Explain something to me about Libertarianism - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 10-28-2006, 07:18 AM

This thread is a result of my reading the "which party is more likely to reduce spending" thread. This isn't an attack on any ideology or individual--I'm actually really curious about this, and I'm looking for understanding on something.

As I understand Libertarianism, the basic principles are a small, limited government, and as much personal liberty as possible. A Libertarian relies on the free markets to do what is in the best interest of the public, the consumers.

I guess the first question is: is that an accurate thumbnail of the Libertarian view? What would you add/remove/correct?

The second question is: What makes a Libertarian trust the free market when what we get over and over again from the free market is companies screwing the little guy in the name of profits? Enron was far and away the most flagrant of these, but it happens in lots of little ways in many more companies. It seems naive to me to believe that the Smith's "invisible hand" really guides companies to do what's best for the world--we have plenty of evidence that the opposite is the case. Companies pollute, cheat, manipulate, and steal. So the question is: what am I missing here that has Libertarians have such faith in the free market?

filtherton · 10-28-2006, 07:49 AM

I've often wondered the same things. This should be interesting.

NCB · 10-28-2006, 08:07 AM

1. For the most part, you are correct. However, there are many different degrees of course, for pure libertarians are even more hesitant to defend their country than liberals

2. I think youre coming at this at the wrong angle. You already have prejudged that the open markets are inately evil.

ratbastid · 10-28-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

2. I think youre coming at this at the wrong angle. You already have prejudged that the open markets are inately evil.

Entirely possible. My question is, what's the "right" angle?

CSflim · 10-28-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

2. I think youre coming at this at the wrong angle. You already have prejudged that the open markets are inately evil.

I don't think the OP ever implied that open markets are inately evil. Just that they cannot be relied upon in all circumstances, leaving them enitirely to their own devices, entirely unregulated.

I know that Libertarians want to minimise the interference in the efficiency of the free market, but do Libertarians believe that the market should be regulated at all? Take as an example polution controls. Would it go against Libertarian philosophy to charge companies for "carbon credits", so as to provide them an incentive to cut down on pollution, an incentive which is not obviously provided by the free market? (Note that this is just an example - don't want to discuss the for and against for this particular control)

The_Dunedan · 10-28-2006, 08:26 AM

The first thing to understand is that a Free Market has not existed in the US since, at the lastest, the Eerie decision, which destroyed the Common Law pleading system of the US and which permitted the rise of the Corporation within the US.

Since Corporations exist as Persons before the law, they can apply for and recieve all the "benefits" that a Human can; this is how Corpoerate Welfare came into existance.

Since Corporations are propped up by the Gov't, they are insulated from the pressures of the Market; look at the big American airlines. The big boys, such as American and Delta, have been in this pits for years and have declared bankruptcy 3-4 times each. This is because their service and employee relations blow, and as a consequence they arelosong customers and employees. The market is "selecting against" American Airlines, to borrow the biological term. In a Free Market, AA would have gone out of buisiness a long time ago, as customers and emplyees defected to a more reasonable and responsive competitor.

However, since AA has been repeatedly bailed out by the Fed, they see no reason to change their behavior, and so the problems get worse.

In a Free Market, a strike or boycott is the "nuclear option" available to employees and customers, both individually and collectively. Strikes and boycotts can cripple or destroy even a major company in very short order ( just as Smith & Wesson ), by running through their assets until they go broke. If a company can't sell a poduct ( because of a boycott ) or produce one ( because of a walkout ) they go broke, as they should. Companies which screw their employees or consumers deserve to fail and, in a Free Market system, they would.

Without Corporatism, there could be no Enron, nor Standard Oil, nor Microsoft. The Founders recognized the trouble that Corporations inherantly were, having had experiance with the ravages of British Mercantilism in the recent past. As a consequece, they were very careful to frame the Constitution in terms of people; ie, "the right of the People...shall not be infringed."

This is part of the danger inherant in the somewhat dicey language of Amendments 13 and 14, both of which replace "People" with "citizens." Since a Corporation was, legally speaking, a citizen, it extended Personhood-in-reverse; not by defining Corporations as People, but by redefining People as Corporations.

If this false unity is removed, and companies are no longer able to call upon the federal Gov't for aid, the Market becomes an astonishingly effective tool for regulating an out-of-control company or employer. By way of example, I point to the fall of one of the country's oldest gunmakers, the venerable Smith & Wesson. After being sold to a British firm, S&W made a series of agreements with the Clinton Regime which a large number of gunowners regarded as a sellout. S&W immidiatly came under boycott, and after having gone broke and changed hands several times, was acquired by an American firm for less than 10% of its' worth 5 years prior. S&W had been punished by the consumers, and has learned its' lesson: they no longer even -joke- about cutting deals with the feds. After watching what happened to S&W, neither does any other American gunmaker, and damned few foreign ones.

It must also be remembered that, while Corporations can, in the current Mercantilist economy, pillage and plunder to their larcenous hearts content, they have yet to enact 1/100th of the suffering which can be laid at the doorstep of the States. Not counting wars, over 170 MILLION people have been murdered by their own Governments in the last 100 years alone. If one adds casualties of war to the total, it exceeds 250,000,000 souls. A quarter-billion people exterminated by the State. Simple comparison shows which of these two entities is the more dangerous to life, limb, and liberty. Despite their influence and vast reach, Corporations do no command armies directly, nor can they afford to sustain wars or genocides, since they must actually be able to show a profit ( somehow ) in order to survive. Lack the State's ability to print and spend their own ( worthless ) paper money, they cannot do nearly as much damage.

Frequently, Corporations will enlist the State to do their dirty work for them. This is another result of the Corporatist/Mercantilist system. Since the largest and most damaging corporations ( WalMart, GE, etc ) are all owned by the same banking combines which control the Federal Reserve, it simply comes down to JP Morgan blackmailing the Gov't into doing WalMart's head-cracking for them. However, note that if both the Corporation and the central bank are abolished, which are both libertarian goals, this three-way screwing of the consumer ceases to function. The company then becomes, again, limited by its' own finite resources.

As a case-study, let's specifically address pollution. Let's assume we have a company that produces Pork Rinds. Now, in order to produce the Pork Rinds, this company owns a large pig farm, with all the usual accompanying mess.
People downstream of the pig farm are getting sick, as they frequently do, from runoff, fumes, ammonia overload, tainted groundwater, etc.

In a Corporatist system, such as we have now, our fictional Pork Rind company needs fear nothing. If it suffers a strike or boycott, it can get help from the Feds. Likewise, if it is sued, it can draw upon the assets of its' parent bank, for example JP Morgan. It is fully or partially insulated from the effects of the Market, and is basically untouchable.

In a Libertarian system, the Pork Rind company has a big problem and it needs solving NOW. Because all the people downstream have gotten together and declared a boycott of the company. Their workers, many of whom are related to people who are ill ( or who have become so themselves ) have threatened a general walkout. Worse yet, everyone with an even plausible illness connected to the hog farm is now initiating a Class Action lawsuit. Our fictional Pork Rind company has a very short time in which to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences. With no help forthcoming from the Feds, or JP Morgan, they have only themselves to pick up the pieces. If they fail, they go bankrupt. Meanwhile, other Pork Rind companies are watching the battle...and not liking what they see. They recognize that, if -they- treat their employees badly or poison the local water supply, they'll be next. And so they don't.

Nobody ever said Corporations were nice things; they're not. Worse yet, since they act as the economic-control arm of the State, they not only expand Gov't power over people's lives, they do it while falsely claiming to support the very Free Market which would be their own destruction.

A Free Market is one in which nobody is insulated from anything, economically. A Free Market, by definition, cannot feature Corporations, since such are market insulations and therefore distortions. A distorted market is not free.

samcol · 10-28-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The first thing to understand is that a Free Market has not existed in the US since, at the lastest, the Eerie decision, which destroyed the Common Law pleading system of the US and which permitted the rise of the Corporation within the US.

Since Corporations exist as Persons before the law, they can apply for and recieve all the "benefits" that a Human can; this is how Corpoerate Welfare came into existance.

Since Corporations are propped up by the Gov't, they are insulated from the pressures of the Market; look at the big American airlines. The big boys, such as American and Delta, have been in this pits for years and have declared bankruptcy 3-4 times each. This is because their service and employee relations blow, and as a consequence they arelosong customers and employees. The market is "selecting against" American Airlines, to borrow the biological term. In a Free Market, AA would have gone out of buisiness a long time ago, as customers and emplyees defected to a more reasonable and responsive competitor.

However, since AA has been repeatedly bailed out by the Fed, they see no reason to change their behavior, and so the problems get worse.

