Ask a Libertarian
Options
Comments
-
Now for my more practical arguments:
Look I get libertarianism, I really do as there are some things we can agree on but seriously how ? up is it to have a do-nothing government? Does that even make sense?
Now we can say the government does too much, in which case I agree. Do we need the gov to do everything? Not at all. The government shouldn't be making "things", meaning we shouldn't have to buy things from the government, that's asinine.
The government's job is defined by us, the citizens and if I may borrow from Tom Paine: The living citizens, not the dead ones.
We need an Air Force, should every other country have one as we don't? The same can be said about transportation, education, consumer protection, mental health..I can go on and on. You mean India and China can have workable public education systems and we can't? Canada can do it, Europe can do it but ours doesn't work. Maybe that means it's something in the country and not the way it's set up and the way it's done.
Sometime being reactive cannot be helped. The FBI, NASA, social security, the various welfare agencies was created because the government was being reactive to problems that didn't exist before.
You can't have 18th century solutions to 21st century problems. That's not going to work and no base of citizens will allow it without rebellion.
You honestly believe that citizens are going to sit on their hands while a small group of rich folks do nothing but take taxes? Lol that's not gonna fly, most people have seen that before with kings and early American colonies, rebellion on behalf of those that don't have is real, rebellion on behalf of victims is real.
I could dabble on some things the government got right in respect to banning substances like ? which was in coca cola and thus untold numbers of America children would be exposed to ? via soft drinks or banning lead paint which was tied to increased aggression and metal retardation but I've typed enough, more than I ever intended to in the first place.
Good topic by the way. -
Okay, two more things: one a clarification and another critique.
First my clarification:What about education? Welp, lets look at Congressional powers again:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
"To promote the progress of science" allows NASA to exist but that also applies to education in general as schools promote useful arts AND sciences. Biology, mathematics, and the like but this also falls under "general welfare" because our intellectual infrastructure is found primarily in schools and without that where are we?
This is generally about patent and copyright laws, however the education system utilizes the sciences and arts that are created by other people. Increasing the amount of people who read and have access, this makes copyright and patent laws stronger. Promoting scholarship AND intellectual property is the spirit of that clause. I re-read it and it seemed like I was saying that the clause allowed them to open schools which wouldn't be correct.
Now to my second part: another critique.
I honk the government's role in the economy over the last hundred years or so is actually quite understated as if they had done nothing we wouldn't have quite a few things we enjoy today.
We typically view capitalism as some mighty force for progress and productivity but it also stifles productivity and progress through markets.
Once a company gets large enough it can prevent new companies from entering the market, they can buy them out for starters or they could attack in the marketplace of ideas.
I wanted to manufacture cars today how could I compete wih GM, Chrysler or Ford? Their major competition is foreign because the domestic markets are sown up, nobody can build automobiles in this country without facing incredible challenges...look at Tesla Motors. The same can be said about our energy problems, oil companies are just too damn big and can prevent new companies from flourishing.
Now government's role in he economy is that while at times it's ? up, they have done quite well over time. The railroads, automobiles, airplanes, the internet, weapons industry, all the gadgets that were born from nasa's work all these things are considerably better considering the government had a hand (the railroads have been abandoned as unfortunately but so have our roads and bridges but back on my point).
The government created a use for automobiles. My there is more to creating a product than just having it designed and built, people need to see a practical use for the product as well. There was no use for cars at first, people we happy with the old horse and carriage, when the government got involved they were able to show people that automobiles were useful for everybody and not just a few people.
The government had a hand in building railroads too. Government funded railroads were often ? up but they spent money that entrepreneurs were scared to spend and began a project that ultimately other people finished. The same is going on in nasa right now, private companies coming in behind government to innovate.
This stuff is not black and white at all. -
I got a few questions. ..
1) what is a libertarian's viewpoint on welfare?
2) What is a libertarian's view on education?
3) " on gun control -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »
Arguing what you laid out only makes a person sound like a tool and most here even though they subscribe to Ideologies/Parties that go against their best interests only flex when they do not run risk of exposure. Very well said piece on Libertarianism you summed up the ideologies and benefits to perfection in my opinion...I know damn well that I'm not preaching to the choir here as I explain libertarianism and present it as America's best and perhaps only viable political option. And I hate saying ? without anyone disagreeing or challenging what I say (which is why I couldn't stand shows like Oprah's). So where are all my people who disagree with libertarianism or make fun of libertarianism? Where are all my mainstream Republicans and Democrats, neocons, and Obama supporters? If any of what I have been saying is wrong (which is entirely possible), then holla at me.
'ppreciate it fam.
-
good ? jono. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Lots to think about. I'm gonna have to get back to you in a few days though because I got finals.Young_Chitlin wrote: »I got a few questions. ..
1) what is a libertarian's viewpoint on welfare?
2) What is a libertarian's view on education?
3) " on gun control
I touched on question 1 in some of my previous posts. I'll point them out. I touched a bit on question 2, but I'll say more on it. I'll also answer question 3. I'll get back to you on all of that within the week. -
Is it safe to assume most libertarians like the idea of bitcoin?
