What is a Libertarian... by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can someone help me understand what a Libertarian is?

This is just my take based on the fact that I come up Liberal Libertarian in every political test.
It's all about personal responsibility.
Walk on ice & fall? No one to blame (or sue) but yourself.
Take that example & extrapolate it & I think that's basically it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:07 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Aw, c'mon, there's got to be more to it than THAT?! Surely there are specific philosophies behind it? I mean, like completely anti-ANY government at all, every man for himself?

No, I'm gonna let this lie here for a while. Surely someone will speak up and give me details. Jes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:19 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Aw, c'mon, there's got to be more to it than THAT?! Surely there are specific philosophies behind it? I mean, like completely anti-ANY government at all, every man for himself?"

No, thats anarchy... which you would need to talk to Frem about. (Yeah, yeah I know its not supposed to be every man for himself, give me a break Frem)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Good place to start...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:27 PM

We Anarchists are more the Libertine Party than Libertarian.

You have NO IDEA how long I been waitin to make that crack, tee hee.

If you're actually interested though, you should start in these two places.

Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html

Everyday Anarchy
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/molyneux/molyneux2.html

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:31 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Izzat "anarchist" or "libertarian"? I'm looking for libertarian...I think I know what anarchism is about

Seriously...I guess I can google it, but I'd like to hear it from a personal perspective...or are there none here? Just askin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:35 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

(Raises hand) I think I'm a libertarian...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 2:42 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Libertarians believe that personal liberty (freedom) trumps any kind of government or law.

Which is basically what our country was founded on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:22 PM

Libertarians are people who are trying to abandon slavery but are afraid of anarchy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:27 PM

Niki, to try to answer more directly:
As I understand it, these politicses:
Democrats want govt. to take care of people
Republicans want govt. to protect people
Libertarians want govt. to protect a border within which people are free to do what they want.

- "The only problem with anarchy is that someone would come along and set up a government"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 5:15 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Libertarians believe that personal liberty (freedom) trumps any kind of government or law.

Which is basically what our country was founded on.

"Founded on"? How, exactly? By laws, through government?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we or do we not have a Constitution which sets up a system of government and a basic foundation of laws?

Our country was founded on the idea that we didn't want THEIR "them" to make our laws, we wanted OUR "them" to make our laws. There was never any serious talk of not having any laws to speak of, which is what your absolute personal freedom would entail.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Izzat "anarchist" or "libertarian"? I'm looking for libertarian...I think I know what anarchism is about

Seriously...I guess I can google it, but I'd like to hear it from a personal perspective...or are there none here? Just askin'.

The media does a nice job painting anarchists with an unsavoury light.

For the record, the people with the bombs aren't anarchists, they're douchebags.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Izzat "anarchist" or "libertarian"? I'm looking for libertarian...I think I know what anarchism is about

Seriously...I guess I can google it, but I'd like to hear it from a personal perspective...or are there none here? Just askin'.

The media does a nice job painting anarchists with an unsavoury light.

For the record, the people with the bombs aren't anarchists, they're douchebags.

Thank you for that, Byte!

I was one of those idiots who used to think anarchism was all bomb-throwing and chaos. It's taken some time, but I think Frem has me on the right track as far as having a better idea what it's really about. Now I think that it's more about programming the machine to destroy itself on its own. Better to turn a wrench on the gears of society than it is to lob a bomb into the mechanism. Gets better press that way, too. :)

And better still if you can get the people who own the machine to program it for you!

Quote:
For the record, the people with the bombs aren't anarchists, they're douchebags.

And for the record, an awful lot of the people showing up at the meetings with guns aren't libertarians, either, but that's what they're telling people they are. To me, they're douchebags too.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 6:27 PM

Mwahahaha.

These guys are already self-destructing because what they're doing is not sustainable, the system perpetuates decay even as they TIGHTEN that control up. All slips through their fingers like sand, because people weren't meant to be controlled this way. Weren't meant to be shoved in little boxes working for the right to live under their overlords, weren't meant to be taught how to think, not to question, to replace the priceless with the pricey.