In a Free Market, a strike or boycott is the "nuclear option" available to employees and customers, both individually and collectively. Strikes and boycotts can cripple or destroy even a major company in very short order ( just as Smith & Wesson ), by running through their assets until they go broke. If a company can't sell a poduct ( because of a boycott ) or produce one ( because of a walkout ) they go broke, as they should. Companies which screw their employees or consumers deserve to fail and, in a Free Market system, they would.

Without Corporatism, there could be no Enron, nor Standard Oil, nor Microsoft. The Founders recognized the trouble that Corporations inherantly were, having had experiance with the ravages of British Mercantilism in the recent past. As a consequece, they were very careful to frame the Constitution in terms of people; ie, "the right of the People...shall not be infringed."

This is part of the danger inherant in the somewhat dicey language of Amendments 13 and 14, both of which replace "People" with "citizens." Since a Corporation was, legally speaking, a citizen, it extended Personhood-in-reverse; not by defining Corporations as People, but by redefining People as Corporations.

If this false unity is removed, and companies are no longer able to call upon the federal Gov't for aid, the Market becomes an astonishingly effective tool for regulating an out-of-control company or employer. By way of example, I point to the fall of one of the country's oldest gunmakers, the venerable Smith & Wesson. After being sold to a British firm, S&W made a series of agreements with the Clinton Regime which a large number of gunowners regarded as a sellout. S&W immidiatly came under boycott, and after having gone broke and changed hands several times, was acquired by an American firm for less than 10% of its' worth 5 years prior. S&W had been punished by the consumers, and has learned its' lesson: they no longer even -joke- about cutting deals with the feds. After watching what happened to S&W, neither does any other American gunmaker, and damned few foreign ones.

It must also be remembered that, while Corporations can, in the current Mercantilist economy, pillage and plunder to their larcenous hearts content, they have yet to enact 1/100th of the suffering which can be laid at the doorstep of the States. Not counting wars, over 170 MILLION people have been murdered by their own Governments in the last 100 years alone. If one adds casualties of war to the total, it exceeds 250,000,000 souls. A quarter-billion people exterminated by the State. Simple comparison shows which of these two entities is the more dangerous to life, limb, and liberty. Despite their influence and vast reach, Corporations do no command armies directly, nor can they afford to sustain wars or genocides, since they must actually be able to show a profit ( somehow ) in order to survive. Lack the State's ability to print and spend their own ( worthless ) paper money, they cannot do nearly as much damage.

Frequently, Corporations will enlist the State to do their dirty work for them. This is another result of the Corporatist/Mercantilist system. Since the largest and most damaging corporations ( WalMart, GE, etc ) are all owned by the same banking combines which control the Federal Reserve, it simply comes down to JP Morgan blackmailing the Gov't into doing WalMart's head-cracking for them. However, note that if both the Corporation and the central bank are abolished, which are both libertarian goals, this three-way screwing of the consumer ceases to function. The company then becomes, again, limited by its' own finite resources.

As a case-study, let's specifically address pollution. Let's assume we have a company that produces Pork Rinds. Now, in order to produce the Pork Rinds, this company owns a large pig farm, with all the usual accompanying mess.
People downstream of the pig farm are getting sick, as they frequently do, from runoff, fumes, ammonia overload, tainted groundwater, etc.

In a Corporatist system, such as we have now, our fictional Pork Rind company needs fear nothing. If it suffers a strike or boycott, it can get help from the Feds. Likewise, if it is sued, it can draw upon the assets of its' parent bank, for example JP Morgan. It is fully or partially insulated from the effects of the Market, and is basically untouchable.

In a Libertarian system, the Pork Rind company has a big problem and it needs solving NOW. Because all the people downstream have gotten together and declared a boycott of the company. Their workers, many of whom are related to people who are ill ( or who have become so themselves ) have threatened a general walkout. Worse yet, everyone with an even plausible illness connected to the hog farm is now initiating a Class Action lawsuit. Our fictional Pork Rind company has a very short time in which to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences. With no help forthcoming from the Feds, or JP Morgan, they have only themselves to pick up the pieces. If they fail, they go bankrupt. Meanwhile, other Pork Rind companies are watching the battle...and not liking what they see. They recognize that, if -they- treat their employees badly or poison the local water supply, they'll be next. And so they don't.

Nobody ever said Corporations were nice things; they're not. Worse yet, since they act as the economic-control arm of the State, they not only expand Gov't power over people's lives, they do it while falsely claiming to support the very Free Market which would be their own destruction.

A Free Market is one in which nobody is insulated from anything, economically. A Free Market, by definition, cannot feature Corporations, since such are market insulations and therefore distortions. A distorted market is not free.

Man, that was absolutely the best response I've ever read. I was trying to say something similar, but I dont have a way with words.

Free-market isn't the problem, it's corporations using governments to steal their market shares that is the problem.

The_Dunedan · 10-28-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Free-market isn't the problem, it's corporations using governments to steal their market shares that is the problem.

Exactly. The key is to eliminate the Corporation while simultaneously reducing ( or eliminating ) the Gov't.

roachboy · 10-28-2006, 09:06 AM

criminy...i put a post in the fiscal responsibility thread that should've gone here--but i wrote it against positions in that thread==specifically against right liberatarianism--and dont have time to rework it to fit here.

the cross-reference is maybe confusing, but at the moment i am not sure how else to proceed.
mea culpa.

filtherton · 10-28-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Exactly. The key is to eliminate the Corporation while simultaneously reducing ( or eliminating ) the Gov't.

I still don't understand how eliminating the government and the corporation would make everything better. I'm confused as to what form large organized businesses would take if there weren't corporations.

I also think that you overstate the power of the consumer. For instance, in your pig farm example, what if the pig farm's customers were mainly out of state. What would be in incentive for them to boycott when they aren't effected at all by the pig farm's practices?

The power of the consumer is also nil when it comes to utilities like electricity and water.

I guess it just doesn't seem that realistic to me.

The_Dunedan · 10-28-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

I still don't understand how eliminating the government and the corporation would make everything better.

Eliminate the Corporation, and you elminate the system which allows abuses such as Enron and the American Airlines bankruptcies to occur.

Quote:

I also think that you overstate the power of the consumer. For instance, in your pig farm example, what if the pig farm's customers were mainly out of state. What would be in incentive for them to boycott when they aren't effected at all by the pig farm's practices?

Nobody in the US was affected by Apartheid, but Fujufilm nearly went tits-up thanks to a worldwide boycott of their company, triggered by their ties to the racist South African regime. People don't have to be directly affected to feel motivated, or to participate in a boycott. Moral authority carries a lot of weight. Look at the changes in the tuna-fishing industry brought about by the boycotts which resulted from overfishing and dolphin-kills for another good example.

Quote:

The power of the consumer is also nil when it comes to utilities like electricity and water.

Only because Governments have reduced their power to nil through the granting of municipal monopolies. Monopolies are bad, right? If people were able to choose their electricity provider or their water company, as they do with ISPs and cable TV, this situation would not exist.

roachboy · 10-28-2006, 09:31 AM

so wait, when you say "abolish the corporation", what are you talking about exactly?
it seems like you are focussed on the notion of corporate personhood...
this is a legal quirk of the american system--abolishing corporate personhood would not be the same as abolishing corporations outright.

are you opposed to the notion that a corporation is an abstract entity that is not the same as the resources of the investors who put money into it such that they cannot be sued personally for corporate actions?

a related question: are you also talking about abolishing stock?
if so, i would assume that are you also talking about abolishing mass production....all of it....and heavy industry...all of it...any capital intensive type of activity, really.

if that is true, then what is your proposal for dealing with infrastructural requirements (telecommunications, electricity, water, etc.)?

The_Dunedan · 10-28-2006, 09:43 AM

I am talking about abolishing both Corporate Personhood and Limited Liability. I am opposed, as you say, to the notion that a corporation is an abstract entity that is not the same as the resources of the investors who put money into it such that they cannot be sued personally for corporate actions. Such are also distortions of the Market which insulate the officers of the Corporations from the consequences of their actions. And it's hardly a quirk unique to America; read up on the Uniform Commercial Code, the universal and unaccountable system of international law, first developed for slave-trading, which currently governs all commercial activity worldwide. Then, for a real mindfuck, read the Bail Bondsmans Act, and its' definition of all crime, including rape and murder, as commercial in nature.

Eliminating Corporate Personhood would also eliminate the Trust, which is another market distortion which serves to insulate the powerful, by permitting them to be "poor" legally, while still having access to huge funding bases...which remain untouchable in lawsuits.