-
Libertarian should be a major political party....we need to end this two party system.
-
Warning: Nothing but a long, long series of responses following after this, but I'll try to divide them up into smaller portions. Of course you don't have to read and response to everything.I won't go on and on about this stuff because it's an ever moving goal post and most of it has all the trappings of a religion.
Heh I don’t know about that bruh. You’re giving me plenty of homework here with just this post. And this is just post one of four heh. No hate though, quite the opposite. I appreciate that you took the time with such a thoughtful response.I have no beef with libertarians personally, there are issues we agree on but their ideology is based on romanticized history and a fantasy America and not the real thing at all.
I agree somewhat. I think that there are libertarians like that, but I’ll have to keep reading to see if you’re talking about me as well.First I will speak on the crown jewel of libertarianism: "free markets". Basically they don't exist and never existed. In fact. I dare say they can't exist. The argument that America was meant to be "free market" also isn't true.
Ok, you are talking about me here at least heh. I believe in free markets. I don’t think that it’s a perfect system, nor do I think that a perfect free market exists. I also believe that America was meant to be free market, but I’ll have to read what you have to say about that.I direct you to James Madison (Federalist #10): "a landed interest. A manufacturing interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in necessary and ordinary operations of the government"
This is interesting and worth noting; however, at least four thoughts come to my mind. First, I would like to know more about the context of this passage since, if I’m not mistaken, Madison was briefly a Federalist before he became a Republican. Second, imho, the Federalists were a minority, and thus, imho it was the Republicans who “truly” represented America. The Federalists were virtually wiped out after just our second president. I am not arguing that the Federalists were nobodies, just that they were less representational of what America stood for. Third, even though the Federalists believed in “big” government, I would argue that their type of big government was nothing like the type of big government you see today. Even the Federalists would be shocked at how unnecessarily big our government is today imho (or they would be co-opted by power and greed). Fourth, Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, was an economical godfather to all the founding fathers including the Federalists. I don’t think that many of them would approve of what the government is doing today.And if that doesn't away you i direct you to the constitution itself, in regards to the powers of Congress Section 8-2:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
You have to know that there is a lot of debate about this part of the constitution. I can say so much, and we can debate it all day, but I’ll try to keep what I’m going to say now short because I don’t want to rant. Imho, even long before FDR, the Commerce Clause has been abused to a point that it’s not even funny. I might interpret this clause differently from you, but I can’t see how anyone can use it to justify policies like Obamacare. Even lawsuits against Obamacare based on the Common Clause has received mixed results. Maybe you’re not talking about policies like Obamacare though. I’m not quite sure where you actually stand when it comes to free markets. Do you believe in free markets? Do you believe in capitalism? What is your definition of free markets? When I refer to my idea of free markets, I do not mean markets that are literally without any restraints. I just want to make it clear that I am not a free market anarchist. Free markets shouldn’t be completely “free.” I interpret the Common Clause to mean that the government has the power to regulate (as in oversee and facilitate) economic transportation, transaction, etc., by protecting contracts, upholding the law, and preventing violence. That is essentially a government’s role, and the other parts of the Constitution make this clear. The role of the government is not to micromanage every aspect of the economy and use force against people. That never works and the federal government could never run the economy well because of corruption and inefficiency because of its indirect relationship to the states and because it was never designed to run the economy.
-
Again no free markets. They are to be regulated by Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about "free markets". They do not exist.
I’m confused here. Again, I think it would help if I got a better sense of what you meant by free markets and what you actually believe in instead if you don’t believe in free markets. Here, you seem to say that free markets don’t exist but also say that free markets should be regulated by Congress. This leads me to think that you do believe that “free markets” exist but that they should be regulated. Like I’ve said before, I somewhat agree, but I would have to further explain the degree to which I think that free markets should be regulated if I haven’t done this already. Again, I am not an anarchist. I believe in regulation, but limited/constitutional regulation. And I don’t equate regulation with unwarranted force. As for “free market” not appearing in the Constitution, I don’t think that’s relevant. I think that it’s obvious that America was founded on (free market) capitalism. “Democracy” is not in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Pledge of Allegiance either, yet every American screams democracy out their ass.Now let's discuss the idea of "individual freedom/liberty".
Let’s.In theory this is great and looking at words on pages it's excellent but they didn't really believe this. Most of them were slaveowners. Slavery is the antithesis of freedom, this is hypocritical at least, intellectually dishonest is more like it. But that was the order of the day.