We just want to catch everyone in a nice safety net when the support structure falls, show 'em a different way of doing things, a way that doesn't involve DO WHAT WE TELL YOU WHEN WE TELL YOU OR ELSE.

Quote:
And for the record, an awful lot of the people showing up at the meetings with guns aren't libertarians, either, but that's what they're telling people they are. To me, they're douchebags too.

Oh, very likely. Especially if they follow the right-wing radio pawns. Those hate-spewers only claim to be neutral news sources and libertarian, because doing so gives them a legitimacy with their audience, while in the meantime they spin-doctor their hand fed Republican party talking points.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf: You really think you're a Libertarian????

Anyway, as I gather, Libertarians are against government. Most of them are pro-corporate, tho, which means that they're not exactly for freedom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:31 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sig,

Well, yeah, I do.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:08 AM

I think it depends on how you define freedom, SignyM. To most libertarians, freedom is no government regulation and a free market.

Originally, libertarianism and anarchism were related and considered synonymous, but in the U.S., the recent inclusion of the pro-business emphasis to the exclusion of other considerations has somewhat divided the two ideologies. We can still work together because generally some of our goals are the same (less government, with some disagreement over how much less).

Many American Libertarians have also adopted ideas of radical U.S. Constitutionalism, but the concepts are not all necessarily part of the same ideology. And by "radical" I mean the correct usage of the term, "to return to roots." I roll my eyes whenever someone calls someone else a "radical liberal" because there's no such thing in today's age. I don't see "radical" liberals wearing powdered wigs and passing out anti-federalist pamphlets.

I find myself in disagreement with the libertarian pro-capitalist slant. As opposed to allowing people to reach their potential, I see capitalist systems as generally limiting potential based on economic considerations. In short, I see it as another system of control, another governmental system where someone will end up in charge of you simply by virtue of having more money, and possibly more guns. I see power structures and corruption as inevitable to capitalism and have to reject it as an ideal system. However, it may be useful to have elements of capitalism in certain sectors and niches to reward enterprising entrepeneurs who would prefer to work as an individual and profit as an individual as opposed to democratically with other workers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:57 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Isn't that a person who hangs around that store with all the books? ( Library-tarryin'? OH, never mind...)
Generally, they believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility, near as I can pin it down. Read some Robert Heinlein, especially The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, if you haven't. He wrote down much of what they adopted as SF, long before they were organized ( or as organized as they get, being individualists.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sig,

Well, yeah, I do.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Well, the Crusaders and Inquisitors considered themselves Christian, and the 9/11 hijackers considered themselves Muslim, so there's always that to consider...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx, all, this has been illuminating. I'll never be a libertarian, obviously, as I see no government at ALL as a bad thing. People can't be trusted to act reasonably on their own, and I FULLY agree with "I see it as another system of control, another governmental system where someone will end up in charge of you simply by virtue of having more money, and possibly more guns. I see power structures and corruption as inevitable..." except I would stop at "inevitable". Any form of "society", with or without "government", inevitably leads to power structures and corruption. Throughout history it has, anyway...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"People can't be trusted to act reasonably on their own...."

Did you even watch Firefly?

Or read the Constitution?

Not to belittle your beliefs.... but the idea that people CAN and DO act reasonably on their own is the basis of freedom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:51 AM

Mikey

Quote:
I was one of those idiots who used to think anarchism was all bomb-throwing and chaos. It's taken some time, but I think Frem has me on the right track as far as having a better idea what it's really about. Now I think that it's more about programming the machine to destroy itself on its own. Better to turn a wrench on the gears of society than it is to lob a bomb into the mechanism. Gets better press that way, too. :)

And better still if you can get the people who own the machine to program it for you!

Funny, too funny.

I generally watch less popular or overlooked Anime cause I consider most of the mainstream stuff to be pure overhyped trash, right ?

After much pestering from folk who know me, I decided to give Code Geass a second chance, and happen to be laughing my ass off cause Lelouch cribbed the same damned philosophers I did for his own tactics.

Even more hilarious is them snickering as I point out all his mistakes.