No, I am not talking about abolishing stocks or the sales thereof. A share of stock is simply a partial ownership of an organization; in this case, a commercial enterprise. Elimination of Corporate Personhood/Welfare, Trusts, and artificial Monopolies does not require the elimination of stock trading. You'd simply be buying stock in a company which was fully subject to Market forces, instead of one which was ( essentially ) protected from them. The current system screws the average investor just as badly as the average consumer or employee; the current investor can lose everything he has, while the Corporatist CEO ( whos assets are protected in a Trust and therefore untouchable ) can be, essentially, unaffected if a Corporation goes bad for a little while.

filtherton · 10-28-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Eliminate the Corporation, and you elminate the system which allows abuses such as Enron and the American Airlines bankruptcies to occur.

How so?

Quote:

Nobody in the US was affected by Apartheid, but Fujufilm nearly went tits-up thanks to a worldwide boycott of their company, triggered by their ties to the racist South African regime. People don't have to be directly affected to feel motivated, or to participate in a boycott. Moral authority carries a lot of weight. Look at the changes in the tuna-fishing industry brought about by the boycotts which resulted from overfishing and dolphin-kills for another good example.

Yeah, maybe, but moral authority isn't all that relevant in cultures where profit is the ultimate morality.

Quote:

Only because Governments have reduced their power to nil through the granting of municipal monopolies. Monopolies are bad, right? If people were able to choose their electricity provider or their water company, as they do with ISPs and cable TV, this situation would not exist.

I don't know about that. ISPs and cable providers are notoriously unreliable and well known for giving folks the shaft.

Yes, monopolies are bad, but in "free" markets industry tends towards monopoly.

ASU2003 · 10-28-2006, 12:31 PM

My comments are in italics, everything else is quoted.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon

Preamble

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized."

"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

www.lp.org/issues
Pollution:

"Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants?

If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage!

In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity."

"Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity."

"Demonstrable pollution is an invasion of property rights and should be outlawed."
-Murray N. Rothbard

I'm not sure who would pay to clean it up after the company declares bankrupcy, or if companies can pollute in China why they wouldn't just move there. The government would have to raise taxes to clean up it's sites, so I'm not sure how that will work.

www.lp.org/issues
Gun Laws:
"Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership."
"The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work."
"But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others."
"Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion."

www.lp.org/issues
Foreign Aid:
"Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs."
Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, "Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status."
"For example, following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program."

Although the greedy farmers probably would have tried to jack up prices and the local people would have had to find food elsewhere. Eventually, the farmers from outside the area would want in on the action and bring prices down.

www.lp.org/issues
Inflation And Taxes:
"Something has caused your family's budget to be cut. Something is going to destroy your family's future unless you act to stop it.

That something is the Federal government and its policy of taxation and inflation. Let's take a look at a median income family of four in the 1950s. At that time, the Federal income tax amounted to only 2% of the family budget. Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world.

By contrast, in the 1990s, the Federal income tax takes 25% of income for the same family of four. Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes."

" Whether the inflation rate is 12% or 3%, the result is the same: groceries cost more; clothing costs more; your car costs more. You work harder every year for less purchasing power."

"The Federal government is driving your family into bankruptcy."

"The government hasn't stopped there. They have borrowed so much money that your children will be sacrificing their entire economic lives to pay the Federal debt."

"Over one hundred Libertarians are currently holding public office. Each of them is working today to keep the government from taking any more of your money. And each of them believes that if government were limited to protecting us against force and fraud, then most Americans would be better off. Less government corruption. No more expensive "boondoggle" projects. No more "special interest" favors at your expense."

"The Libertarian Party will stop the waste in government by decreasing its size and power. We will work to roll back the power of Washington bureaucrats and politicians -- and leave you and your neighbors in control of your own lives."

Drugs - Legal
Allow the doctors and patients to decide which ones they should take, even experimental untested ones. Companies would most likely pay to get testing in order to prove that their drugs work and most people won't take experimental drugs unless it is a last resort. The testing agency can't be bribed into approving bad drugs or ignoring side effects, because they don't want to be held legally responsible if they approve bad drugs. Drug makers also can get sued if they knowingly withhold the bad side effect information from consumers.

Drugs - Illegal
http://molibertarian.tripod.com/drugs.html
"Libertarians are often confused as being the party that wants people to take drugs. Most all Libertarians I talk to believe drug use is very harmful and dangerous."
"Libertarian also believes that the legalization of drugs would end most of the drug problem. Drugs are profitable because they are illegal, people sell drugs to make a profit"
"Libertarians also believe you own your own body and you can make decisions about it or the government can make it for you."

http://www.azlp.org/ISSUES/issue.shtml?t=The_Drug_War
"Not for the lack of effort. In 2001, the federal government spent $18 billion fighting the War on Drugs. More than 19,000 state and local police officers work full-time on drug cases. Despite all of this money and firepower, 82% of high school seniors say that getting marijuana is "fairly" or "very" easy--a number that hasn't budged in 20 years."

"But the War on Drugs isn't just a failure. It's also a threat to your safety. In 2000, for example, 734,497 Americans were arrested on marijuana-related charges. That same year, only 625,243 violent criminals were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault (according to FBI figures). In other words, the War on Drugs is making your family less safe because police spend their time arresting marijuana smokers instead of apprehending brutal thugs."

"Libertarians don't claim that ending the War on Drugs will solve every problem. Some people will always make bad choices about drugs, whether legal or illegal. But the War on Drugs isn't working."

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#drugwar
"The Principle: Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others’ rights.

Solutions: Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue."

www.lp.org/issues
Healthcare
"The Libertarian Party will work towards the following:

1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts.

Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.

2. Deregulate the healthcare industry.

We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines.

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans."

If you allow private health care insurance companies to put incentives to make people live healthier lifestyles, they will need less in the way of healthcare (and they will make more profits). People will choose the insurance plan that is best for them and what their needs are. Although some people here don't seem to think that is a Libertarian idea.

Freedom of Religion
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freereli

"Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others."

"Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end. "

Iraq War
http://www.lp.org/issues/current.shtml
"Despite this progress, the president has yet to provide a plan for withdrawing troops and bringing them home. American troops have completed their mission. A democratically-elected government is in place. The vast majority of Iraq is stable and oil production has increased. The process of gradually ceding control of the country to the new Iraqi government should begin without delay. American troops will remain a target as long as they remain in the country."

They go into more detail here: http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Sexuality and Gender
The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Reproductive Rights
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Immigration
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr
"The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

"Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements."

I would still be worried about over population and flooding the market with people who will work for $1 less than the last guy. Employers and the people who own things can say, if you won't work for this low price, there are 10 other people that will.

There are some problems with the plans that the Libertarians have, however there are problems with the Democrats and Republicans as well. But, solutions and compromises are agreed upon on the floor of congress. I'm not saying that a country with a Libertarian majority would be a great place to live, it would be very volatile and risky at times. However, other things would be very good about living in a Libertarian country. I really wouldn't mind if they and some other outside parties become part of congress though.

ratbastid · 10-28-2006, 12:43 PM

Dunedan: Thank you VERY much for your responses on this thread. Exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get. For the first time, I can see Libertarianism as a self-consistent and logically workable worldview. I'm not saying I agree with it--though I certainly do see the value of parts of what you've said--but I can see it as something a sensible person might conclude.

I have a questions, to deepen my understanding.

Would you say that modern-day Libertarians have any real hope that this corporation-free minimal-government ideal will ever be realized? When I read your first post, I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, right!" I mean--it sounds nice in the abstract, but it would be a massive piece of work to undo thousands of years of governmental and financial structures. I can't even imagine what that would take.

Which, it seems to me, relegates modern Libertarians to the role of quixotic complainer--forever outside the mainstream, doomed to rail against it without any real hope of effecting the change they want to see, at least, not in their lifetime.

What do you think about that? I suspect that you will find that an inaccurate characterization, and I'm interested in why.

host · 10-28-2006, 01:03 PM

Let us review where we have come from.....since the late 1980's, where we are now, and where the trends are leading us. The best way that I know to attempt this is to "follow the money", and the politics behind the state of the federal treasury "balance" sheet.....

This is relevant because it reflects on the record of the judgment of libertarians.
They seemed to have voted in a way that made the recent, tragic reversal possible. If that is true, how does that speak to their real concern for the future solvency of the US treasury, vs. thier ambitions to possess influence over government policy, the structure of government, and the areas that government holds and wields authority, and to what degree....

The US treasury debt data displayed below, supports my point that the annual debt increase, comprised of annual budget deficits, off-budget spending resolutions like the ones passed regularly by congress and signed by this president to fund war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the Katrina disaster relief, as well as the borrowing....most years, of the entire sum of SSI surplus collections from combined worker and employer contributions (usually around $150 billion/year), was $347 billion in the fiscal year ended 9/30/93:

Quote:

Total US Treasury debt, by year end:
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655

......in 2000, the annual debt increase was reduced to below $18 billion:

Quote:

Total US Treasury debt, by year end:

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901

GW Bush attracted the vote of both republicans and libertarians with this rhetoric, in response to the total reversal in US Treasury debt accumulation:

Quote:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

......BUSH: Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our treasurey and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don't we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills. There is a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government -- the surplus is the government's money. That's not what I think. I think it's the hard-working people of America's money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. It's a difference of opinion. It's a difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself.........