I’ve made the argument against this many times before, and I’m either lazy or hate repeating myself, but I’ll try to keep it short. Yes, many founding fathers (especially the Southerners) were slave owners, but hypocrisy doesn’t necessarily discredit or disprove the idea of individual liberty. Like you’ve said, it’s important to note that slavery was the “order of the day,” but slavery is evil and inexcusable regardless. But it’s certainly not unbelievable for the founding fathers to be deeply flawed, right? I also think that it’s a bit more complicated than to just call them slaveholders. Many founding fathers were opposed to slavery, even those who owned slaves. Jefferson wanted to even attack slavery in the Declaration of Independence but the Southerners weren’t having it. Washington himself was against slavery and eventually had his slaves released. As president, he was faced with the same two choices that every president up to Lincoln was faced with, and all made the same wrong choice: get rid of slavery and tear a new nation apart or keep slavery and keep a divided nation together. If any of those presidents had any ? and chose morality over politics, we would’ve had a Civil War much sooner, but presidents are supposed to be presidents and not pastors, so ? them. But, if I’m not mistaken, John Adams and John Jay never had any slaves. Ben Franklin, an outspoken anti-slavery advocate, freed his slaves and organized an antislavery group. And there are others too. Many of these guys were true Republicans in the classical sense. Even if slavery completely discredit them, it doesn’t discredit the ideal of individual liberty, and it’s that ideal that matters not the person.See these people, the Jeffersons, Hamiltons, Madisons etc were mostly lawyers and politicians, no different than the lawyers and politicians of today...they are liars and charlatans. Over half of them enjoyed privileges under English rule. They held office in colonial government, amassed land & slaves, the wealth of the day.
I think that I agree with most, if not all, of what you said here, so I’m not sure if there’s any argument here. If you think that I envision our (or just my?) found fathers as perfect saints, then you have misunderstood me. Many of these guys were ? , especially Jefferson. I know this. I think that many people who have ever existed were ? really. It’s a human thing really. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a politician or a slave holder or a wealthy man to be an ? . Just got to be a human being.The English made them wealthy, poor whites found their way to the colonies and were kept as indentured servants and as slaves themselves. Of course the Africans kept coming and the elites of the colonies kept buying and indeed built an entire society based on the slave trade.
I agree and disagree. I think that it’s faulty to generalize the founding fathers as one group. I’m not even sure if by “them,” you are actually referring to the founding fathers. But Benjamin Franklin was apparently dirt poor and was a homeless run-away as a teenager. I don’t think that the English bought him a mansion. Did many poor whites work as servants and many blacks work as slaves? Most likely. But those were the times. I don’t quite understand how this discredits libertarianism if that is your intention here.
-
It wasn't until they faced uprising from the poor and the natives did they decide to point the finger at England. They needed a scapegoat (by no means was England a good guy or anything however) and the King made a good one. They really just didnt want to pay taxes, that's all it boils down to, they got rich and decided they wanted to be in power. They expected England to help them fight the natives and quell the rebellions of the poor and they didn't (it's in the declaration) so they decided to usurp the power for themselves.
Oh. That’s very interesting. I don’t think that I know too much about this and haven’t actually heard too much about this, so I’d like to do some more research. But are you telling me that America fought against the British for independence because a bunch of “rich” white guys didn’t want to pay taxes? I honestly find that hard to believe. What about the issue about taxation without representation? What about the Boston Massacre? What about the many grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence like the expenses, whether excessive taxes or lost lives on the battlefield, that American colonialists had to suffer because of Britain’s many wars? At worst, I might agree that the founding fathers went to war to save their ? after Britain declared them traitors, giving the greenlight for them to be executed. But going to war simply to scapegoat the King and not pay taxes? I don’t know…This had nothing to do with patriotism or individual liberties, it was all about the elites protecting their position...same as it is today. If King George had done his part an protected the greedy ? who wanted to take all the land of the colonies for themselves the United States wouldn't exist. They would have been perfectly happy under England because they already lived quite well.
I can’t cosign this hypothesis. I agree that elitists will always be elitists, but I honestly think that you’re overstating that point. I also think that if King George did what he did, there would still be unrest and conflict, and it’s possible that we’d have new founding fathers. Regardless, I think that you are severely understating the importance of the philosophical godfathers of the founding fathers. People like Voltaire, John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, etc., were incredibly influential.So the Declaration of Independence was mostly propaganda, true, but propaganda nonetheless. They figured by blaming all of the woes of the poor on the King they could absolve themselves and it worked fanatically, we don't even discuss all the rebellions in the colonies we tend to believe it was all roses and bubbles, that the people lived in harmony and that is not so.
I agree half of what you said here, but if it discredits the founding fathers, I don’t think that it does as nearly as I think you think it does. Besides, like you said, libertarianism, like any good political philosophy, is about principles and ideas not about people because people can be very flawed and people shouldn’t look to be followers of mere men.
