Any other libertarians here?

Post Reply New Topic

People that call themselves "libertarians" here in the states are really just right-wing loons that want to smoke weed. According to us Libertarian Socialists capitalism and freedom are inheirently contradictory, The Corporation is the Fascist State in miniature.

Ok..... good for y'all. States libertarians would claim that capitalism and freedom go hand in hand with the claim that the right to own property is an essential aspect of freedom.

I beg to differ, most that I have talked to are very intelligent.

I want libertarian as the government because I see it working and working with the best interest of its people

I don't think liberalism as practised by UK Liberals has much in common with the libertarianism of the US. UK liberalism has state control of individuals and companies at the heart of many of its policies. More specifically, UK liberals believe those who wish to own guns are the spawn of the devil (figuratively), and that taxation should be used extensively to redistribute wealth.

The Liberal Democrats in the UK are turning more and more into authoritarian social democrats by the day (witness the jackbootedness of Richmond council, for example). If you want anything remotely libertarian in Britain you'd be looking at UKIP, although even they don't have the brightest political hopes.

I see two sides to Libertarianism - one says the Government should not be able to control your life (I see that as being able to do anything you want as long as doing so does not harm others), and another side that says we should not be taxed very much, that the government is not responsible for helping people in need. I agree 100% with the first point. The government does not have the right to ban a natural, God-given plant. I should be able to own, grow, buy, sell, and use marijuana without fear that the government will throw me in prison for doing so.
I have a lot of trouble with the second part of the Libertarian doctrine. Many people need help, and only the government has the resources to help them. Besides, I hate Capitalism, which means "survival of the greediest." It is a very un-Christian system, those who support Capitalism and call themselves Christians are really nothing but hypocrites.
So this leaves me as a strange duck, half Libertarian, half Socialist.

I look at it differently. When I mention how I want to remove welfare or public health care, people think its a bad idea and simple for me to say since I was middle class (now I'm on my own and bringing home a few extra dollars every month (I'd say I'm lower class now)).

People fail to realize what welfare REALLY is. Its simply money skimmed off of everyone's pay cheque and distributed to the poor. Problem is, no one asked me. Normally, charities like "UNICEF' ask me whether I want to donate, they dont stop me on the street and take my money without asking. So there is a force element here, they are 'forcing me' to donate. Psychologically, that doesnt work.

As well, for those who love the idea of helping others, I have to ask: Do you volunteer your time to help people? Do you donate to charity (a larger amount then your pocket change). If you answered 'no' then I can conclude you REALLY don't care OR you just don't have the money to donate. I'd be quite confident most will say 'no' outside of what they are forced to.

If you DO donate to charity, then the removal of health care and welfare won't be any different in the society as your money that you'd be so willingly cheerful to donate to welfare would just go to a charity, instead, the only difference is you had a CHOICE of where to donate money. I think people hear 'remove welfare' then they freak out and think of all the poor people. All welfare is, is a forced charitable donation, thats it. And, again, anything forced is a bad way to go about doing things.

As well, an open market would most likely promote companies to grow/be extremely competitive and this would involve 'employment' so the actual need for a welfare system to be put into place will slowly fade away and charities would be more then sufficient.

So as far as the social side goes, it'll be volunteer. If you don't think people will help out then why should they now? If I was bringing home 96% of my pay cheque I wouldnt know what to do with the extra money. I'd probably spend some of it and spending money towards another person is how economy works. Government welfare programs, minimum wage laws, etc. These things all do more harm then good. They sound good on paper but the way they work is inefficient (this is all psychological and its proven that charities are operated better then government services ANYWAYS because, yes, people care and are volunteering at their own free will, not out of force)

There are a million ways to replace these systems, here are a few I've conjured up in regards to:
Health Care Insurance (instead of public health care)
- Market will be competitive since it is open (public forces you into one standard and I can tell you, I had to wait 1 week to see a doctor in Canada and 6 months to see a specialist, by then, I had YAHOO! make my diagnosis because I studied it myself (how aspie of me) and I was right. I just sat in the Doctors officer nodding to stuff I already knew). Its also run as efficient as any other government program (can you say 'waste money?')
- Insurance companies can offer a 'charitable' program, in other words, check 'this box' if you'd like to donate 3 dollars a payment to 'our' charity program
- Charity, itself, can do whatever they do to promote their charity to help poor/kids with health costs - these exist today

There are better ways then Force! Much better ways, and in the end, the result is MUCH more helpful then a bunch of morons in government who just talk about ideas but never do them (something I noticed in my short working career is that employees talk too much about everything but do nothing (probably because they dont care which is another reason these things dont work))

I'm one of those 'there are only solutions, no problems' people and I have a million on this subject and the more I talk about it the more alternatives I get

According to Lao Tzu (who was possibly the world's first Libertarian), people starve because the rulers take too much in taxes.