Whether influenced primarily by the effect of the invincibility of youth, distrust of government, or a shortsighted desire for tax reduction over using the surplus to pay down the treasury debt and lower the annual interest expense weighing on the federal budget each year, libertarians and republicans voted to take back the money that they were being taxed....now:

Quote:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=8058247
Libertarians
The neglected swing voters

Oct 19th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
What's a true freedom-lover to do on polling day?

.....That is easily enough libertarians to tip an election. And their votes are up for grabs. In 2000 George Bush won 72% of the libertarian vote, to Al Gore's 20%, by repeating the mantra “My opponent trusts government. I trust you.” But in 2004, after Mr Bush increased the size of government and curtailed some civil liberties as part of the war on terror, his margin dropped to 59%-38%. The swing was as sharp in congressional races, too. Going back further, libertarians backed George Bush senior by 74%-26% in 1988. But when he sought re-election in 1992, they split evenly between him, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. A group that can give the eccentric Mr Perot a third of its support must be really disgruntled.

When Republicans win elections, it is because they manage to pull together an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians.....

Quote:

http://www.theadvocates.org/liberato...11-num-21.html
By James W. Harris

Libertarians: The Swing Vote in 2006 and 2008?

....... Further, these libertarian and libertarian-leaning voters are a particularly powerful demographic. They are, on average, younger, more affluent, and better-educated than other groups. A higher percentage of them vote, too...

The Bush administration began to manage the government in late Jan., 2001.
Their effort focused on cutting taxes and mailing rebate checks to taxpayers.
Even with the weight of the immediate effect of reduced revenue on the federal budget that was drafted in summer, 2000, and ended on 9/30/01, that included tax cuts that took place immediately, and the payout of $39 billion in tax rebate checks in summer, 2001, and because of a slowing in economic activity. the total federal debt grew only by $33 billion....

Quote:

Total US Treasury debt, by year end:

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886

Here is the background on how a reversal from a $347 billion debt increase in 1993 dollars, in 1993, almost became a surplus of nearly $50 billion in 2001 dollars, in 2001:

Quote:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3019&sequence=1
The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
August 2001
Section 2 of 8

Recently enacted legislation and the continued sluggish behavior of the U.S. economy have reduced the projected federal budget surpluses for fiscal year 2001 and future years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the total budget surplus in fiscal year 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. Despite that drop, if the $153 billion surplus materializes in 2001, it will equal 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the second largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951.

With a smaller total surplus, CBO now projects a small on-budget deficit for this year. (The on-budget accounts exclude the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service.) If current tax and spending policies are maintained and the economy performs as CBO estimates, CBO projects small deficits or surpluses in on-budget accounts for the next four years; however, steadily increasing on-budget surpluses reemerge by the middle of the decade. The projected surpluses would allow all public debt that is available for redemption to be retired by 2010.

The Budget Outlook

For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Summary Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total. In 2010, the on-budget surplus reaches 1 percent of GDP, and the total surplus grows to 3 percent of GDP. Those estimates should be viewed cautiously, however, because future economic developments, technical estimating errors, and future legislative actions could produce substantial deviations.(1).....

....The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16) is estimated to reduce revenues by $70 billion in 2001 and nearly $1.2 trillion over the 2002-2011 period. That law changed numerous tax provisions, including establishing a 10 percent tax bracket, lowering income tax rates, increasing tax credits for children, repealing the estate tax, lessening the so-called marriage penalty, raising the limits on contributions to retirement accounts, and enhancing education incentives. In addition, the law increases outlays for refundable tax credits by $4 billion in 2001 and $88 billion between 2002 and 2011.......

....Most democrats in the house and in the senate voted against, or abstained from voting for what became The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16)
Links to house and senate 2001 vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...00170#position

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
(Democratic members names are displayed in italics...)

Mr. Bush and republicans in congress "stuck to their guns" with their tax cutting agenda. allowing nothing to interfere with it...they simply relegated debt increasing expenses that came along, but were unforeseen in 2001, to off-budget appropriations.... as recently as in his weekly radio address to the nation today, Mr. Bush still pushed to make temporary tax cuts permanent, and misled us or told us untruths about the rate the economy was growing and about the increasing rate of federal borrowing during the tenure of his presidency and his party's control of congress.

The result is that, in just 6 years, the US federal trasury debt gtowth has reversed from a surplus and a total of $5,807 billion in 2001, to $8,506 billion or a total, 6 years increase of $2699 billion:

Quote:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

Here's Mr. Bush, today:

Quote:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061028/dcsa001.html?.v=75
Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation
Saturday October 28, 10:06 am ET

......."So my administration and the Republican Congress enacted the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. We cut taxes for every American who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small business. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the path to extinction.

Now the results of these tax cuts are in. The tax cuts we passed have left more than a trillion dollars in the hands of American workers, families, and small businesses, and you have used that money to fuel a strong and growing economy. Last year, our economy grew faster than any other major industrialized nation. This week, we learned that our economy grew by 1.6 percent during the third quarter of this year. As we expected, this rate is slower than in previous quarters. Yet the evidence still points to a vibrant economy that is providing more jobs and better wages for our workers and helping reduce the federal deficit...."

***"host" notes: the "1.6 percent growth rate is an annual number, for the third quarter, it is actually figured as 0.4 percent....or one quarter of the annual growth rate.....

"...Since August 2003, the American economy has created more than 6.6 million new jobs, including over 1.7 million jobs in the past 12 months alone. Real take-home wages are up by 2.2 percent over the past year, which means an extra $1,300 for the typical family of four with two wage earners. And the economic growth spurred by tax cuts has helped reduce the deficit. Tax revenues have soared as the economy has grown, allowing us to meet our goal of cutting the federal deficit in half -- three years ahead of schedule..."

***"host" notes: The Bush administration refused to budget for estimated costs of war spending and Katrina relief, so the 2006 increase in federal debt is actullay higher than it was last year, but Bush could claim today that the annual deficit is lower than projected:
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 = ($574 billion increase)

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 = ($553 billion increase)
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 *******

"All these signs point to one conclusion: Cutting your taxes worked. Unfortunately, the Democrats are still determined to raise your taxes, and if they gain control of the Congress, they can do so without lifting a finger. Under current law, many of the tax cuts we passed have to be renewed by Congress or they will expire. In other words, if Congress fails to act, your taxes will automatically go up. If Democrats take control of the House, the committee in charge of all tax legislation would be chaired by a Democrat who recently said he "cannot think of one" of our tax cuts that he would extend. And if there's no legislation to renew and extend the tax cuts, every tax rate will go back up to its old, higher level..........."

Quote:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

Quote:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71

Above is the data on the increasing cost....paid out of the annual federal budget for interest on the growing federal treasury debt. In the 2000 presidential debate, linked above, Mr. Bush projected a ten year, federal budget surplus of $4000 billion, and he proposed to return part of that surplus to US taxpayers, and republicans and many libertarians embraced Mr. Bush's proposals....

6 years later, we witness a $2699 increase in debt, instead. The rate of new debt is rising, not falling, and libertarians are backing away. Mr. Clinton came into office in 1993, and the 1993 federal debt increase was $347 billion. Clinton and democrats in congress, along with a small number of republicans, enacted a tax increase . Then, for 7 years, there were no changes to tax rates and total federal employment was actually reduced,....so, by 2001, if no new tax legislation had been enacted, the surplus at the end of fiscal year 9/30/01 would have been close to $50 billion

Our government, instead of finding itself several years into an effort to pay off the US treasury debt held by the public that was anticipated by Mr. Bush in 2000, is borrowing to pay the increasing interest bill on the rapidly accumulating debt, and that burden will rise as interest rates rise to attract even more borrows as the debt continues to rise and the quality of the debt (the risk premimum) pressures up the interest rate. Mr. Bush, sticking stubbornly to his plan to permanently legislate his temporary 2001 tax cuts, must resort to misleading statements to attempt justification of further choking off federal revenue, and thus increasing debt and the interest burden.

This is a good example of the purist "agenda first" mindset that I suspect many libertariians agree with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...86#post2144286

Agreed. "Fiscal responsibility" to a Libertarian means the government not taking money from people in order to provide for others.....

......If Republicans (or Democrats) want to burn the house down around us, so be it. I and other Libertarian-minded people will be here to help rebuild it with the principles and values that we never sold out.