"You IDIOT, it only works once and you waste it to push someone to make a phone call you could have used a remote autodialer for ?!
And you don't even have them suicide to cover your tracks because you picked someone you actually NEED ?
AND you leave them with a piece of physical evidence which could possibly implicate you, which I bet you didn't even wipe your fingerprints off of, ON THEIR PERSON after making that call ?
*snort*... Amateur."

He's good, but I'd totally mop the floor with him, really.

Byte

Quote:
These guys are already self-destructing because what they're doing is not sustainable, the system perpetuates decay even as they TIGHTEN that control up. All slips through their fingers like sand, because people weren't meant to be controlled this way.

That's actually one of my memes, the more they tighten their grip, the more slips right through their fingers, just like sand, yep.
And there's me, right with em, my hands cupped gently beneath, grinning.

In the end of it all, they're gonna hand folk like me everything we need to stomp em flat, on a silver platter, by their own actions.

And the very best part of that is they're so arrogant you don't even have to hide it, cause even the concept of this is so far beyond their puny little understanding of the world outside their little bubble of influence that you might as well be speaking gibberish.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, as I gather, Libertarians are against government. Most of them are pro-corporate, tho, which means that they're not exactly for freedom.

Ooops! I'm a BAD Libertarian then, cause I think that if this world ends, it will be a CORPORATE decision.

That must be the Liberal part.
And I'm not against government, just big, crappy, wasteful, militaristic government.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:07 AM

Quote:
People can't be trusted to act reasonably on their own

Why? Which people?

You know what the national crime rate is? Since 2004, it's been steady at four percent. Four percent of the people in America, this year, will commit a crime. Less then that, actually, because each unique crime is probably not a unique offender, though perhaps there is a great deal more unreported crime. Still. Based on what we know, this is NOT a large percentage of the population who are delinquents out to hurt people who can not be trusted.

Quote:
Overall, the national crime rate was 3982 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 4852 crimes per 100,000 residents thirty years earlier in 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyStat
e.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=357151&CFTOKEN=75186350

There's a difference between increased incidence and increased coverage. This is one of the great illusions our consumer culture tries to perpetuate. That we aren't safe, and that we should be scared of everyone else.

Scared people buy stuff. Fact.

Quote:
Any form of "society", with or without "government", inevitably leads to power structures and corruption. Throughout history it has, anyway...

You ought to talk to one of our members named Rue. She knows some examples of peaceful societies lasting hundreds of years. You also ought to look into anarchism in Spain. Catalonia had to fight against the fascists for their right to exist for a while, but the Mondragon in Basque country are fairly peaceful, and a good example of principles of anarchic society in action.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:19 AM

Chris, 10 things done well by our federal govt.. you got 220 years.. go!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I know it seems counter-inutitve, but I think the RIGHT structure guarantees the most individual freedom, because NO structure inevitably leads to tyranny (economic, political). There has to be a meme in place: A view of right and wrong, a process to address wrongs, and a set of appropriate feedbacks to ensure that power doesn't accumulate. For example, the idea of democracy was brilliant because it allowed peaceful change, as was the concept of "balance of power". The presence of a democracy slows the progression towards tyranny. The FF simply didn't get the formula completely right: They knew that as long as there was a frontier people would never fall below an particular economic level, but never planned on what would happen when the frontier was played out. At the same time, they didn't quite realize that a single decider (in the form of a President) is inevitably more effective than a small group (Supreme Court) which is inevitably even more effective than a large group with divided decision-making (Congress) no matter that the branches of government are suposed to keep and eye on each other.

Don't forget: the peaceful societies of Mohenjo-Daro, Santorini (Thera), and Norte Chico (Caral) - were still SOCIETIES, with rules and regulations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:00 AM

I don't think any anarchist DOES support a society with no rules, that is a society where there would be no ramifications for killing, stealing, or rape, or a society with no organization to allow for the distribution of necessary supplies.

I think that is another misrepresentation of anarchists in the mainstream. If you look carefully, I have said in a few places that what I support is democratic community based systems for both local policy and among workers producing goods.