Ok, now I think that I finally fully understand where you’re heading. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the libertarian “dreamworld” was America after the War of Independence but that this America was as ? as the America that exists now? I largely disagree. First, imo America after the War of Independence was neither a perfect nation nor a libertarian paradise. After all, it was just a new country. And of course, there was slavery. But the form of government today is much worse than it was back then. I’m not saying that back then was paradise. You can always find ? in every year of America’s existence. But the libertarian dreamworld never existed because it cannot exist. Ideals never come true, but progress can be made toward such an ideal. But if libertarianism hasn’t existed in its “true” form, then isn’t it possibly safe to say that we’ve been living in an “unlibertarian” world that is full of ? ? Instead of arguing that libertarianism is impossible (whatever that means), couldn’t we be say that what we’re doing now is not libertarianism and that perhaps there is some good in moving towards libertarianism especially since what we’re doing now is full of ? ? What we should be asking ourselves is what should an alternative to what we’re doing now look like, why, and how can we get there.The libertarian dreamworld never existed, it was the same then as it was now.Rampant nepotism and favoritism, is it a coincidence that the a few of the writers of the constitution & Declaration of Independence and the man considered the richest in the country at the time (Washington) all ended up being president? If so that's one hell of a coincidence.
But this is nothing new and nothing necessarily as evil and “conspiracist” as you make it out to be. And I have a suspicion that you just hate rich people for some reason. Not all rich people are bad people, you know. But the elite will always be the elite, but again, I don’t see how this discredits libertarianism. And if it did, why would libertarianism be singled out for the ? that politicians do? Libertarianism actually wants to limit the power of politicians so that they don’t ? with you. So that you’re able to preserve your individual liberty. -
Now let's discuss the government's role in helping the indigent, which libertarians claim there isnt one
As a libertarian, I don’t personally take that stance. And I think many others don’t either. Libertarians are not anti-poor people or anti-the government helping the poor. We are essentially anti-the government using force against people, including forcing people to “help” the poor. The government shouldn’t force a person to pray to this ? or to marry this kind of person, so the government shouldn’t force a person to give up some of his money to finance whatever welfare or warfare program that it’s pushing. Never mind that libertarians can and do help the poor without the government, but if a libertarian wants to help the poor via the government, then he can do so as long as he chooses to do so – and that’s individual liberty at work.but what's the alternative? Nonprofits and private charity..okay fine..until we reach the Great Depression and find that when things go awry on a large enough scale then these organizations flounder.
Couple of thoughts/questions. First, do you think that we’re on the verge of a Great Depression? And if so, wouldn’t big government, as opposed to libertarianism, be the cause? Second, if we do reach a Great Depression, should I be forced to give up some of my money to financially support another person? Does a Great Depression call for forced redistribution of wealth? Would that even work? What would be your solution? Also, shouldn’t a gradual cessation of the welfare system (again, which is broke and inefficient) actually encourage many people to be more responsible and proactive with their money instead of being idle and lazy?But it's not just that let's go to the constitution again;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
As with the Commerce clause, the General Welfare Clause is also controversial, and I am on the side that says that it has been likewise abused. And I’m certainly not the only one. I could say more, and let me know if you want me to say more, but I’ll just make one point and add a quotation from the same James Madison you quoted earlier. The point is that there is an imo valid argument that says that the 9th and the 10th amendments, given what they say, clarify the General Welfare Clause to render the welfare system unconstitutional because the individual’s liberty is to be protected and the federal government’s power is to be limited. And let’s not forget that the welfare system, which we can say generally includes social security and etc., came into formal existence about 150 years after the founding of the nation. If social security was constitutional, then why didn’t we start off with it? And here’s what Madison has to say: “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
-
Welp...i wonder what in the hell that meant. Crashing markets inevitably bring anything attached to it down, we saw this a few years ago right? This obviously disrupts the "domestic tranquility" an the government does indeed have power to help citizens to "promote the general welfare", the keyword isn't "welfare", it's "general" there isn't any limitation there.
I completely disagree for various reasons, many of which I’ve stated above. But I’ll add four points/questions. First, once again, I’m not anti-government helping people in need. I’m anti-government forcing people to “help” people in need. Second, once again, I’m not an anarchist. Just to be clear. I do believe in government, just limited government, but never to the point of using force against its citizens. I never understood why American citizens are so against the libertarian principle of defending American citizens, particularly their individual freedom. Even if somebody else doesn’t care about his individual liberty, that person shouldn’t have any right to speak on another man’s individual liberty. If someone else wants to immerse himself into government programs, then cool; he should do him. But he doesn’t have the right to tell me to do the same. Third, I could be misunderstanding you but, are you saying that the government has no limitation in the use of its power to “promote the general welfare”? That’s scary. Fourth, I make the point that it says “general” but for different reasons. This is the same reason why President Cleveland vetoed a bill that would’ve given government money to a group of farmers. He took money out of his own pocket to help the farmers because he knew that it was unconstitutional for a government to help a specific group whether that group is sick, poor, farming, etc. If it says “general,” then why is welfare specifically for the poor? And is my general welfare helped when my hard earned money is taken from me and given to a poor man when I myself need to pay college bills? Or am I helped when my hard earned money is taken from me to finance winless wars on terrorism or mismanaged drug wars?Let's touch on two more topics though: the right of congress to tax (section 8-1):
"1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
There goes that word again. No limitations on what they cannot do with taxes in this power. Which means they can build an Air Force (which exist at that time) and a federal police force (which also did not exist) as they fall under "common defence", the various welfare and social security programs fall under "general welfare" as they are for indigent and/or otherwise handicapped citizens.