The irony is that things weren't perfect, by any means, in fall 2000. The government was in a position then, to meet all of it's obligations and to begin paying down the then, $5674 billion treasury debt total. The situation then was ripe for gradual reform, with a first priority on paying down the debt, and continuing to reduce the size of government...
<h3>The management that reversed the federal debt in just 7 years was not adequate in the view of a majority of libertarians and certainly not to republicans. By their 2000 and 2004 votes, they've put us in the crisis that we are in, now. The timeline of the treasury debt level is a non-partisan barometer of the outcome of the choices that voters made. Libertarians and republicans chose to take back the entire surplus that the democrats brought guided into existence. Republicans see no reason, even now, to reverse this course. Libertarians are reversing the vote that they made against the legacy that they will leave for their own children.... Our elders did not leave us with a massive burden of federal debt, or a government that did not "provide for others"..... I can't take the opinions of libertarians seriously....they've put their own agenda above any concern for the common good!</h3>

ratbastid · 10-28-2006, 01:17 PM

Host: I intended this thread to be more philosophical and non-combative in nature. Thank you as always for your rigor and thoroughness, but I request we stick more to general policy. I don't want this thread to turn into another "who's more fiscally whatever" thread, but rather to discuss the high-level view of libertarianism.

Host's post does raise an interesting point. Certainly the libertarian vote is a valuable one. With the libertarian's high valuation of personal freedom, what does that do to his view of the current administration? Personal freedoms seem to be being curtailed left and right--is that a problem for libertarians? This has been the spendiest and biggest-government administration we've seen in decades--does that trouble a libertarian?

ASU2003 · 10-28-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The second question is: What makes a Libertarian trust the free market when what we get over and over again from the free market is companies screwing the little guy in the name of profits? Enron was far and away the most flagrant of these, but it happens in lots of little ways in many more companies. It seems naive to me to believe that the Smith's "invisible hand" really guides companies to do what's best for the world--we have plenty of evidence that the opposite is the case. Companies pollute, cheat, manipulate, and steal. So the question is: what am I missing here that has Libertarians have such faith in the free market?

It is the individuals that make up the corportation that create problems. But, I'm not really sure how a free market would change anything in the energy, phone, cable, or oil industries? And hopefully there would still be some laws and restrictions in place on what companies can and can't do.

Bad press in the media might make them think twice before ripping off the customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Would you say that modern-day Libertarians have any real hope that this corporation-free minimal-government ideal will ever be realized? When I read your first post, I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, right!" I mean--it sounds nice in the abstract, but it would be a massive piece of work to undo thousands of years of governmental and financial structures. I can't even imagine what that would take.

Which, it seems to me, relegates modern Libertarians to the role of quixotic complainer--forever outside the mainstream, doomed to rail against it without any real hope of effecting the change they want to see, at least, not in their lifetime.

What do you think about that? I suspect that you will find that an inaccurate characterization, and I'm interested in why.

It takes time for things to change. The Libertarian Party was only started in 1971, and most of the voters are just interested in making their team win at the polls (or making the other side lose), regardless of who it is running. Change is difficult, and only happens when absolutly necessary. But, if enough people aren't doing good, and they want a change, at least it is possible in this country to vote for a different plan.

The biggest problem is that government gives a few people the ability to choose what everyone does. And enough voters (50.1%) get together to ban guns, abortions, gay marriage, and drugs, it can effect the lives of everyone in the country. And there are plenty of people who don't care what the politcians views are besides their one issue. For instance, they don't like abortion, and they don't want to live in a community that aloows abortion. However, they should only be allowed to determine how they live their life, and not prevent another person from making whatever choice they want. But, there still is disagreements when does the featus or baby get rights for itself?

ASU2003 · 10-28-2006, 01:23 PM

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#govdebt
II.1 Government Debt

"The Issue: The national debt imposes debt upon Americans without their consent, and loads our economy with a fiscal anchor that will burden many future generations. Our escalating national debt is nothing less than theft from our grandchildren.

The Principle: The government should operate on a "pay as you go" basis, and not incur debt.

Solutions: A debt-free government frees up economic resources, allowing for lower taxes, economic growth and lower interest rates.

Transitional Action: Eliminate the national debt using an incremental approach, being careful to avoid social disruption. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the US Constitution that restricts Congress from spending any more than it collected in revenue the previous year.

Eliminate earmarks, pork-barrel spending, and other forms of political corruption.
Congress should sell assets and reduce spending on non-essential functions to pay off the national debt as quickly as possible. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Host, while GW Bush and the Republicans both have the same goal of reducing taxes. Hopefully, the Libertarians will actually be fiscally conservative and balance the budget, reduce spending, and allow people to not have to rely on the government for help. The other problem is if we have free trade with everyone, we lose out on what little tax money a Libertarian government might collect. I'm not sure if anything would be done to balance the trade deficit with China for instance.

But, a lot of people work for the government, and some government programs like libraries, NASA and the DOT (highways) are good and I want to see them continued, but most people never use 99% of the services that any of those provide. And private ownership like B&N and Borders don't have a very in depth research section. The X-Prize allowed a private space craft to be build, but there isn't very much money in scientific exploration. And if private construction companies could impose tolls every few miles for building the roads and maintaining them, your commute would turn into a nightmare if you had to stop at different toll booths every 10 miles.

host · 10-28-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Host: I intended this thread to be more philosophical and non-combative in nature. Thank you as always for your rigor and thoroughness, but I request we stick more to general policy. I don't want this thread to turn into another "who's more fiscally whatever" thread, but rather to discuss the high-level view of libertarianism.

Host's post does raise an interesting point. Certainly the libertarian vote is a valuable one. With the libertarian's high valuation of personal freedom, what does that do to his view of the current administration? Personal freedoms seem to be being curtailed left and right--is that a problem for libertarians? This has been the spendiest and biggest-government administration we've seen in decades--does that trouble a libertarian?

ratbastid....the magnitude of the change in direction and potential fate of the US, certainly influenced "the flavor" of my post. I see Powell's "Pottery Barn" analogy in the result of the effect of the vote of the majority of libertarians in contests, at least since 1988, and most signiifigantly, in the close 2000 and 2004 presidential contests.

I think that the "you break it, you own it", is a consequence of voting choices made, that libertarians must now bear responsibility for.

I see libertarians, maybe even to a greater extent than Norquist republicans, showing no concern for the results of the way that they've voted. They all see the fiscal collapse of the federal government as an opportunity to sieze and control an agenda of "smaller" government, even if the collapse is the result of their own fucking complicity driven indifference, and not primarily a result of the "big government" spending priorities of "democrats".

They've hastened the inevitably of a disaster that didn't have to happen, they accept no blame, and they apparently spend little or no time contemplating how differently the fiscal course of the nation might have turned out if they had chosen to vote differently. They've drowned the government like a baby in a bathtub, just as Norquist described the goal, in order to eliminate discretionary or entitlement spending.

They show that is wasn't about fiscal responsibility, it was about ideology, and about paying little or no taxes. even if it means hanging a noose of perpetual debt around their own grandchildrens' necks.

....and, as recently as in 2001, the US did not have to end up this way....broke, with no options, and a president pandering on the eve of an important election, using his radio address to lure libertarians and Norquist republicans into voting for permanent and increased tax cuts that will result in certain default on US treasury bond debt and the demise of SSI.

It was still possible in 2000, to "reform" the existing SSI and privatize it, if that was the direction that the legislature agreed to take...... but not now....not with the mountain of new debt and the momentum for it's continuing increase.

In 2000, we enjoyed a "reformed" budgetary and taxation plan that was intentionally balanced and managed to "pay as you go", and clean up the past debt burden, as well.

This agenda was waiting in the wings:

Quote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1
HAPPY WARRIOR
Republican agitator Grover Norquist on building a "leave-us-alone coalition"

Interviewed by Rick Henderson and Steven Hayward

........Over the past three years, Norquist has taken coalition building personally. Every Wednesday morning he hosts an invitation-only meeting of grassroots activists, policy analysts, congressional staffers, political candidates, and sympathetic journalists in his conference room, including 50 to 100 representatives from groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, the Cato Institute, the Christian Coalition, U.S. Term Limits, Republicans for Choice, the Heritage Foundation, and occasionally UNITA--the political organization of Angolan anti-communists. In a typical meeting, elected officials and activist groups alert the other attendees of upcoming bills and initiatives and solicit financial or grassroots support. Soon after starting, ATR's Wednesday gathering was deemed "the hottest meeting in Washington."