What I do not support is the sense of a power invested in a select number of people who have the firepower to back up any threats and intimidation factor they might use against their population. When I talk about a government, that's what I mean.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can someone help me understand what a Libertarian is?

Its someone who organizes books.

They are also very quiet.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:13 AM

Sig

yeah, covered this in the only problem with anarchy ;)

Hero is right :)

In other news, Richard Hatch blows it as a libertarian. You moron, you're supposed to say that there's no legal or constitutional basis for tax, not that this is discrimination against gays. Also, as a survivalist, you should have taken your million and disappeared into the jungle...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris, 10 things done well by our federal govt.. you got 220 years.. go!

Gemini.
Saturn.
Apollo.
LM.
Rover.
Space Shuttle (most of 'em).
Star Trek (NASA worked as consultants).
Space Station.
Mars robot.
Voyager 6.

Heh heh.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: Where I disagree with anarchists is their belief that if everyone is somehow brought to the same level it will STAY that way. It doesn't. EVEN IF everyone is brought up with the idea that each person is responsible for defending themselves or "not participating" in actions which create rulers (economic or otherwise), history seems to show that level of disorganization will be outcompeted economically. It's very expensive keeping one hand on a gun and one eye behind you (metaphorically-speaking).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:31 PM

Sounds to me like yours is a lack of faith in Democracy.

Understandable. The masses can be easily moved by demagogues who then take power. But if the tools that demagogues use to take power is removed, such as control over education and thus the ability to limit critical thinking skills of their target demographic, people can see and anticipate demagogues and future tyrants before they get out of hand.

And, again, I haven't spoken of advocating disorganization. Yes, permanent structure can become corrupt. Temporary structure doesn't. That's part of the problem with the current electoral system, what was intended to be temporary structure has become permanent structure. Incumbent congressmen and judges are usually re-elected, the political parties ultimately follow the same policy courses of their predecessors...

Outcompeted economically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

EDIT: Also, apparently I can't spell today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris, 10 things done well by our federal govt.. you got 220 years.. go!
Gemini.
Saturn.
Apollo.
LM.
Rover.
Space Shuttle (most of 'em).
Star Trek (NASA worked as consultants).
Space Station.
Mars robot.
Voyager 6.

Heh heh.

The laughing Chrisisall

Okay, but you've still got 219.99 years left. Keep going!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:57 PM

Chris

Nice try, but I'm afraid that's a FAIL. The space program has done a lot of stuff, but had some fuckups too. A lot of the spacecraft were built by corporations, but recently we've seen that it's govt. interference that is holding the space program back. Recently, the purchase of Rutan's Scaled Composites by a defense contractor is a result of govt. interference. The desire was to use SC to make the B4, thus derailing true independent space travel.

Still, that's one. I'll give you a second and third for free: the NSF research labs, and the internet.

Edit: BM, democracy was a disaster from day one, which was somewhere in ancient Athens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: Been advocating cooperatives for years. I guess I'm not mkaing my point very clear: I think power needs to be aggressively placed in the hands of "the people". And I mean ALL power: communication/ news, economic, political etc. And by that I don't mean that "people" need to be pro-active about obtaining power, I mean that the charters and bylaws... the organizing principles... of media, industry, and government MUST be fully democratic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:21 PM

Then I agree, though because of how I define government, I hesitate to call my idea of community decision making a "government."

I also think democracy needs to be tempered with a real effort at negotiation and discourse rather than a "get the votes however" attitude. But democracy is the best way to describe the system I have in mind.

Greece had problems because 1) not everyone was allowed to participate, and 2) bribery and demagogues for the same reason I mentioned above.

But the way to get that negotiation and discourse is NOT to elect someone to do it for you, because they're not gonna care, or worse, they're going to abuse it. People need to think, look out for themselves and their communities, not sit back and say, whelp, I voted, it's in my representative's hands now so I can turn off my brain and not pay attention anymore what's going on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nice try, but I'm afraid that's a FAIL. The space program has done a lot of stuff, but had some fuckups too. A lot of the spacecraft were built by corporations

A few bad apples...?
Oh crap.
I'm busted.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:13 PM

Wait - don't we fight wars well? Or at least START wars well?

