Willravel

I'm not a libertarian. I believe I understand a lot of the broad strokes of libertarianism, but I find myself constantly questioning libertarians about their beliefs and very rarely get answers (as many of them are libertarian in name only).

Tilted libertarians, I hope you'll step forward and explain exactly what it is you believe and possibly take a shot at answering my questions and the questions of others.

What do libertarians do about the environment? It seems that libertarianism largely ignores non-human issues that could eventually have some effect on humans but do not have any short term effects. Things like climate change or pollution often are left to the market, which is more concerned with itself.

Why do you believe rights are inalienable? Obviously it says so in the Constitution, but I've had several discussions on TFP before where it's been plainly established that there is a proportional relationship between how sacred a right is and how powerful proponents of said right are. If only 80,000 people in the US were pro-gun proponents, I suspect that the right to bear arms would be largely ignored despite it's presence in the BOR.

Where does the idea of privately owned property get it's genesis and why is it an assumed mode in libertarian theory? Mises went on and on about private ownership, but I have yet to encounter a libertarian that can explain why there is a connection between using something and somehow having an exclusive right to said thing. I've argued before that in pre-agrarian societies of humans, most property was collectively owned by the group of humans, and this can be demonstrated in other primates and intelligent animals.

Why do you believe freedom to be more important than equality? Can you demonstrate that a more "free" society is more successful? More happy? What about people who repeatedly make bad decisions that effect others?

I have more questions, but I think (hope) these are a good jumping off point for discussion.

Thanks for reading and I hope this will be a friendly and fruitful discussion.

kutulu

That has always been one of my biggest complaints about libertarians. They are reactive in their environmental policy rather than proactive. It is easier (and cheaper) to not cause air pollution than it is to deal with the consequences of dirty air.

Take a look a China and all the air pollution complaints. Is that what you want to happen?

genuinegirly

You could always go to lp.org for their official stance on these issues.


Since Kutulu has officially turned this thread into a libertarian-bashing experience, rather than a knowledge-seeking, open-minded endeavor, I'd rather not respond.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

Willravel

lp.org does have a lot of information, but it doesn't seem to address any of my questions. When it discusses the environment, it just gets into how bad the EPA is and how the government pollutes.

I'm still knowledge-seeking.

CandleInTheDark

I will try to answer you question on the environment. I am not well-educated in libertarian theory, but I certainly understand the relationship between property rights, choice and the environment.

Property rights aid in the protection of the environment. I removes the problem that is the tragedy of the commons. Where a person or organization owns a piece of property, they have a vested interest in the health and protection of that asset. Some will be more interested than others but overall, persons will not want their property damaged by pollution.

In forestry (my field) the current debate in British Columbia is over selling Crown land to the forest product companies. Currently, taxpayers simply charge stumpage and pay for road building, while companies are responsible for complying with regulations and reforesting. The system prevents the forest companies from gaining economic return for managing for other resources suchs as mining, hunting, fishing or ecotourism. If these companies owned the land they harvest they would also control the access of the other resources, which are not insignificant. Hunting, fishing and ecotourism all require healthy and robust ecosystems, which are certainly possible when forestry is conducted properly.

Climate change is a more difficult solution. Certainly within one area (region or country), air pollution litigation is certainly a solution (especially with in the USA). Where a country has a truly free market, the people will speak with their wallets. They will buy products that produce less GHGs, or invest in less GHG intensive industries and companies. Or they will simply believe the evidence is incomplete, and should not be forced by their fellow citizens to change their lifestyle.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

MSD

Well, I dropped my LP membership after realizing that the party has no direction and is an incoherent mix of single-issue voters dedicated to every cause out there, religious nuts who want to dismantle government authority so that religion can take its place, and right-wingers who don't like the religious connotations of the Republican Party. Only one of their top candidates had an immigration policy that was anything other than xenophobic or outright racist, and Bob Barr ... that was a joke, right? But I'll answer anyway. I do not agree with everything I'm saying, but I'm giving the libertarian response to each question.

The basic libertarian principle is to regulate only to prevent harm to others and to force those who do harm to take responsibility. Air/water/food quality and sustainable use of natural resources are necessary to prevent harming ourselves and others, so ideologically pure libertarians would believe that legislation to prevent individuals and businesses from polluting to a dangerous degree is ethically allowable. LP members are more likely to favor a free market of carbon credit trading regardless of the fact that it wouldn't work.