Newt Gingrich (whom Norquist met in the late '70s) told The Washington Post, "He comes up with more interesting ideas than anyone I work with in terms of grassroots activism." Graduating from Harvard in 1978, Norquist soon began organizing anti-tax campaigns in California and elsewhere, combining his political activities with MBA studies at Harvard Business School. One of his MBA papers outlined a plan for the national College Republicans to switch from a resume-padding social club to an ideological, grassroots organization. In the early 1980s, he helped implement his plan with the help of the group's executive director, recent University of Georgia graduate Ralph Reed. After a stint as speechwriter and chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some time as a Reagan administration staffer, Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 to push what would become the 1986 tax simplification plan. .....

..........Reason: You have worked with the Libertarian Party in the past. When and why?

Norquist: In the 1978, '79, and '80 races I ran a group called the Tax Action Coalition. Ed Clark [the 1980 L.P. presidential nominee] was the chairman. I've found that Libertarian Party activists make the best tax activists because they never get involved in the silly questions about which tax is preferable. They understand that the total tax burden is the total amount of freedom taken away from you, and it needs to be reduced as quickly and as completely as is humanly possible.

Much like the pro-life movement and the Christian right, the Libertarian Party has gotten much more sophisticated and presentable over the last 20 years. That's a tremendous asset. As a presidential candidate, Harry Browne was reasonable, non-threatening, and educated a lot of people on a lot of issues.

The Leave-Us-Alone Coalition and the American ideology are libertarian. That's what it means to be an American. Almost everyone has a little deviation from that, but almost everybody almost all the time wants freedom, which is a big step forward, say, from living in France or Germany.

Reason: Talk about your "in half" initiative.

Norquist: It's an initiative of ATR. I am writing a book, called In Half: How and Why We Cut the Government in Half in One Generation, 25 Years. I picked 25 years because I assume setbacks, I assume bad times as well as good. Obviously if you speed up growth, you can get to government taking only half as large a percentage of the economy quicker.

But if you privatize Social Security, if you voucherize education, if you sell the $270 billion worth of airports and wastewater treatment plants, eliminate welfare, and so on, you can get the federal government, state government, and local government to basically half of its present level of costs. Instead of 33 percent of the economy, make it 16.5 percent of the economy.

I think we could do it a lot faster if we elected the right guys, but I think it's politically doable to say, here's our goal: Cut the government in half. I think it's important to have a clearly articulated goal. And I think the movement would buy into the idea that yes, we want to move toward the government's being half its present size. That's a radical enough and big enough step that it's worth the journey. Then in 25 years I intend to write a sequel: How to Cut the Government in Half Again.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Sowing the Seeds of GOP Domination
Conservative Norquist Cultivates Grass Roots Beyond the Beltway

By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A01

In a noisy corner of Harry's Tap Room, two men huddled over a map of the United States. They spoke in quiet voices:

"Fabulous, Grover. Awesome," Mehlman said, scanning the book like a hungry man reading a menu. "We're going to take that energy and harness it."

The binder was Norquist's gift to the presidential race. His aspirations, though, extend far beyond the White House. Congress, governorships, state legislatures, the media, the courts -- Norquist has a programming plan, and it is all Republican, all the time. Norquist closes his letters, "Onward." He takes the mission so seriously, he has named a successor in his will. Socially, he is often introduced as the head of the vast right-wing conspiracy. He accepts the title with a faint blush.

"He is an impresario of the center-right," the president's strategist, Karl Rove, said in an interview. Rove said Norquist's activists helped President Bush push trade promotion, tax cuts, judicial nominees and tort reform, among other items. "They've been out there slogging for us in the trenches."

....... When Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, came, Norquist asked, "For those of us on the outside, when someone sticks a mike in our face and says, 'Spending is up! You guys on the right are failing,' what are the talking points?"

Bolten rattled off the budget statistics that he could use.

Yet under Bush, the largest budget surplus in history has become the largest deficit in history. In the past, Norquist has said he wants to shrink government "down to the size where you could drown it in a bathtub." Now, glancing up at Bolten, Norquist ventured politely: "Is there a single agency you want to get rid of? It would be really helpful for us to say, 'This administration wants to get rid of . . . ' " ......

It comes down to us or them, and they intentionally broke the last, best chance for the government to dig out of the 25 years of mounting federal treasury debt that was reversed in 2000:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss
June 7, 2006
A Boon for the Richest in an Estate Tax Repeal
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

<img src="http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/06/business/impacts_190.jpg">

Repealing the estate tax, which applies to large fortunes after death, would save a lot of money for a very few people — about one in 6,000, whose estates would each save an average of more than $800,000.

The Senate is expected to vote as early as Thursday on whether to repeal the estate tax permanently or to exempt more wealth and apply lower rates.

Under current law, the estate tax applies to single Americans and the widowed who die this year with a net worth of more than $2 million, a category that is projected to include about 5,200 people. That threshold will rise to $3.5 million in 2009, when about 2,500 estates will be taxed. The tax is repealed for one year, 2010, and then the threshold reverts to $1 million in 2011, resulting in taxes for 50,000 people. No tax is owed when the first spouse dies.

Over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying to repeal the estate tax, according to lobby disclosure reports analyzed by two groups that favor retaining the estate tax, United for a Fair Economy and Ralph Nader's organization, Public Citizen. The wealthy families include the Mars candy family; the Gallo wine family; the Wegman supermarket family; the Dorrance family, which controls Campbell soup; and the Waltons, who control Wal-Mart.

With repeal, the estates of the 50,000 richest Americans who die in 2011 would save $40.4 billion in taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with two nonprofit research organizations in Washington, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.

If the $3.5 million exemption that takes effect in 2009 were made permanent, the center estimated, the number of taxable estates would fall to 10,400 in 2011. The tax would raise $11.2 billion, 77 percent of that paid by 960 estates valued at $20 million or more. The Tax Policy Center is run by tax experts who have served both parties, but its leaders favor retaining the estate tax, which they describe as the most progressive element in the federal tax system because its costs fall directly on the fortunes of the richest Americans.

An analysis by the center showed that repealing the tax would offer little or no tax-savings benefit for 80 percent of Americans. The estate tax savings from repeal in 2011 would be significantly more than the total income taxes paid by the poorest half of Americans. The 65 million taxpayers who reported incomes of less than $29,000 in 2003 paid $25.9 billion in income taxes.

IMO, libertarians are only relevant when their votes can be harnessed by Norquist. The rest of the time, they'll vote for libertarian candidates.....

kutulu · 10-28-2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Since Corporations are propped up by the Gov't, they are insulated from the pressures of the Market; look at the big American airlines. The big boys, such as American and Delta, have been in this pits for years and have declared bankruptcy 3-4 times each. This is because their service and employee relations blow, and as a consequence they arelosong customers and employees. The market is "selecting against" American Airlines, to borrow the biological term. In a Free Market, AA would have gone out of buisiness a long time ago, as customers and emplyees defected to a more reasonable and responsive competitor.

AA and Delta get bailouts because of the service they provide. When the auto repair shop down the street goes bankrupt the govt doesn't bail them out. That's because there are enough repair shops to cover the slack and if there aren't, it's relatively easy to set up shop. That isn't so with the airline industry.

The airline industry is vital to our economy and we can't afford to have one of the big ones just drop out of existance all of a sudden. Sure, in the long run things will work out but in the short term we won't be able to get people where they need to be.

On a tangent, there are massive farm subsidies, probably too much. However, it is important that our nation maintains the ability to feed itself if the shit hits the fan and our food suppliers cut us off. If the govt needs to kick them back a few to keep that ability, then so be it (as long as it is kept to reasonable levels).

Quote:

In a Free Market, a strike or boycott is the "nuclear option" available to employees and customers, both individually and collectively. Strikes and boycotts can cripple or destroy even a major company in very short order ( just as Smith & Wesson ), by running through their assets until they go broke. If a company can't sell a poduct ( because of a boycott ) or produce one ( because of a walkout ) they go broke, as they should. Companies which screw their employees or consumers deserve to fail and, in a Free Market system, they would.

Be realistic, Americans are way too passive to enact and keep with widespread boycotts. They rarely ever get anything done.

Quote:

As a case-study, let's specifically address pollution. Let's assume we have a company that produces Pork Rinds. Now, in order to produce the Pork Rinds, this company owns a large pig farm, with all the usual accompanying mess.
People downstream of the pig farm are getting sick, as they frequently do, from runoff, fumes, ammonia overload, tainted groundwater, etc.

Here is the problem, the LBT way is to let things go until people get sick. Shouldn't we be proactive and do what we do right now by mandating preventative measures to keep people from getting sick in the first place?

Quote:

Worse yet, everyone with an even plausible illness connected to the hog farm is now initiating a Class Action lawsuit. Our fictional Pork Rind company has a very short time in which to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences.

Yes because when sick people take the corporation to court the public rallies around them. Members of the opinion media don't laugh at them and either say they are looking for a lottery ticket or that they should have known the risks of living near a pig farm. The best thing is that once they get their millions it brings their dead back to life.