What about overthrowing governments that don't play ball with our corporations? We tend to do that fairly well.

Alienating other nations? We're pretty good at that.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:59 PM

I'm with sniperkitty here. I don't see anything good coming out of a central overlord govt, that microstate in the mall. I think we're better of at the very least, without that monstrosity, its wars, and its $14 trillion in debt.

Let's face it, Richard Hatch went to jail because he failed to pay his portion of the interest on those wars, started by DC which is not the US, but pretends to be.

I think we did clear one thing up: Whatever govt. does, it's not worth the power and rights we sacrifice to it, and it's not worth what is now, supplementals and bailouts included, costing $5 trillion/year. I'm not even sure it's worth a dime, esp. when you average it all out.

BM, democracy is a flawed idea. It probably works better when only the informed vote, but it still doesn't work. If you want direct governance, like everything by referendum, that's not democracy. Whatever the root of a word, such as "communism" is, it becomes how it is used. No one is going to be able to create a National Socialism, or an Islamic Jihad, or a Fascist Corporatist State or any other structure of govt. that has already been well defined without automatically carrying the baggage of the past attempts.

In democracy, the people select rulers, by popular vote. There are many applications: It can be representative, parlimentary, etc. You can have the representatives porportioned by region, demographic, or % of the vote each party got, etc. You can do a lot of twists on democracy and they've been tried. My 2c? It doesn't work.

If you create a system where people directly choose policies either by majority rule, regional or local rule or through cooperative consensus, than sure, the people rule, but it's not the system that has been called "democracy" for 2500 years. It's a new form of govt. Will it work? I don't know. Take over a small country and try it, or a town... It's probably worth a shot. I know a long list of political systems that *don't* work, so what the hell...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:27 PM

Hmm. A test run does sound like a good idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Chris, 10 things done well by our federal govt.. you got 220 years.. go!

What you said was... name 10 things our federal government did "well", not 10 things it did "perfectly". So, if by "well" you mean "better than they way things were going before"... I would name Social Security, environmental protection, space exploration, blue-sky research including the internet and funding university research, and voting rights laws. Did the federal government do it perfectly? No, not perfectly... but certainly better than what anyone else was doing at the time!

I can't rule out big government, because sometimes big problems require big government. For example, pollution is interstate. If your pollution is blowing/ flowing into MY state, then larger party has to take over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BYTE: Been advocating cooperatives for years. I guess I'm not mkaing my point very clear: I think power needs to be aggressively placed in the hands of "the people". And I mean ALL power: communication/ news, economic, political etc. And by that I don't mean that "people" need to be pro-active about obtaining power, I mean that the charters and bylaws... the organizing principles... of media, industry, and government MUST be fully democratic.

We tried that once - every other country on the planet took issue with it, HARD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
Prolly cause it's mere existence was a threat to each and every one.

Till we have an answer for that, it's gonna remain a major stumbling bloc, and I would really rather any potential solution not involve violence.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT let me add: rural electrification, the interstate. Three more to go.

FREM: Well, it's a goal worth working for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:01 AM

Sig

1. My electricity is state, sorry, that's one down.

2. Interstates I'll grant. They had to build the interstates to kill the railroad, so it's questionable, but it was something done by govt. with reasonable efficiency

3. No one has mentioned the Post Office. That's the govt's crowning achievement.

4. Before anyone says it, Amtrak does not count... a hell of a way to run a railroad, and Amtrak was not the creation of a railroad, it was railroad nationalization, and it was done worse than in just about anywhere in Europe.

5. Even by the mildest standards, Social Security is a total disaster. Adjusted for inflation it is between 3 and 7 cents of your own money back, the feds steal the rest. Sure, wives can get some of their husbands, but that's just alimony, extremely badly done.

6. Disability is also a disaster. Very little of the money goes to the people who need it, the majority goes to the mentally disabled the majority of which goes to drug addicts, who then give it to drug dealers. There's a govt. supported crack industry. There's a network out there of drug communities that shoot people up with a cocktail of drugs, and let them crash. When the drugs are out of the system, they take their new recruits in to the hospital to get a diagnosis. Then, around five druggies will move into a house together, minimize rent, and all the remainder goes to the candy man. I know people who do this, and I've known lots who were on disability through this. If welfare is to be done, it has to be done more local and with more oversight. Right now, we're feeding the problem.