The basis of libertarian philosophy is that the right to extend one's fist ends at the tip of your neighbor's nose. If something does not directly harm others, it should not be regulated. Therefore, guns shouldn't be regulated, using them to harm others should.

A person who owns property (by allodial deed) is free to act on his property in any way that does not directly harm others. Food, water, and shelter are basic human needs and may not be taken away by a government. Deeds in the US and most other countries grant permission to use the land to a certain depth below ground level and a certain height above ground level, but can be seized through a number of legal means. To put conditions on property ownership means that the individual is not the fundamental unit of society, whereas libertarianism holds the individual as that fundamental unit.

Libertarianism holds that an individual is entitled to what he earns in a free market, not what a government decides he is entitled to or says he is allowed to earn. This is the basis of opposition to affirmative action, income tax, etc.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that a libertarian system will function only if each individual is a libertarian who holds the same beliefs. Think Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. If that condition isn't met, the system is as flawed as any other.

Willravel

CandleInTheDark,

Maybe I should leave climate change at the door because it's such a hot-button issue.

Anyway about pollution... it's effects are rarely quick and are often cumulative. Let's say you have a leather company. You use chemicals to treat the leather, which you dump locally to save costs because you've been assured there are no negative short term effects on the environment. 50 years later, people are getting sick because it's seeped into the ground water. When you consider the 50 years of more expensive dumping in an area where it theoretically cannot hurt anyone compared to possible liability for the health effects on some people, it turns out that it's more cost effective to dump locally and have a few sick people settle in court 50 years down the line. By my understanding, according to libertarian theory, the correct libertarian decision would be to dump locally, right? There could be some fallout with some buyers, as people speak with their wallets, but if you're able to pass on the savings (or remain competitive in some way due to the cheaper costs of local dumping) a lot of customers may decided to stay on board because they're not directly effected. Or affected, I get those confused.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 02 : 16 : 32-----
I appreciate your responding.
So you're saying that LP members and pure libertarian theory are at odds on this issue? That's very interesting.
So the idea of prevention measures would not likely be popular with libertarians. Moving away from guns, though, it still seems that rights are held to be sacred in libertarian theory. They are beyond reproach so long as they don't directly injure others?
No, I'm talking about the idea of personal property being a necessary mode for libertarianism. It seems that mode is never really established. Collective ownership can work and has been demonstrated to work in human history. Considering that, wouldn't libertarianism be based on an incorrect assumption: that private ownership is moral/natural/etc.

I've had several lengthy debates with a good friend of mine who is a Mises worshipper and he insists that private ownership is moral, natural, and correct and that anything else is wrong or somehow doesn't even exist. This belief is not uncommon.
This assumes that the market is fair. I don't ever recall seeing evidence that the market is consistently fair. Maybe it's a difference in what I think "fair" is compared to a libertarian?

kutulu

A little sensitive? It is quite obvious that their position is to be reactive. I have asked many people why they think this would work and I rarely get a straight answer.

Slims

Ok, I will do my best.

First, I am a libertarian, but the libertarian party itself is poorly organized, fractured, and full o fproblems.

For me, rights are inalienable because though a government may not recognize them, they are the essential freedoms a person must have in order to be sovereign, or truly responsible for theirselves. I also believe that suppression of those rights is an essential element of any oppressive government.

As far as private property is concerned, I personally feel it stems from being able to keep the fruits of your own labor. If there were no private property, and willravel worked very hard to have a nice garden, the lazy masses who wanted fresh vegetables without the bother of growing them could take as they please, leaving nothing for the producer. The extension to property (not necessarily land) is easy...if you work to generate the resources necessary to produce, purchase, or otherwise acquire something, nobody else should be able to take it from you because 'they need it more.'

I know some very early societies, and some modern primitives dont' believe in private property. However, you don't see this in modern society as it simply isn't a successful strategy. When everyone shares everything, the people who work the hardest and are most productive are unable to realize additional gains over their neighbors. There is no incentive to go the extra mile as the person who doesn't will get to enjoy the results without the effort.

I work extremely hard, to include being shot at, in order to put a roof over my head, etc. and I believe very strongly that nobody is more entitled to the fruits of my labor than I am.

