to save), the fact is that in an economic downturn, that money is less useful in your hands (or bank account) than it is in a poorer man's (being spent). Yes, it sucks, but it also stands between you, and total economic ruin. So cease complaining so loudly."
the current problem started in 2000 with programs to help people who could not afford a house buy one compounded with 8 years of the news media harping on how "bad" things was going .. even when it was only on an upward movement
I'm not "all for it". But I'm not against it. It's something that's working okay for me right now.CosmicCommander said:
Speaking as someone who lives in the US:
- If we had a grand political revolution and replaced our whole structure with some libertarian ideal, we would be wasting a lot of sweat and toil to create something little better than what we've got now. That's a fool's bargain.
- Making small steps towards "libertarian" policies mostly results in carving out regulatory loopholes that increase exploitative economic behaviors.
-- Alex
Another handy summarization is as follows:
Republicans are willing to sacrifice freedoms for control and security.
Liberals are willing to sacrifice freedoms for equality.
Communists are willing to sacrifice freedoms for equality AND control.
Libertarians aren't willing to sacrifice freedoms for anything.
Republicans are willing to sacrifice freedoms for control and security.
Liberals are willing to sacrifice freedoms for equality.
Communists are willing to sacrifice freedoms for equality AND control.
Libertarians aren't willing to sacrifice freedoms for anything.
I Know more than your average Brit about US politics, but I don't know enough to be able to confirm or deny your points.Alex_P said:
Our anthem is 'All about the Benjamins" annotated to be "It's all about the Freedoms"FacePoppies said:
CosmicCommander:
Firstly, I apologise for neglecting to quote you in my statement here, however, giant quote-trees are ugly things and I will assume by your manner that we are both intelligent enough to manage without them.
On your first point - I grasp the basic concept of your theory, however, I fear I may have neglected to emphasise my point clearly enough: Ten pounds (since we are both Brits, we will now use pounds) is of more value to me, than it is to William Gates. He has a great amount of money, I have very little. Yes, he can buy the same amount of goods per unit of currency as I can, but the fact is that if he were to lose a ten-pound note, it would not be as harmful to his welfare as it would be to mine. However, this is a weak point, as I do not give my money to homeless people (save if they are selling the Big Issue - I admire those that do so). I would also like to add that if you were to rise to a high position in business, it would most likely be because of bold, and yet sound risk-taking, good leadership and very hard work, not financial prudence. Within business, prudence is not always a good thing.
Secondly, no. It has long been proven that people are notorious for not paying for public goods like they should - health insurance in the US is a prime example, and your second suggestion is simply unworkable, sadly. Private security firms must work alongside the existing law courts and police forces, not in place of them. If they replaced them, we would surely wind up in a tyranny every bit as horrific as that of Stalin or Hitler.
Thirdly - that is indeed how the market works. However, the problem with pure laizzez-faire is that, unregulated, the market is prone not only to such wild and dangerous shifts, but it also becomes impossible for consumers to make an informed decision as banks will often try to obfusticate them into a position not neccesarily more advantageous to them (the consumer) and far riskier than suggested. Secondly, if we were to have let the banks fail, far more government money would have been spent to recover the savings lost by millions of average, decent working people as they collapsed (The Bank Of England is obliged to guarantee the savings of all account holders of British banks). If we had neglected to do that, we would have been facing a financial arrmageddon - millions of people's savings, stocks and so on - the work of millions of lifetimes, wiped out. Obliterated. Gone. And that was an entirely unnacceptable solution.
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that while 'let the banks fail' sounds good in your head, you must remember the words of Mr Terry Pratchett, MBE: "When Banks fail, it is rarely Bankers who starve".
____________
Death or Glory, Sturm und Drang
Fondant.
Firstly, I apologise for neglecting to quote you in my statement here, however, giant quote-trees are ugly things and I will assume by your manner that we are both intelligent enough to manage without them.