What about education? Welp, lets look at Congressional powers again:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
"To promote the progress of science" allows NASA to exist but that also applies to education in general as schools promote useful arts AND sciences. Biology, mathematics, and the like but this also falls under "general welfare" because our intellectual infrastructure is found primarily in schools and without that where are we?
I might be a little lazy here, but I think that Madison again perfectly sums up the direct criticism that I, and many others, have about much of what you’re saying, and who better than Madison to quote: “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” And by the way, I’m not 100% against taxes, and it must be known that America wasn’t always tax-happy but actually started out by severely limiting direct taxes. And militaries were supported by indirect taxes or tariffs. And the income tax only came into existence, once again, about 150 years after America’s foundation. You see the government getting bigger and bigger and more powerful and more powerful, and this is supposed to be a good thing?? And lastly, do I really need to say how bad it is for government to be in school? Just look at our public school system. Really???
-
Now for my more practical arguments:
Look I get libertarianism, I really do as there are some things we can agree on but seriously how ? up is it to have a do-nothing government? Does that even make sense?
If I understand you correctly, then no, that is not my/our stance. I want the government to do things. The more that I defend libertarianism, the more that I understand that libertarianism isn’t even about the government. What’s most essential to the libertarian is simply individual liberty, and nothing, let alone the government, should violate an individual’s liberty. But back to the government. What should a government do then? Like I’ve said, a government should protect contracts, uphold the law and the Constitution (though we may disagree of the interpretation of the Constitution), “regulate” (I prefer regulate in the sense of facilitate or oversee) the economy, provide sound money, defend the nation, etc. These are sufficient and republican purposes for the government to fulfill, and I don’t see what’s so nonsensical about that. To this day, I still do not understand why people believe so much in government and continue to give more power to it even though we all know how the government is incompetent and how people in power will always be corrupt. Are we really so helpless as to not be able to even save up our own money? Do we really need the government to save up our own money for us? Really?? Are we children? Do we really need a nanny state?Now we can say the government does too much, in which case I agree. Do we need the gov to do everything? Not at all. The government shouldn't be making "things", meaning we shouldn't have to buy things from the government, that's asinine.
The government's job is defined by us, the citizens and if I may borrow from Tom Paine: The living citizens, not the dead ones.
Ok, I agree with everything you’ve said here, and I dig the Tom Paine reference. So it seems that either we’re splitting hairs on how much the power the government should have or you’ve mistaken me for an anarchist or a minarchist, which I’m pretty sure I’m not.We need an Air Force, should every other country have one as we don't? The same can be said about transportation, education, consumer protection, mental health..I can go on and on. You mean India and China can have workable public education systems and we can't? Canada can do it, Europe can do it but ours doesn't work. Maybe that means it's something in the country and not the way it's set up and the way it's done.
I’m not anti-Air Force if that is what you’re thinking. And if I understand you correctly, you seem to be making the fallacy that I’m against “transportation, education, consumer protection, mental health,” etc. just because I’m against the government’s compulsory involvement in each of these. I wholeheartedly support transportation (I’m a city boy and getting around is very important), education (I think education and parenting are two of the most important factors in a given society), consumer protection (I identify consumer protection with free market capitalism, which I obviously support), and mental health (I think mental health might be the most important, least talked about issue today). I support them all, but the idea that we need government to make it all work is not true. ? usually doesn’t work and gets worse when the government does get involved. Again, our public school system should be evidence enough. Washington damn D.C. should be evidence enough. Why all this hope in government. What about hope in the citizens of America? And even though it’s not perfect, what about the private sector? I don’t know too much about Canada and Europe, so I’d need to so more research before I can comment on them without talking out of my ass. -
Sometime being reactive cannot be helped. The FBI, NASA, social security, the various welfare agencies was created because the government was being reactive to problems that didn't exist before.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I understand but largely disagree. First, my beef isn’t even so much that those agencies and programs were created. My beef is more about how they were created. Americans do not understand the three branches of government and the checks and balances, and these are two policies, unlike the programs and agencies above, that existed with the founding of the nation. Imo, the executive branch (the president) is the weakest, and this was intentional because Americans did not want another King George III. Yet we have seen presidents act out: from FDR “creating” social security to the executive orders and slick ? Clinton, Bush, and Obama all pulled. Congress is supposed to make and pass laws not the president. The fact that Congress (regardless of how ? Congress may be at the time) is snubbed, means that the people are snubbed because Congress is essentially the people. Worst case scenario, if you’re going to pass the Patriot Act, then at least give the people ample time to vote on it through their representatives in Congress, but that ? rarely happens. The other half of my beef is that most of those programs, agencies, or bills were all unconstitutional but unconstitutional for a good reason and that was to limit the power of the government and to preserve the liberty of the people. The idea that we need these government agencies, programs, and bills are fallacious imo. First, we don’t need them. Do we need the Federal Reserve? The Fed is corrupt and disastrous, and some people call the Fed the fourth branch of the government. I’m sure Jefferson and Jackson would’ve loved that. Second, ever since we’ve had all of these reactive policies, ? has not worked. The dollar is falling, we’re broke, and we’re trillions of dollars in debt to China alone. It’s funny that libertarians are seen as naïve, but we understand that people in power (the government) will always be corrupt and incompetent, so why give the government more power. That just makes things worse.You can't have 18th century solutions to 21st century problems.