75
People are hungry,
because rulers eat too much tax-grain.
That is why people are starving.

People are hard to govern,
because rulers interfere too much.
That is why they are hard to govern.

People do not care about death,
because rulers demand too much of life.
That is why they do not care about death.
Only those who do not interfere with living
are best at valuing life.

This is taken from the Tao Teh Ching.

I think perhaps if taxes were a lot lower you'd see less people in need of assistance, and probably more in the way of private charity since people would now have more resources to donate. It is not as though government does a good job of taking care of the poor anyway, you know. Most of the money the government takes is wasted on subsidies and wars and stuff like that...

Oh ya, war, thank you for reminding me of that expense and how nasty it actually is!

Being against war is a big part of being a Libertarian. There may be some people who call themselves "Libertarians" who support the Iraq war but it is my personal opinion that war (except in self-defense or to stop genocide) is incompatible with the Libertarian philosophy of non-aggression.

We should also consider the drug war a war, because it is a war in almost every sense. It is a war that has been fought against civilians for decades and has cost hundreds of billions of dollars with little to show for it other than overcrowded prisons, while the violent criminals are released early!

Well, my meditating every night dictates me to be a bit more peaceful then the rest of society. I bought a poppy today and told people that I wore it for not just the Canadians who died in the war, but for the Germans who died, as well. Actually, when I thought about that when I got to my car, it made me angry to think about how their leaders got them to do that (I say "Got" because no one in their right mind wants to kill another individual (and "they" say WAR is human nature, eh?))

I also agree 100% with the first point. With the second point, I don't think capitalism necessarily means "survival of the greediest". It mean those obtain the wealth who provide the services and products that others value. That's what people are paid for anyway. I think we must not confuse a political system with a set of personal choices one makes. There will always be people who work very hard, sometimes at jobs they don't really enjoy , just because it will make them rich. Others will be content making a more modest income and having a less lucrative job that they enjoy more, whether it requires shorter hours, is less stressful, or is more interesting. The difference here depends on whether people get more satisfaction from having a lot more money than they need to live comfortably, or from having the time to do the things they wish to do most. It's not that one is "more capitalist" than the other.

Welcome, new member!

To me, Capitalism means things like asking yourself if this new oil tanker you're about to order should have double hulls, to protect the environment, or just a single hull, because you'll save yourself a lot of money. It means taking jobs away from thousands of American workers, just because you can get the job done cheaper in another country. It means laying off your best workers as they approach retirement, so you won't have to pay their retirement pay.

I also think being wealthy is immoral. Many people can't even afford to put food on the table, or get needed medical attention. To sit back in luxury while that goes on around you is wrong. I can even quote a renown source on this; the famed Jewish philosopher Jesus of Nazareth said "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." ...Matthew 19:24. - from Wikipedia: "The occasion of the saying, according to the gospel writers, was after a rich young man had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should first, keep the commandments, sell all his possessions, and give the money to the poor, and then to come, follow Jesus. Because of his great wealth, the young man was unwilling to do this. Jesus then turned to his disciples, and spoke this phrase to their astonishment, leading them to doubt that salvation was possible for anyone."

I think the morality or immorality of wealth is determined by how that wealth is accumulated. If it is accumulated by theft, cheating, fraud, abuse of the legal system, etc. then I agree it is immoral. However, do you think it is immoral if someone who comes up with a better way of doing something (whether it be a method of manufacturing, a new medication, a way of constructing buildings, etc.) profits from it? To me it seems that people being rewarded for their accomplishments is a good thing. The problem with socialism and communism is that everybody knows that they won't benefit personally from doing more work. Therefore, under that system it actually makes sense to be as self-centered as possible, since doing work for yourself gets you something whereas doing it for someone else doesn't. However, under capitalism it becomes highly advantageous to provide to others what may be useful to them. Of course, under both systems, people will do certain things just for the enjoyment and not because it brings them or anyone else a material gain.