On your first point - I grasp the basic concept of your theory, however, I fear I may have neglected to emphasise my point clearly enough: Ten pounds (since we are both Brits, we will now use pounds) is of more value to me, than it is to William Gates. He has a great amount of money, I have very little. Yes, he can buy the same amount of goods per unit of currency as I can, but the fact is that if he were to lose a ten-pound note, it would not be as harmful to his welfare as it would be to mine. However, this is a weak point, as I do not give my money to homeless people (save if they are selling the Big Issue - I admire those that do so). I would also like to add that if you were to rise to a high position in business, it would most likely be because of bold, and yet sound risk-taking, good leadership and very hard work, not financial prudence. Within business, prudence is not always a good thing.
Secondly, no. It has long been proven that people are notorious for not paying for public goods like they should - health insurance in the US is a prime example, and your second suggestion is simply unworkable, sadly. Private security firms must work alongside the existing law courts and police forces, not in place of them. If they replaced them, we would surely wind up in a tyranny every bit as horrific as that of Stalin or Hitler.
Thirdly - that is indeed how the market works. However, the problem with pure laizzez-faire is that, unregulated, the market is prone not only to such wild and dangerous shifts, but it also becomes impossible for consumers to make an informed decision as banks will often try to obfusticate them into a position not neccesarily more advantageous to them (the consumer) and far riskier than suggested. Secondly, if we were to have let the banks fail, far more government money would have been spent to recover the savings lost by millions of average, decent working people as they collapsed (The Bank Of England is obliged to guarantee the savings of all account holders of British banks). If we had neglected to do that, we would have been facing a financial arrmageddon - millions of people's savings, stocks and so on - the work of millions of lifetimes, wiped out. Obliterated. Gone. And that was an entirely unnacceptable solution.
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that while 'let the banks fail' sounds good in your head, you must remember the words of Mr Terry Pratchett, MBE: "When Banks fail, it is rarely Bankers who starve".
____________
Death or Glory, Sturm und Drang
Fondant.
This debate hinges on the misconception that a governmental body, by virtue of it's existence, is entitled to the works of those under its supervision, in spite of consent. It's based around the assumption that Ivory Tower intellectuals make up the whole of that we elect, that because the majority have elected a single man to power, he MUST have the smarts required to hold the job, despite little to no experience in the things they regulate.
Yet the greater deception is that those who have more information than the average man have a right to force others to do as they say. When laid plain, many polititians make decisions with no intellectual accompanyment. This is entirely because they do not need to. It is assumed that because the governing body has the "consent" of half of the population, the consent of the individual need not be sought. The impetus of logic is dissolved; it doesn't need to make sense to enact it. And, because sense comes from rational self-interest, it doesn't have to be in the victim's self-interest to be enacted. The concept of libertarianism may seem "dogmatic" or "inefficient" to the layman, but it is the only economic "system" that ensures men provide and act on evidence of personal benefit.
Any form of a "-cracy", whether it be an Autocracy or Democracy, requires, by its very nature, to have one man a victim of another. To rule is to subject another to your will without his consent. Consent derives from mutual action suiting your best interest. It is intellectually sloth to slide back to argumentum ad populum every time a disagreement arises; if the action you wish to take is truly in the victim's "best interest", then the leader must explain it to him. If he understands, he will consent. If he doesn't, it is not his responcibility to understand ex post facto. Every man who seeks to live will follow rational thinking; if they do not, they are self-destructive, and not worth dealing with anyway.
Socialisms, Communisms, Dictatorships, etc all run on one principle: faith. The faith that the "Great Leaders" have your best interest at heart. The faith that the elected "officials" know what best to do in an economic crisis. Faith, belief in that which cannot truly be known, is no way to run a country. Logic, freedom, rationality, and self-interest are. Force isn't a claim on existence. By striking the ground you will not make corn grow. The same principle applies to men; if you strike a man, you will recieve no more than the effort of your strike. But if you trade with a man, you will recieve more than your effort; that is the basis of trade: mutual benefit.
Thinking is never a bad thing. Finding out what improves your life is never immoral. If you refuse to think, then you must rely on the thinking of others to sustain you. And how does one subjigate the thinking? Irrational murder, theft, and slavery. The collectivist systems institutionalize this, give it pension on the blood of the productive. Fear negates knowledge, because fear is seen as more effective. Force negates consent, because force is seen as more effective. These fallacies, these misconceptions, all stem from the desire to not think.
If you want to know more, just read Atlas Shrugged.