7. environmental protection. The EPA is okay, I'm not sure if it's well done. My uncle works for the EPA, actually. I think it's basically a captured agency. I can't grant that it's done well, there's been some pretty rampant environmental destruction, and it's still going on. There's some attempt.

8. If you want to go this route, you can include the FDA, which is another captured agency. These would both be below my standard of "done well."

9. space exploration, we covered that. At the moment, the govt. is in the way here, but they did try.

10. science and the internet we covered. Of course again, now it's largely in the way, again. I think the labs do some good work, but still, private sector would probably do it better. Notice how whenever the govt. gets its hands on a technology they seem to want to build a weapon? Even the internet was intended for military use. The push by Nader et al to put genetic engineering in the hands of govt, instead of corporations, would have creating a biowarfare apocalypse. Independent companies are trying to cure diseases with the same technology, with a fair amount of success.

11. voting rights laws. No, the govt. can not be given credit for creating govt. no matter how fairly it does it. It doesn't get credit for C-Span, or the senate, or the supreme court. It can't have credit for being more fair about its own system. It would be like saying that American Idol was creating a better society by reforming their voting system. No, they're creating a better American Idol.

Quote:
but certainly better than what anyone else was doing at the time!

12. Are you f^&king kidding me?!?

The govt. was busy stealing money, claiming complete power over the people, taking over industries for military purposes, wastefully squandering resources and using all of this to go bomb and kill, not just million of people, but millions of species of life during pacific nuclear testing. Everyone else? Just about everyone else was working on solving problems, with the possible exception of the banks, and maybe a couple other cretinous overlords.

Quote:
I can't rule out big government, because sometimes big problems require big government.

Yep, can't really have a good war without it.

Quote:
For example, pollution is interstate. If your pollution is blowing/ flowing into MY state, then larger party has to take over.

Large scale pollution is usually international, and tends to get solved by treaty. It doesn't require govt. I don't need to argue this point: Europe does it all the time, and did before there was an EU.

More on topic, I just had to extract myself from a libertarian organization that started as a constitution restoration PAC to do damage control after Bush, and ensure that the old girl get re-instated, but the group as a whole had been so overrun with anti-immigration xenophobes that I need to distance my self pronto. Of course it took a million emails. Groups hate to lose members. I shoulda sent it to them in Spanish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Libertarians believe in the maximum possible amount of Freedom with the minimum possible amount of Government. They differ from Anarchists primarily in where they draw the lines of 'minimum and maximum.'

Libertarians believe that government's only real job is to safeguard Freedom.

Libertarians believe that the government can do that job and be very, very small and unobtrusive.

A truly Libertarian government would have very few public services, much fewer laws, and much smaller jails. It would also have no government funded parachutes, so if something bad happened to you, like you got sick or lost your job, you would be relying on your own resources or the kindness of your fellow man to get you through the hard times.

Libertarian governments are a bit scarier to contemplate, because self-reliance and un-coerced public charity are the only things that are going to be there to help you when you're down. People who are uncomfortable with this are the sorts of people who embrace large governments with big law books and huge programs to help you and your fellow man. Freedom is sacrificed to engender a feeling of greater public safety.

At the end of the day, you can tell if you are Libertarian by asking yourself one simple question...

Are you ready to grow up and be completely responsible for yourself?

That's no simple or inconsequential question, and it is no surprise that many people, faced with an uncertain world and its manifold dangers, would rather stay in the nest and be protected rather than fly away and be free.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Large scale pollution is usually international, and tends to get solved by treaty. It doesn't require govt. I don't need to argue this point: Europe does it all the time, and did before there was an EU.