Libertarians (excepting the extremists that are present in any party) don't believe in no government, just small government, with money spent only on those things that are of vital importance to the nation. For instance, the postal service, military, core services, congress, etc. It is largely up to the individual to interpret what is meant by *essential*.

A great example of this is socialized medicine. The libertarian philosophy is that individuals are far better able to choose what is right for them than the government is. If you want healthcare, then you are better off paying for it directly and getting exactly what you want than paying through taxes for a cumbersome, expensive, unresponsive federal version. Can't afford healthcare but want it? Then get a better job because using tax dollars stolen from someone else is income redistribution at best and is, in my opinion, far closer to outright theft and extortion (since the goverment doesn't leave you any choice.) The libertarian utopia is a society where everyone is responsible for everything they do, and the government is the bare minimum to maintain order and the sovereignty of the nation. However, much like every other 'ideal' I can think of, it isn't something that could ever actually work. But it doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from taking a few huge steps in that direction.

Oh, to touch on the environment real quick: Just as it would be reasonable to stop a company from spewing cyanide gas into the air and killing off a local town, it is reasonable for the government to pass laws which protect it's citizens. Reasonable environmental safeguards are perfectly fine, so long as they will protect PEOPLE. Saving a wood toad (or insert some insignificant but endangered animal) is not normally justifiable unless the lost of that creature would have a clearly definable negative impact on peoples lives (like cutting down the last tree on ester island). Otherwise it's just natural selection at work.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

samcol

China isn't even close to libertarian. Actually, your post is an argument for libertarinism because the alternative definetly has not helped china's enviornment.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

Assuming there are rights that are objectively essential for people to be sovereign, what does personal sovereignty mean? Does that mean you do everything for yourself, or just most things?
This assumes one mode of social organization and ignores all others, though. I brought up pre-agrarian social organization in humans because it's existence defies libertarian explanation. Imagine a group of 12 humans that live as a unit of some kind, like a pack. What they each contribute isn't for themselves as individuals, but rather for the whole, to ensure the continuation of the social unit. This can still be seen in the way that parents care for children, but that children also work to support the household. When I was a boy of 12, my dad made something in the neighborhood of $50k a year and I had a paper route which made a few hundred dollars a month, but we both contributed to the household in the best way we could. I, as a child, did not have the education, discipline, nor opportunity to make $50k a year. This fact was taken into consideration and I was allowed to live on the collective fruits of the family's labor just like my dad. Was I lazy or was I simply not in a position to provide for myself? Was my father hurt by providing for me? Is responsibility for one's kin/unit/etc. something hat cannot be transferred to larger societies?
I beg to differ. Back in 2002, I decided to join some friends in a joint real estate venture and we each collectively owned what we purchased. One could even argue that stocks represent collective ownership.
This makes sense, but it also represents a splintering issue for libertarians. The meaning of essential strikes me as being very much subjective and subjectivity is a problem when dealing with political or economic theory because it directly effects the real world application of said theory.
This assumes federal healthcare is worse than private healthcare. I know most libertarians are concerned with government interference in the US medical system, but I doubt anyone could argue that the US system is more socialized than actual universal healthcare systems used elsewhere that happen to be better.
I wish it was as easy to get a better job as you make it seem in your second sentence. In theory it's great but in practice most people have the best job they can get. If someone wasn't born into a situation that made good education and job opportunities possible, who are you to say they are doomed to live the life they happened to be born into? Is that fair? Does the market reward all hard workers with a living wage or better?
So you're okay with the existence of the EPA? Most libertarians I know want it dismantled.

kutulu

The point is what can happen when there is a lack of environmental controls. If we want our environmental policy to be based on boycotts and lawsuits, China is an example of where we will be headed.

Sun Tzu

Could you be a little more specific in what that venture was?
Stock; while spread over a larger array of ownership, still pursues interest in how the company does in the free market. It’s not like everyone has ownership- we’d be buying from ourselves. The freedom to buy a larger percentage is still present as well.

I know this has been talked about before, but I need a refresher. Where are the better systems at?

Will, how have you become sold on this mindset? Go to an Anthony Robbins seminar or something. Your statement can be just as generalized and assuming in the other direction. Sometimes people do get lucky, but the other 98% of time things aren’t easy. Most of the time financial success (if that is what you are basing this on) requires determination, true unwavering intention, and most of all hard work. I wasn’t born into any kind of wealth; in fact my family was in the ghetto a step away from welfare. By the time I finished college I was $70,000 in debt. I turned it around, because I didn’t let anything stop me. Did I have a few kicks to groin on the way, sure? Will I have any more, maybe? The hard work it takes makes the rewards that much better. Are the ones born into wealth lucky? Perhaps, they have a head start.