Yet the greater deception is that those who have more information than the average man have a right to force others to do as they say. When laid plain, many polititians make decisions with no intellectual accompanyment. This is entirely because they do not need to. It is assumed that because the governing body has the "consent" of half of the population, the consent of the individual need not be sought. The impetus of logic is dissolved; it doesn't need to make sense to enact it. And, because sense comes from rational self-interest, it doesn't have to be in the victim's self-interest to be enacted. The concept of libertarianism may seem "dogmatic" or "inefficient" to the layman, but it is the only economic "system" that ensures men provide and act on evidence of personal benefit.
Any form of a "-cracy", whether it be an Autocracy or Democracy, requires, by its very nature, to have one man a victim of another. To rule is to subject another to your will without his consent. Consent derives from mutual action suiting your best interest. It is intellectually sloth to slide back to argumentum ad populum every time a disagreement arises; if the action you wish to take is truly in the victim's "best interest", then the leader must explain it to him. If he understands, he will consent. If he doesn't, it is not his responcibility to understand ex post facto. Every man who seeks to live will follow rational thinking; if they do not, they are self-destructive, and not worth dealing with anyway.
Socialisms, Communisms, Dictatorships, etc all run on one principle: faith. The faith that the "Great Leaders" have your best interest at heart. The faith that the elected "officials" know what best to do in an economic crisis. Faith, belief in that which cannot truly be known, is no way to run a country. Logic, freedom, rationality, and self-interest are. Force isn't a claim on existence. By striking the ground you will not make corn grow. The same principle applies to men; if you strike a man, you will recieve no more than the effort of your strike. But if you trade with a man, you will recieve more than your effort; that is the basis of trade: mutual benefit.
Thinking is never a bad thing. Finding out what improves your life is never immoral. If you refuse to think, then you must rely on the thinking of others to sustain you. And how does one subjigate the thinking? Irrational murder, theft, and slavery. The collectivist systems institutionalize this, give it pension on the blood of the productive. Fear negates knowledge, because fear is seen as more effective. Force negates consent, because force is seen as more effective. These fallacies, these misconceptions, all stem from the desire to not think.
If you want to know more, just read Atlas Shrugged.
Fondant
Again, on the First point, Ten pounds to Mr. Gates is only useful to help buy Gold-Plated Toilet paper, but as it is to both of us, Ten pounds is a higher value. What I am trying to say is that if I did earn a, say Six Figure Annual Sallary, I would wish that the same tax rate would apply to me as it would to a ASDA checkout operator. I would have toiled for that money, and I would be shocked to be forced to pay more in proportion than the latter person, as I would have worked, fought, and had to suffer a lot for that money, and yet I must pay more, And I think I know why (Slightly Off-Topic here) The boys at westminster, who see themselves better than us, rather than equal, they should be servants of the state, but thet act as it's masters, demanding high salaries, and stealing our money, for, ehem, Duck Islands. (Sorry about that rant) I guess what I believe on this matter is best described in that part of Atlas Shrugged where Hank Rearden meets Ragnar Danneskjold.
The second point, I guess you have me stumped there...
Thirdly, I'm addressing what you you said about the banks, As I said, any Bank whose owners are not chimpanzees should have a contingincy fund for paying the public back, and whn all else fails, the Presidents and CEOs should have to pay the money back, out of their own pockets.
By the way, I do not derive my philosophy from Atlas, It just is a brilliant book, with some good points and ideas, and as well, Rand said herself it's crucial NOT TO BE A SHEEP!
Again, on the First point, Ten pounds to Mr. Gates is only useful to help buy Gold-Plated Toilet paper, but as it is to both of us, Ten pounds is a higher value. What I am trying to say is that if I did earn a, say Six Figure Annual Sallary, I would wish that the same tax rate would apply to me as it would to a ASDA checkout operator. I would have toiled for that money, and I would be shocked to be forced to pay more in proportion than the latter person, as I would have worked, fought, and had to suffer a lot for that money, and yet I must pay more, And I think I know why (Slightly Off-Topic here) The boys at westminster, who see themselves better than us, rather than equal, they should be servants of the state, but thet act as it's masters, demanding high salaries, and stealing our money, for, ehem, Duck Islands. (Sorry about that rant) I guess what I believe on this matter is best described in that part of Atlas Shrugged where Hank Rearden meets Ragnar Danneskjold.