Are you effing kidding me??? (Just joking!) WHO negotiates and signs treaties? Joe the Plumber signs a deal with Sally Homemaker? OF COURSE it requires "government". AFA pollution being "usually international"... not at all the case. The coal-fired power plants in the Midwest create acid rain on the East Coast. The twin ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles pollute San Bernardino, and Los Angeles as a whole pollutes the Grand Canyon. The downstream receptors have absolutley no power to negotiate with the upstream polluters.

I'll get to the rest of your post later. Ciao.
TONY

Quote:
Are you ready to grow up and be completely responsible for yourself?

No. There are certain things I simply CANNOT prepare for or affect individually. Nobody can. Attempting to reduce everyone to individual action is a sure-fire death-knell.

This is where Frem would jump in and say: Not individual action but voluntary cooperation, I think. And that may very well turn out to work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

At the end of the day, you can tell if you are Libertarian by asking yourself one simple question...

Are you ready to grow up and be completely responsible for yourself?

Personally, yes. But I don't want to live in a world where a child gets sick and dies because the parents can't afford a necessary medical treatment and no local social safety nets are in place.
That's the Humanist part of my Libertarian speaking.

So what am I now, a Socialib?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:10 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Chris,

You're not alone. The idea of innocent people suffering without parachutes to help them when they fall sickens me.

I think a Libertarian society would actually need to be one with great heaping spoonfulls of empathy, so that non-coercive charity could help such souls. There is precedent for such a thing.

Of course, there is also precedent for people sitting idly by while others die.

The question is, do you want charity enforced at gunpoint? That is precisely what any government activity is, no matter how benign. It is the will of the majority (or vocal minority) enforced on the rest of society at the point of a gun. (Or perhaps truncheons if you live in England. ;-) ) I do feel that such tasks for government should be eliminated wherever it is possible to do so.

It is not that I would choose to eliminate all laws, as an Anarchist might be prone to do. But when you enact laws it should be with full understanding that the enforcement of that law will involve, at some point, the use of force and the taking of someone's freedom. Thus every law enacted, every tax levied, should have great wracking pains of guilt and self-doubt and haunted dreams associated with it. The final enactment of a law or tax should be a solemn, sad, regretful event, with an eye towards any individuals who will be mishandled by the measure and apologies in your heart for them. The idea of celebrating a law, as is so often done in politics, is disgusting to lovers of Freedom. Even in cases where a law is there to help individuals preserve their freedoms, there is necessarily some overall theft of freedom as a consequence. Every law passed, even necessary laws with the best of intentions, ought to be accompanied by a funeral procession. Not cheers.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is where Frem would jump in and say: Not individual action but voluntary cooperation, I think. And that may very well turn out to work.

Yanno, I might chew yer head off here and there, but you'd make a right good anarchist, I think, gotta good understanding of the principles.

Voluntary cooperation DOES work, maybe not perfectly but then nothin ever does, and the best example of that is the american highway system.

It ain't fear of punishment that causes folk on the road to cooperate, even as poorly, but overall effectively, as they do - it's a mutual unspoken agreement that it JUST WONT WORK any other way.

Hell there's even a certain amount of mutual obstruction of bad elements, you think about it, case in point:

Ok, you got construction and it's squeezing down to one lane - now MOST folk move over, and other folk generally let them in, especially when they display enough sense to start doing so when they see the signs in the first place in an effort to make things flow smoothly, a respect which is paid back by the people in the clear lane letting them in if possible...

Then you got the me-firsters, who charge down that lane KNOWING it's closed in hopes of jumping the line and cutting in at the last minute for their own convienience at the expense of everyone else - most folk hate em, passionately, cause not only is this rude, obnoxious and unfair, it jams up the works for everyone, and folks are right damn nasty about not letting THOSE folk in, do you blame em ?

Enough of that, and what do the folks in the "clear" lane start doin ?

They move over and straddle the line, physically blocking this kind of behavior even at some small risk to themselves, minor that it is.

All without regard to laws or signed agreements, just a classic example of how natural human cooperation generally functions without the need for some overlord tellin people what to do - something that government tends to seriously screw up cause in the end it prettymuch ALWAYS winds up gettin run by the very me-firsters who jam up the works in the first place.

Just something for you to think about, is all.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:15 AM