I think that’s a fallacious argument. Libertarian policies aren’t restricted to centuries and are timeless and adaptable. Sure, America is much bigger, but Switzerland and other countries are doing well. Are they stuck in the 18th century?That's not going to work and no base of citizens will allow it without rebellion.
I could say just the opposite. That is going to work and no base of citizens will give it up without rebellion.You honestly believe that citizens are going to sit on their hands while a small group of rich folks do nothing but take taxes? Lol that's not gonna fly, most people have seen that before with kings and early American colonies, rebellion on behalf of those that don't have is real, rebellion on behalf of victims is real.
Sorry, I don’t think that I quite understand what you’re saying here. But why again with the demonizing of rich folks? Rich people aren’t necessarily bad, and rich people will always exist regardless of what political philosophy is adopted. My argument is that free market capitalism allows more Americans to acquire wealth since big businesses and monopolies will no longer be protected by the government and free trade, entrepreneurship, and small businesses will all be encouraged. Again, I’m not talking about streets of gold. I’m talking about more opportunity, choice, freedom, and production in the economic sector. A far better system than the system of corporatism that we currently are under.I could dabble on some things the government got right in respect to banning substances like ? which was in coca cola and thus untold numbers of America children would be exposed to ? via soft drinks or banning lead paint which was tied to increased aggression and metal retardation
I agree and disagree, but this is tricky for me. I advocate individual liberty, so if an adult wants to do something taboo or dangerous (and this could be everything from the choice to play a “violent” sport like football to the choice to be euthanized), then that’s his choice, as long as he doesn’t directly interfere with other people’s right to make their own choices. It would be great to give him advice, but only he should be able to make that choice. No one should force him. Protecting people from themselves never works. Now, children aren’t adults, and they need to be protected by their families, communities, organizations, etc. imo. But if an adult wants to “drink” ? or “sniff” lead paint, then meh. This is where awareness groups and educators come in to hopefully dissuade people from doing so by enlightening them about the dangers of ? or lead paint. But arresting an adult for sniffing ? doesn’t work. Putting an addict in prison may make things worse given the fact that prisons sentences surprisingly don’t do ? for their addiction, and sometimes inmates leave prison worse than they came in. And I won’t even get into our war on drugs and our prison-industrial complex ugh. Depressing ? .but I've typed enough, more than I ever intended to in the first place.
Me and you both, ? .Good topic by the way.
Thanks. I find this ? interesting and am ready and willing to teach and learn.
-
Okay, two more things: one a clarification and another critique.
First my clarification:What about education? Welp, lets look at Congressional powers again:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
"To promote the progress of science" allows NASA to exist but that also applies to education in general as schools promote useful arts AND sciences. Biology, mathematics, and the like but this also falls under "general welfare" because our intellectual infrastructure is found primarily in schools and without that where are we?
This is generally about patent and copyright laws, however the education system utilizes the sciences and arts that are created by other people. Increasing the amount of people who read and have access, this makes copyright and patent laws stronger. Promoting scholarship AND intellectual property is the spirit of that clause. I re-read it and it seemed like I was saying that the clause allowed them to open schools which wouldn't be correct.
Oh ok, understood. I think that I might’ve been a bit confused there. Regardless, I support copyrights, patents, scholarship, intellectual property, etc. But who’s to say that all of this cannot be much more efficiently promoted without government?Now to my second part: another critique.
I honk the government's role in the economy over the last hundred years or so is actually quite understated as if they had done nothing we wouldn't have quite a few things we enjoy today.
“Honk” is supposed to be “think” right? Threw me off a bit. Anyway, a hundred years is a long time. I think that some good and some bad has been done, though I’m not too knowledgeable about the economic history of the U.S. But post-WWII? Good. Reaganomics? Eh. Today? Ugh. The Fed is not my friend. Never mind the fact that gold and silver are constitutional and illegal at the same time. Or that the Fed contributes to inflation.We typically view capitalism as some mighty force for progress and productivity but it also stifles productivity and progress through markets.
Perhaps but how so?Once a company gets large enough it can prevent new companies from entering the market, they can buy them out for starters or they could attack in the marketplace of ideas.
I don’t know. If a company is large and successful, then most likely, it has earned its success because it sells a product that people are willing to buy. There’s nothing wrong with that. A company can’t outright stop other companies from entering the market. But if a company wants to buy out other companies, that’s not illegal either. As long as it’s done under a voluntary contract. But there will also be companies that serve local or ethnic consumers, and that’s fine too. The positive of a free market is that big business isn’t protected and monopolized, that the government doesn’t set artificial and detrimental regulations, and that the people determine supply and demand and share the responsibility of the economic progression.