I remember seeing Donald Trump on Jay Leno one night and Jay asked him if he lost all his money what would he do. Donald said ”I would find the closest multilevel marketing program and get to work." The audience started laughing. Donald turned to the audience and shut them up by saying in a stern manner “that’s why I’m up here and you’re down there”. Personally, I hate MLM I do not have the desire to do it, meaning it’s not the kind of sacrifice I’m willing to make. That is the key, what people are willing to sacrifice- time, effort, whatever. Something for nothing is present in our society, and I think its part of the problem.

As far as the general theme of this thread, while I agree with most of the libertarian philosophy- I consider myself an independent. I listen to each candidate on the issues. Unfortunately, the one I agreed with the most is out of the race. I can’t take any of them seriously until the areas many see as conspiracy issues are addressed. The federal reserve, is an example.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

kutulu

Sun Tzu:

It's awesome that you've been able to achieve great things. However, I think the point is that the number of opportunities is less than the amount of people competing for them. Poverty is inevitable for a certain percentage of the population. People may move freely from one class to another but the percentages stay about the same. "Get a better job" ignores this reality.

Sun Tzu

I dont believe poverty is inevitable. This is why i wish everyone had to go through SEAL training. Nothing is inevitable. Some will have greater obstacles than others, yes. I hate to sound like a fortune cookie- but truly the greatest obstacle a person will have is themselves.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

We entered into a contract where our collective investments purchased real estate. We each shared a portion of ownership which was directly related to our investment.
Yes, but it's still collectively owned. The direction of the company is often set by democratic ruling of those who own portions of the business.
The WHO list, which is well supported, claims that many countries have better health care than the US. France has the best by leaps and bounds. The same was concluded by the Commonwealth Fund back in January of this year. France isn't perfect, of course, but the french system is cheaper per capita and is substantially more effective. Still, even Canada has better health care than the US.
I know people who disprove the "hard work = better pay" idea. I know a lot of people, actually. They worked hard, got good grades but couldn't afford college and couldn't get decent jobs. $30,000 a year in the SF bay area isn't really enough for a family to live on, and should my friend leave the bay area, he'd make even less. Poverty happens, and sometimes it happens despite an individual's best efforts. I know this to be fact, not opinion.
Yes, but those three things do not always lead to financial success.
Donald Trump is the king of bad investments. I'd sooner take financial advice from a hobo. The only reason he's rich now are his TV shows. He might as well be Flava Flav minus the rap career.

CandleInTheDark

Well that's the point. If a majority decision can't be reached in the market place, the government has no business forcing individuals to comply with their regulations.

The environment is one of those areas that is not traditionally covered in Western politics and philosophy. It Canada it has become the catch all in which the Federal government invades Provincial juridiction.

Reconcilling environmental protection with libertarianism requires a clear understanding of environment, property rights, and the capability of private organizations to engage in protective action. Limits need to be establish on government jurisdiction in order to prevent the environment from becoming a means to usurp the rights of the citizen.

This questions has been burning a whole in my mind and I think I have an adequate response now.

Freedom is equality. Equality is the ability for a person to be able to make the same choices, in the exact same situation, as the another person. Choices should not be limited based on sex, race, or class. That does not mean an equality of outcome, income, or existence. It is not fair to limit choices based on a persons good luck, current income, or who they know. Building a fair and equal society is about choices, not status.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

kutulu

*sigh*

Again, you are getting the GROUP and the INDIVIDUAL confused. Take an honest look at an office building and think about what makes it run. Somebody has to do the landscaping. Somebody has to clean the toilets. Somebody has to work at the cafeteria. Those jobs aren't going to earn high wages. Maybe the person is lazy. Maybe they are doing this for the short term. Maybe this is the person's fullest potential. People who do those jobs may move on to bigger and better things but that crappy job remains.

My interpretation is that a libertarian sees these people and thinks "that sucks" and moves on. I think that this is an unethical way to build a nation.