10-28-2006, 07:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Explain something to me about Libertarianism This thread is a result of my reading the "which party is more likely to reduce spending" thread. This isn't an attack on any ideology or individual--I'm actually really curious about this, and I'm looking for understanding on something. As I understand Libertarianism, the basic principles are a small, limited government, and as much personal liberty as possible. A Libertarian relies on the free markets to do what is in the best interest of the public, the consumers. I guess the first question is: is that an accurate thumbnail of the Libertarian view? What would you add/remove/correct? The second question is: What makes a Libertarian trust the free market when what we get over and over again from the free market is companies screwing the little guy in the name of profits? Enron was far and away the most flagrant of these, but it happens in lots of little ways in many more companies. It seems naive to me to believe that the Smith's "invisible hand" really guides companies to do what's best for the world--we have plenty of evidence that the opposite is the case. Companies pollute, cheat, manipulate, and steal. So the question is: what am I missing here that has Libertarians have such faith in the free market?

10-28-2006, 09:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	criminy...i put a post in the fiscal responsibility thread that should've gone here--but i wrote it against positions in that thread==specifically against right liberatarianism--and dont have time to rework it to fit here. the cross-reference is maybe confusing, but at the moment i am not sure how else to proceed. mea culpa. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2006, 09:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait, when you say "abolish the corporation", what are you talking about exactly? it seems like you are focussed on the notion of corporate personhood... this is a legal quirk of the american system--abolishing corporate personhood would not be the same as abolishing corporations outright. are you opposed to the notion that a corporation is an abstract entity that is not the same as the resources of the investors who put money into it such that they cannot be sued personally for corporate actions? a related question: are you also talking about abolishing stock? if so, i would assume that are you also talking about abolishing mass production....all of it....and heavy industry...all of it...any capital intensive type of activity, really. if that is true, then what is your proposal for dealing with infrastructural requirements (telecommunications, electricity, water, etc.)? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2006, 12:31 PM	#15 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	My comments are in italics, everything else is quoted. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon Preamble "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." "We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized." "Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power." www.lp.org/issues Pollution: "Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity." "Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity." "Demonstrable pollution is an invasion of property rights and should be outlawed." -Murray N. Rothbard I'm not sure who would pay to clean it up after the company declares bankrupcy, or if companies can pollute in China why they wouldn't just move there. The government would have to raise taxes to clean up it's sites, so I'm not sure how that will work. www.lp.org/issues Gun Laws: "Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership." "The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work." "But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others." "Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion." www.lp.org/issues Foreign Aid: "Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs." Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, "Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status." "For example, following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program." Although the greedy farmers probably would have tried to jack up prices and the local people would have had to find food elsewhere. Eventually, the farmers from outside the area would want in on the action and bring prices down. www.lp.org/issues Inflation And Taxes: "Something has caused your family's budget to be cut. Something is going to destroy your family's future unless you act to stop it. That something is the Federal government and its policy of taxation and inflation. Let's take a look at a median income family of four in the 1950s. At that time, the Federal income tax amounted to only 2% of the family budget. Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. By contrast, in the 1990s, the Federal income tax takes 25% of income for the same family of four. Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes." " Whether the inflation rate is 12% or 3%, the result is the same: groceries cost more; clothing costs more; your car costs more. You work harder every year for less purchasing power." "The Federal government is driving your family into bankruptcy." "The government hasn't stopped there. They have borrowed so much money that your children will be sacrificing their entire economic lives to pay the Federal debt." "Over one hundred Libertarians are currently holding public office. Each of them is working today to keep the government from taking any more of your money. And each of them believes that if government were limited to protecting us against force and fraud, then most Americans would be better off. Less government corruption. No more expensive "boondoggle" projects. No more "special interest" favors at your expense." "The Libertarian Party will stop the waste in government by decreasing its size and power. We will work to roll back the power of Washington bureaucrats and politicians -- and leave you and your neighbors in control of your own lives." Drugs - Legal Allow the doctors and patients to decide which ones they should take, even experimental untested ones. Companies would most likely pay to get testing in order to prove that their drugs work and most people won't take experimental drugs unless it is a last resort. The testing agency can't be bribed into approving bad drugs or ignoring side effects, because they don't want to be held legally responsible if they approve bad drugs. Drug makers also can get sued if they knowingly withhold the bad side effect information from consumers. Drugs - Illegal http://molibertarian.tripod.com/drugs.html "Libertarians are often confused as being the party that wants people to take drugs. Most all Libertarians I talk to believe drug use is very harmful and dangerous." "Libertarian also believes that the legalization of drugs would end most of the drug problem. Drugs are profitable because they are illegal, people sell drugs to make a profit" "Libertarians also believe you own your own body and you can make decisions about it or the government can make it for you." http://www.azlp.org/ISSUES/issue.shtml?t=The_Drug_War "Not for the lack of effort. In 2001, the federal government spent $18 billion fighting the War on Drugs. More than 19,000 state and local police officers work full-time on drug cases. Despite all of this money and firepower, 82% of high school seniors say that getting marijuana is "fairly" or "very" easy--a number that hasn't budged in 20 years." "But the War on Drugs isn't just a failure. It's also a threat to your safety. In 2000, for example, 734,497 Americans were arrested on marijuana-related charges. That same year, only 625,243 violent criminals were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault (according to FBI figures). In other words, the War on Drugs is making your family less safe because police spend their time arresting marijuana smokers instead of apprehending brutal thugs." "Libertarians don't claim that ending the War on Drugs will solve every problem. Some people will always make bad choices about drugs, whether legal or illegal. But the War on Drugs isn't working." http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#drugwar "The Principle: Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others’ rights. Solutions: Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue." www.lp.org/issues Healthcare "The Libertarian Party will work towards the following: 1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts. Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible. 2. Deregulate the healthcare industry. We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers. 3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines. We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans." If you allow private health care insurance companies to put incentives to make people live healthier lifestyles, they will need less in the way of healthcare (and they will make more profits). People will choose the insurance plan that is best for them and what their needs are. Although some people here don't seem to think that is a Libertarian idea. Freedom of Religion http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freereli "Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others." "Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end. " Iraq War http://www.lp.org/issues/current.shtml "Despite this progress, the president has yet to provide a plan for withdrawing troops and bringing them home. American troops have completed their mission. A democratically-elected government is in place. The vast majority of Iraq is stable and oil production has increased. The process of gradually ceding control of the country to the new Iraqi government should begin without delay. American troops will remain a target as long as they remain in the country." They go into more detail here: http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml Sexuality and Gender The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals. Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml Reproductive Rights Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births. Immigration http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr "The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers. The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. "Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements." I would still be worried about over population and flooding the market with people who will work for $1 less than the last guy. Employers and the people who own things can say, if you won't work for this low price, there are 10 other people that will. There are some problems with the plans that the Libertarians have, however there are problems with the Democrats and Republicans as well. But, solutions and compromises are agreed upon on the floor of congress. I'm not saying that a country with a Libertarian majority would be a great place to live, it would be very volatile and risky at times. However, other things would be very good about living in a Libertarian country. I really wouldn't mind if they and some other outside parties become part of congress though. Last edited by ASU2003; 10-28-2006 at 12:38 PM..

10-28-2006, 01:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#govdebt II.1 Government Debt "The Issue: The national debt imposes debt upon Americans without their consent, and loads our economy with a fiscal anchor that will burden many future generations. Our escalating national debt is nothing less than theft from our grandchildren. The Principle: The government should operate on a "pay as you go" basis, and not incur debt. Solutions: A debt-free government frees up economic resources, allowing for lower taxes, economic growth and lower interest rates. Transitional Action: Eliminate the national debt using an incremental approach, being careful to avoid social disruption. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the US Constitution that restricts Congress from spending any more than it collected in revenue the previous year. Eliminate earmarks, pork-barrel spending, and other forms of political corruption. Congress should sell assets and reduce spending on non-essential functions to pay off the national debt as quickly as possible. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host, while GW Bush and the Republicans both have the same goal of reducing taxes. Hopefully, the Libertarians will actually be fiscally conservative and balance the budget, reduce spending, and allow people to not have to rely on the government for help. The other problem is if we have free trade with everyone, we lose out on what little tax money a Libertarian government might collect. I'm not sure if anything would be done to balance the trade deficit with China for instance. But, a lot of people work for the government, and some government programs like libraries, NASA and the DOT (highways) are good and I want to see them continued, but most people never use 99% of the services that any of those provide. And private ownership like B&N and Borders don't have a very in depth research section. The X-Prize allowed a private space craft to be build, but there isn't very much money in scientific exploration. And if private construction companies could impose tolls every few miles for building the roads and maintaining them, your commute would turn into a nightmare if you had to stop at different toll booths every 10 miles. Last edited by ASU2003; 10-28-2006 at 01:39 PM..