-
I wanted to manufacture cars today how could I compete wih GM, Chrysler or Ford? Their major competition is foreign because the domestic markets are sown up, nobody can build automobiles in this country without facing incredible challenges...look at Tesla Motors. The same can be said about our energy problems, oil companies are just too damn big and can prevent new companies from flourishing.
Unfortunately, I’m not too knowledgeable about this, but I did some brief and lazy research and found out that some Chinese car manufacturer teamed up with GM to make some cars and then later used the experience to successfully sell its own line of luxury cars. Here’s the article’s link: http://www.earlytorise.com/a-business-lesson-every-entrepreneur-should-learn/#. I don’t know about being an entrepreneur, but I’m sure it’s hard as hell and involves careful study of various aspects of the market. But anything can be done to some success regardless. Besides, if the government wasn’t ? the economy and bailing big business left and right, a lot of these car corporations wouldn’t be as invincible as they might seem today. Nevertheless, it probably wouldn’t be too wise to start off by challenging ExxonMobil, though I don’t see why alternative industries can’t be profitable in the long run.Now government's role in he economy is that while at times it's ? up, they have done quite well over time. The railroads, automobiles, airplanes, the internet, weapons industry, all the gadgets that were born from nasa's work all these things are considerably better considering the government had a hand (the railroads have been abandoned as unfortunately but so have our roads and bridges but back on my point).
Perhaps? But while the dollar is in terrible shape. Inflation persists. The cost of education is still embarrassingly high. The money pumped into the school system and healthcare system has lacked positive results and has return negative ones instead?The government created a use for automobiles. My there is more to creating a product than just having it designed and built, people need to see a practical use for the product as well. There was no use for cars at first, people we happy with the old horse and carriage, when the government got involved they were able to show people that automobiles were useful for everybody and not just a few people.
Interesting, I would need to do some research on this. But I would say that the technological newness of cars and their expensiveness must’ve played a part in their slow and gradual use. Still, if the government did reveal the usefulness of cars, was it then impossible that this usefulness would’ve never been revealed without the government?The government had a hand in building railroads too. Government funded railroads were often ? up but they spent money that entrepreneurs were scared to spend and began a project that ultimately other people finished. The same is going on in nasa right now, private companies coming in behind government to innovate.
Yes, but you can’t deny that some rich people, some of them derogatively called “robber barons,” played a major role in the development of railroads and also contributed to the wealth and wellbeing of American society and contributed to several industries and even charities like universities.This stuff is not black and white at all.
Yup. Same here.
-
Young_Chitlin wrote: »I got a few questions. ..
1) what is a libertarian's viewpoint on welfare?
I didn’t want to copy and paste titangraphs, but I answer this question on the first page, the sixth post (points number 2-4) and the nineteenth post.Young_Chitlin wrote: »2) What is a libertarian's view on education?
Some people say that libertarians are against public schools, but that is false in the case of most libertarians aren’t against public schools. Most libertarians aren’t against public schools. Rather, we just do not support forcing people into public schools. Libertarians don’t support force. We support options and competition, so if person A likes public schools, then that’s cool. But if person B doesn’t like public schools and wants her children to go to a private school or to be homeschooled, then person B should have the right to do so. Some laws are against homeschooling and other forms of education or make it tough for nonpublic schools to operate. That’s what most libertarians are against.
Some libertarians also say that public schools have a bad quality of education and some others say that public schools just indoctrinate children with ? education. Regardless, the cost education is so high but the quality is usually bad, and keep in mind that the government spends millions of dollars with no success. Most libertarians want the government out of the all education, including taking out “No Child Left Behind” and government student loans (other students loans will still be available though). In their minds, all government does is makes the situation worse, and given the present state of our public school system, I can’t do anything but agree 100%.Young_Chitlin wrote: »3) " on gun control
Libertarians, especially libertarian constitutionalists like me, believe in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Some say the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, and few others say that it’s a natural right. Some believe in a registry, and others don’t. And it can be get a little complicated in other areas as well. But most libertarians are pro-gun rights and are not for strong gun control. Owning a gun means defending yourself against anything from criminals to a tyrannical government. So losing your right to bear arms leaves you defenseless.
-
Is it safe to assume most libertarians like the idea of bitcoin?
I'm honestly not too knowledgeable about bitcoin, but, yeah, I would assume that most libertarians either like or wouldn't mind the idea of bitcoin. Some libertarians don't like the idea of paper money, but they do like the idea of competition. If bitcoin has "real" value, then that's just the market working anyway. -
How isn't libertarianism an idealistic pipe dream? It posits certain things as valuable like freedom and peace but rejects the current institutions put into place to enforce these, often with criticisms as to how well they do it. But without a large state to uphold the status quo, regardless of what it is, what is preventing people from ignoring it and doing as they please? The goodness of their character? The uncompromisable integrity of the human species?