Willravel

I was born into a low income family. Jenna Bush was born into the wealthy elite. With freedom, we work with the cards we are given. With equality, we're given a few extra cards so that the game isn't fixed. Therein is the difference.

Slims

Here is a big difference between you and I. I don't believe the 'number of opportunities' is static. In fact, I believe people can make their own opportunities. If you produce something of value, you have just manufactured a product and an opportunity.

For instance, I make more money than most enlisted soldiers in the Army. If they wanted to work hard, and go to advanced schools for better pay and accelerated promotion they could do so, but most don't even though they are perfectly capable.

Likewise with college. I paid my own way through school, so the argument that someone 'didn't have enough money to go to school' really doesn't sit well with me. I had a goal, and I accepted the burden necessary to achieve it.

And along that same line of thinking, since I have a degree and am military, I could go to OCS and become an officer if I ever felt I was unable to properly support myself or my family on my current income. I don't want to because I love my job, but I am not about to complain about how 'unfortunate' I am until I really exhaust all options.

I know a whole lot of people who could earn an honest living by joining the military. Instead they bounce between bottom-of-the-barrel part-time jobs and complain about how 'unfortunate' they are.

I believe I have mentioned this in a prior post years ago, but when I worked at Target during highschool, I had two coworkers from whom I learned a very important lesson. As it's appropriate here, I will summarize:

I worked in the stockroom at target as a teenager, and while I started off earning very little, I was quickly given a series of pretty decent promotions and within a couple months was earning near 8.00 per hour, which, for a 16 year old on his first job wasn't bad. One of my coworkers realized I had been promoted and threw a fit as he had been working at target for a long time and was still making less than me.

His name was Justin, and he was frequently late for work, often hung over, sometimes still borderline drunk, always complaining about how unfortunate he was, and was less than industrious. He was pissed at me, but the person he disliked most was a black guy named Charlie who had immigrated from Africa not too long ago.

Charlie was slow talking and slow moving, but he worked very hard, never left a job unfinished, never complained, was always on time and often stayed late to finish the days' work. To make a long story short, I found out one day following a confrontation between Justin and Charlie that Charlie had worked for several years to save enough money to come to the United States, that he spoke 4 languages (english was his 4'th), that he was working another full time job in a warehouse, and that he was attending community college classes.

It was the perfect contrast. On one hand is a person who is manufacturing his own disadvantages and who feels wronged by society for his lack of success. On the other is a person who really did have every 'excuse' to be a drain on society, but who had the dignity to better himself even though it was difficult.

It was obvious that Charlie was using a low paying job as a stepping stone on his way towards something better while Justin was using it because he could get away with being almost useless.


Oh, and Will: If I work hard and am successful, why should I not be able to give my children some advantages? Equality is not stealing from those who have earned their money. To do so is to be a parasite. It is not equal to pay for peoples college educations just because they are poor, or a minority, or for any reason other than excellence. I had to get student loans, which I am still struggling to pay back because I wanted an education. It infuriates me that people are getting a free ride through college in the name of 'equality' and I am forced to help support them through the money I pay in taxes.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 08 : 56 : 03-----
No, a libertarian works one of those jobs and after realizing how much it sucks works hard enough to get a better one.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Cynthetiq

thanks for your views and clarification.

greg.... this is why I wrote this in a different thread

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Sun Tzu

Business partnerships differ greatly than universal communes you seem to be referring to often. It sounds like you want it both ways here.
For profit right?

This is really a thread in and of itself. Ill respond when I have more time.


OK I’ll add working smarter and harder, and risk. I could not afford college either, that’s what loans are for.

It is fact.

I’m sure you could continue to lengthen the list of things of why people don’t achieve financial liberty. It reminds me of the Arizona desert wasp. It’s an insect that digs a hole in the ground and builds a subterranean dwelling. Its process for gathering food is to venture outside its dwelling to find nourishment. Once it has found its meal it brings it to the mouth of its cave. It leaves the food at the entrance to go look for predators inside its home first. Once it has deemed its home environment safe, it returns to the entrance and grabs its food.

A scientist followed these wasps around for two years observing and taking notes. The scientist did an experiment of moving the food while the wasp was inside. The results were interesting. The wasp would come out see the food was moved, grab the food, and complete its safety ritual again. The scientist kept doing this over and over. The wasp literally dies of starvation with food in its mouth.
There is opportunity everywhere for everyone in every avenue of work or profession. You have go getters that will seize it and people complaining about being victims. I think you mentioned you played D & D before; everyone is their own dungeon master. Tell me your profession and I could formulate at least 10 ways to be financially successful at it.