The second point, I guess you have me stumped there...
Thirdly, I'm addressing what you you said about the banks, As I said, any Bank whose owners are not chimpanzees should have a contingincy fund for paying the public back, and whn all else fails, the Presidents and CEOs should have to pay the money back, out of their own pockets.
By the way, I do not derive my philosophy from Atlas, It just is a brilliant book, with some good points and ideas, and as well, Rand said herself it's crucial NOT TO BE A SHEEP!
The problem with the first is that modern governments - even small ones - are expensive. You're got espionage, you're got an advanced, well-trained army, you've got diplomacy, you've got roads and railways, you've got law and order. That, in essence, is a lot of money. The problem is, however, is that if you were to take all that money by means of a flat tax, it would need to still be a fairly high one. And therin lies the problem - the poor would suffer simply because they would be paying, in relative terms, more, for less service.CosmicCommander said:
And on your third - the issue there is that banks invariably handle far more money than could possibly be paid out of the salaries and monies of every stakeholder. If they did not, they would not make any kind of profit, and credit would become untenable and hideous expensive. And all economic growth is based on a ready supply of credit.
On Atlas - Rand also said "Accept these ideas wholly, or do not call your philosophy mine". She was a reknowned narcisisst, supremelt arrogant, and frankly, her book is poorly written. I was forced by the sheer size of the monologue John Galt gives at the end, where he repeats and repeats and repeats the same goddamn points over and over again until you want to step into the novel and rip his tongue out, to skip ahead to the end. The whole thing is preachy, poorly-structured and relies too much on fictional happenings to relate to reality.
XBlade - I have not countered your points, because you haven't made any. You've regurgitated. More to the point, you regurgitated in abstract, and I responded in the same, abstract style. Put something concrete on the table, and I'll do the same.
Good post Xblade0.
What the welfare state proponents don't realize is the immorality of their methods. Since it's wrong for a poor person to steal from you, it's equally wrong for the government to steal from you on his behalf. I know that some taxation is necessary for things like national defense, but a welfare state is not only immoral due to its method of obtaining money, but it often rewards bad decisions made by poor people.
I don't see it as inherently unfair that some people have more money and live more comfortably than others. Most of the wealthier class didn't get rich overnight. Their families acquired their money over many years and so they value what they have more. The socialists want to give every poor person free housing, schooling, healthcare and money. When a poor person gets all the things for free, he has no incentive to work for a living and becomes a parasite on those who do work. He also acquires an unhealthy mentality of entitlement where he sees these things as being a right. The idea that another person can have more of a right to your property than you is unjust.
A socialist may think that when a person works for a living he is being exploited because his bosses make more money. Although a job may be boring or difficult, the fact that you get paid for it shows that you are being rewarded for your work, wheras a slave is exploited. If someone is unsatisfied with his wages, it is his or her responsability to either work more hours or earn a promotion.
As I see it the western world became strong by embracing freedom and capitalism, and is now weakening itself by turning socialist and creating new generations of welfare brats.
What the welfare state proponents don't realize is the immorality of their methods. Since it's wrong for a poor person to steal from you, it's equally wrong for the government to steal from you on his behalf. I know that some taxation is necessary for things like national defense, but a welfare state is not only immoral due to its method of obtaining money, but it often rewards bad decisions made by poor people.
I don't see it as inherently unfair that some people have more money and live more comfortably than others. Most of the wealthier class didn't get rich overnight. Their families acquired their money over many years and so they value what they have more. The socialists want to give every poor person free housing, schooling, healthcare and money. When a poor person gets all the things for free, he has no incentive to work for a living and becomes a parasite on those who do work. He also acquires an unhealthy mentality of entitlement where he sees these things as being a right. The idea that another person can have more of a right to your property than you is unjust.
A socialist may think that when a person works for a living he is being exploited because his bosses make more money. Although a job may be boring or difficult, the fact that you get paid for it shows that you are being rewarded for your work, wheras a slave is exploited. If someone is unsatisfied with his wages, it is his or her responsability to either work more hours or earn a promotion.
As I see it the western world became strong by embracing freedom and capitalism, and is now weakening itself by turning socialist and creating new generations of welfare brats.