These notions are nice to the ears but do not seem practical at all. -
honestly, i think almost EVERY political/social concept is an idealistic pipe dream ruined by the scientific principle that tells us "humans are ? ? and ruin everything"How isn't libertarianism an idealistic pipe dream?
-
If a major tenet libertarianism revolves around not being told what to do, then how can libertarians tell others to live this way?
for example
man 1 tries to make libertarian do something he does not want to do
libertarian responds: you can't tell me what to do
What is stopping the man from using that exact same response? -
If a major tenet libertarianism revolves around not being told what to do, then how can libertarians tell others to live this way?
for example
man 1 tries to make libertarian do something he does not want to do
libertarian responds: you can't tell me what to do
What is stopping the man from using that exact same response?
This is how standards break down. It's why Rand Paul decided to create his own Medical Board. It is natural competition but it can also lead to lower quality results. Rand Paul didn't want to learn using the most up to date rigorous standards so he created his own. Everyone might as well create their own Medical Standards and do what ever they want to anyone willing. Might as well certify back alley abortionist and cement ? injectionist.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/14/rand-pauls-doctor-credentials-questioned-lacking-boards-certification/The libertarian-leaning Republican helped create a rival certification group more than a decade ago. He said the group has since recertified several hundred ophthalmologists, despite not being recognized the American Board of Medical Specialties -- the governing group for two dozen medical specialty boards.
The Plot thickens
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/08/rand-paul-has-another-problem/In the spring of 2010 stories first swirled around Sen. Rand Paul’s certification as an ophthalmologist by an outfit called the “National Ophthalmology Board,” an entity he founded. This week I discovered that while he continues to present himself as “board certified” the ? has been out of business since 2011, and in any event, does not under Kentucky law permit him to advertise as “board certified.” -
This reminds me of the Radio Host Gary Null. Dude always preaching to convince people to consume unproven alternative medicine and he's not a certified doctor (he is a nutritionist). He was poisoned by his own supplements because of the lack of regulation in the Dietary Pills market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Null#Supplement_incidentNull owns Gary Null & Associates, a company that markets dietary supplements, as well as a health food store in New York City.[19] In 2010, Null claimed that he was sickened and nearly killed by his own dietary supplements.the supplement contained 1,000 times the labelled dose of Vitamin D.[3] Null reportedly suffered severe pain and kidney damage from "Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal", but continued consuming the supplement in the belief that it would relieve his symptoms.it was common for dietary supplements to contain doses "wildly different than those indicated on their label" as a result of weak regulation.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.htmlNull is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about. One of his targets has been the pharmaceutical industry, which, he says, "cannot afford to have an alternative therapy accepted." He promotes hundreds of ideas that are inaccurate, unscientific, and/or unproven. He calls fluoridation "deadly" and has spoken out against immunization, food irradiation, amalgam fillings, and many forms of proven medical treatment. His series on "The Politics of Cancer," which was published in Penthouse magazine in 1979 and 1980, promoted unproven methods that he said were being "suppressed" by the medical establishment. His lengthy series, "Medical Genocide," began appearing in Penthouse in 1985 with an article calling our medical care system a "prescription for disaster" and claiming that modern medicine has had virtually no effect on heart disease, cancer, and arthritis [1]. Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy, claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed, claimed that chelation therapy was safe and effective for treating heart disease, and endorsed several treatments for cancer that the American Cancer Society recommends against. His Web site contains a huge amount of misinformation and bad advice.
Herbal Supplements Are Often Not What They Seem
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?ref=science&_r=1&Using a test called DNA barcoding, a kind of genetic fingerprinting that has also been used to help uncover labeling fraud in the commercial seafood industry, Canadian researchers tested 44 bottles of popular supplements sold by 12 companies. They found that many were not what they claimed to be, and that pills labeled as popular herbs were often diluted — or replaced entirely — by cheap fillers like soybean, wheat and rice.
Not saying the government is the best at regulation, but that's no reason to toss out any regulation. We should be finding ways to make them more effective to protect us from charlatans using the governments weakness to prowl on the weak.
-
More evidence of smart dumb ? 's thinking they have the answer, sway?
http://gawker.com/5849543/harvard-cancer-expert-steve-jobs-probably-doomed-himself-with-alternative-medicine/allSteve Jobs had a mild form of cancer that is not usually fatal, but seems to have ushered along his own death by delaying conventional treatment in favor of alternative remedies
Ashton Kutcher was hospitalized because of 'jOBS' diet
http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2013/08/12/Ashton-Kutcher-was-hospitalized-because-of-jOBS-diet/UPI-73521376280120/
This is why they say, get a second and third opinion. Usually, those opinions should come from properly certified medical professionals unless you're asking for makeup tips. Even then no regulation would probably cause you to develop a severe rash or or chemical burn. Regardless, new discoveries are always made along with new techniques, still it goes a heck of a lot further to ensuring it works then to have no over site whatsoever.