10-28-2006, 07:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I've often wondered the same things. This should be interesting.

10-28-2006, 08:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The first thing to understand is that a Free Market has not existed in the US since, at the lastest, the Eerie decision, which destroyed the Common Law pleading system of the US and which permitted the rise of the Corporation within the US. Since Corporations exist as Persons before the law, they can apply for and recieve all the "benefits" that a Human can; this is how Corpoerate Welfare came into existance. Since Corporations are propped up by the Gov't, they are insulated from the pressures of the Market; look at the big American airlines. The big boys, such as American and Delta, have been in this pits for years and have declared bankruptcy 3-4 times each. This is because their service and employee relations blow, and as a consequence they arelosong customers and employees. The market is "selecting against" American Airlines, to borrow the biological term. In a Free Market, AA would have gone out of buisiness a long time ago, as customers and emplyees defected to a more reasonable and responsive competitor. However, since AA has been repeatedly bailed out by the Fed, they see no reason to change their behavior, and so the problems get worse. In a Free Market, a strike or boycott is the "nuclear option" available to employees and customers, both individually and collectively. Strikes and boycotts can cripple or destroy even a major company in very short order ( just as Smith & Wesson ), by running through their assets until they go broke. If a company can't sell a poduct ( because of a boycott ) or produce one ( because of a walkout ) they go broke, as they should. Companies which screw their employees or consumers deserve to fail and, in a Free Market system, they would. Without Corporatism, there could be no Enron, nor Standard Oil, nor Microsoft. The Founders recognized the trouble that Corporations inherantly were, having had experiance with the ravages of British Mercantilism in the recent past. As a consequece, they were very careful to frame the Constitution in terms of people; ie, "the right of the People...shall not be infringed." This is part of the danger inherant in the somewhat dicey language of Amendments 13 and 14, both of which replace "People" with "citizens." Since a Corporation was, legally speaking, a citizen, it extended Personhood-in-reverse; not by defining Corporations as People, but by redefining People as Corporations. If this false unity is removed, and companies are no longer able to call upon the federal Gov't for aid, the Market becomes an astonishingly effective tool for regulating an out-of-control company or employer. By way of example, I point to the fall of one of the country's oldest gunmakers, the venerable Smith & Wesson. After being sold to a British firm, S&W made a series of agreements with the Clinton Regime which a large number of gunowners regarded as a sellout. S&W immidiatly came under boycott, and after having gone broke and changed hands several times, was acquired by an American firm for less than 10% of its' worth 5 years prior. S&W had been punished by the consumers, and has learned its' lesson: they no longer even -joke- about cutting deals with the feds. After watching what happened to S&W, neither does any other American gunmaker, and damned few foreign ones. It must also be remembered that, while Corporations can, in the current Mercantilist economy, pillage and plunder to their larcenous hearts content, they have yet to enact 1/100th of the suffering which can be laid at the doorstep of the States. Not counting wars, over 170 MILLION people have been murdered by their own Governments in the last 100 years alone. If one adds casualties of war to the total, it exceeds 250,000,000 souls. A quarter-billion people exterminated by the State. Simple comparison shows which of these two entities is the more dangerous to life, limb, and liberty. Despite their influence and vast reach, Corporations do no command armies directly, nor can they afford to sustain wars or genocides, since they must actually be able to show a profit ( somehow ) in order to survive. Lack the State's ability to print and spend their own ( worthless ) paper money, they cannot do nearly as much damage. Frequently, Corporations will enlist the State to do their dirty work for them. This is another result of the Corporatist/Mercantilist system. Since the largest and most damaging corporations ( WalMart, GE, etc ) are all owned by the same banking combines which control the Federal Reserve, it simply comes down to JP Morgan blackmailing the Gov't into doing WalMart's head-cracking for them. However, note that if both the Corporation and the central bank are abolished, which are both libertarian goals, this three-way screwing of the consumer ceases to function. The company then becomes, again, limited by its' own finite resources. As a case-study, let's specifically address pollution. Let's assume we have a company that produces Pork Rinds. Now, in order to produce the Pork Rinds, this company owns a large pig farm, with all the usual accompanying mess. People downstream of the pig farm are getting sick, as they frequently do, from runoff, fumes, ammonia overload, tainted groundwater, etc. In a Corporatist system, such as we have now, our fictional Pork Rind company needs fear nothing. If it suffers a strike or boycott, it can get help from the Feds. Likewise, if it is sued, it can draw upon the assets of its' parent bank, for example JP Morgan. It is fully or partially insulated from the effects of the Market, and is basically untouchable. In a Libertarian system, the Pork Rind company has a big problem and it needs solving NOW. Because all the people downstream have gotten together and declared a boycott of the company. Their workers, many of whom are related to people who are ill ( or who have become so themselves ) have threatened a general walkout. Worse yet, everyone with an even plausible illness connected to the hog farm is now initiating a Class Action lawsuit. Our fictional Pork Rind company has a very short time in which to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences. With no help forthcoming from the Feds, or JP Morgan, they have only themselves to pick up the pieces. If they fail, they go bankrupt. Meanwhile, other Pork Rind companies are watching the battle...and not liking what they see. They recognize that, if -they- treat their employees badly or poison the local water supply, they'll be next. And so they don't. Nobody ever said Corporations were nice things; they're not. Worse yet, since they act as the economic-control arm of the State, they not only expand Gov't power over people's lives, they do it while falsely claiming to support the very Free Market which would be their own destruction. A Free Market is one in which nobody is insulated from anything, economically. A Free Market, by definition, cannot feature Corporations, since such are market insulations and therefore distortions. A distorted market is not free.

10-28-2006, 09:43 AM	#13 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	I am talking about abolishing both Corporate Personhood and Limited Liability. I am opposed, as you say, to the notion that a corporation is an abstract entity that is not the same as the resources of the investors who put money into it such that they cannot be sued personally for corporate actions. Such are also distortions of the Market which insulate the officers of the Corporations from the consequences of their actions. And it's hardly a quirk unique to America; read up on the Uniform Commercial Code, the universal and unaccountable system of international law, first developed for slave-trading, which currently governs all commercial activity worldwide. Then, for a real mindfuck, read the Bail Bondsmans Act, and its' definition of all crime, including rape and murder, as commercial in nature. Eliminating Corporate Personhood would also eliminate the Trust, which is another market distortion which serves to insulate the powerful, by permitting them to be "poor" legally, while still having access to huge funding bases...which remain untouchable in lawsuits. No, I am not talking about abolishing stocks or the sales thereof. A share of stock is simply a partial ownership of an organization; in this case, a commercial enterprise. Elimination of Corporate Personhood/Welfare, Trusts, and artificial Monopolies does not require the elimination of stock trading. You'd simply be buying stock in a company which was fully subject to Market forces, instead of one which was ( essentially ) protected from them. The current system screws the average investor just as badly as the average consumer or employee; the current investor can lose everything he has, while the Corporatist CEO ( whos assets are protected in a Trust and therefore untouchable ) can be, essentially, unaffected if a Corporation goes bad for a little while.

10-28-2006, 12:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Dunedan: Thank you VERY much for your responses on this thread. Exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get. For the first time, I can see Libertarianism as a self-consistent and logically workable worldview. I'm not saying I agree with it--though I certainly do see the value of parts of what you've said--but I can see it as something a sensible person might conclude. I have a questions, to deepen my understanding. Would you say that modern-day Libertarians have any real hope that this corporation-free minimal-government ideal will ever be realized? When I read your first post, I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, right!" I mean--it sounds nice in the abstract, but it would be a massive piece of work to undo thousands of years of governmental and financial structures. I can't even imagine what that would take. Which, it seems to me, relegates modern Libertarians to the role of quixotic complainer--forever outside the mainstream, doomed to rail against it without any real hope of effecting the change they want to see, at least, not in their lifetime. What do you think about that? I suspect that you will find that an inaccurate characterization, and I'm interested in why.

10-28-2006, 01:17 PM	#18 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Host: I intended this thread to be more philosophical and non-combative in nature. Thank you as always for your rigor and thoroughness, but I request we stick more to general policy. I don't want this thread to turn into another "who's more fiscally whatever" thread, but rather to discuss the high-level view of libertarianism. Host's post does raise an interesting point. Certainly the libertarian vote is a valuable one. With the libertarian's high valuation of personal freedom, what does that do to his view of the current administration? Personal freedoms seem to be being curtailed left and right--is that a problem for libertarians? This has been the spendiest and biggest-government administration we've seen in decades--does that trouble a libertarian?