Does it require thinking out of the box? Yes. Does it require risk? Yes-

Is failure possible? Yes-

Would you eventually succeed if your intention of doing so was 100%?

Will do you have the ability to be a millionaire at some point in your life?

Perhaps, but with that kind of thinking . . . they never will.


I don’t know who Flava Flav is. Trump was rich before the TV shows, and you know that. Many of todays wealthy have lost their fortunes and regained them over and over again because they were willing to take risks. The beginning of any company is built on risk. Anywhere you go for services or products is a company that at one time didn’t exist. Someone took the initiative and risk to become an entrepreneur and provide them to you.

The fact that you would take financial advice from a hobo over Trump really speaks volumes and sums it up well.


GROUP and INDIVIDUAL . . . hmmm . . . refer to the video clip below. Yes, there are assholes out there. There are also good people.


I’m not getting confused about the issue. I started working when I was 13. I lied about my age for employment. I have worked some of the most disgusting, grueling, kick in the ass kind of jobs out there. Really think about the elements you have stated here.

Maybe the person is lazy. Maybe they are doing this for short term. Maybe this is what the person (thinks) their fullest potential is. People who do those jobs may move on to bigger and better things but that crappy job remains.

OK- So what’s your point? What is stopping the toilet cleaner from starting their own toilet cleaning company and have other toilet cleaners working for them? What’s stopping the toilet cleaner from becoming a brain surgeon? Who is going to be more successful: the person that finds all the reasons they can’t do something or the person that doesn’t take no for answer.


OMG. (I know you don’t believe in God- just an expression) I hate the Bushes, but what your saying here . . . .

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

With libertarianism you can do whatever you want with your money. If you want to provide opportunities for your children you can do so. What if, however, you don't want to provide for your children? If you were a dead-beat parent, unwilling to pay for your offspring, should the state have the right to force you or should you have the freedom to choose what to do with your hard earned money?

You seem to have the wrong idea about who gets into college. If you're lazy and/or have poor grades, the only way you're going to college is going to a crappy school or having your parents make a donation. No lazy people are going to college on your dime. You're infuriated because you're not as familiar with the system as you think. If any of your loans were government loans, then you went to school on my dime. I'm cool with that because I see the economic benefit of having a better educated work force to compete with the international markets... especially considering that the US has such low education stats.

Supple Cow

But life is a fixed game. There is no such thing as equalizing it - only applying reverse fixes, which almost always does more to cause new problems than to fix the old ones. This statement about unfixing the game seems to be based on the premise that all people should have equal privileges instead of the more reasonable expectation that people should have the same rights.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Willravel

It's the same principle. The property belonged to a group of individuals for the benefit of the group.
Yes and no. I hoped to make a profit, but I entered into the agreement with the shared understanding that we would rent at a lower rate than the market average, which was somewhat more altruistic. Yes, I wanted to make a profit, but I also wanted to help people. I like to have my cake and share it too.
My statement stands. There are people with all the ability and drive in the world, who work very hard, harder than those around them, and they still can fail. It is fantasy to assume that someone who works smart and harder will absolutely succeed. This is a fantasy that's common among libertarians.
You weren't watching Trump in the 90s, I take it. Did you know that in 1994, the Donald had about $900m in personal debt and about $3.5b in business debt? It took massive bailouts (something libertarians don't like) and selling off of most of his empire to dig himself out of his horrible decisions. His luck really started turning around when he started to appear in media. A combination of his TV career and some lucky investments (hotels in Hawaii and Chicago) managed to prop him back up for the moment. Still, if you've watched his TV show you can see that he is not the keen business mind he once was. I'd love to meet with the Trump of the 70s and 80s. He's not in that position anymore because of his poor business decisions.
Massive hyperbole.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 09 : 30 : 26-----
It's luck of the draw, not fixed. I could get a straight flush or I could get nothing. That's completely out of our hands, but the idea that everyone is competing is horrible. If everyone is looking to win, than there will be big winners and equally there will be big losers. What's the harm in seeking to reduce the extremes in each direction? I'd gladly prevent multi-billionaires if it meant no more homeless people.
Does it do more harm? Can you demonstrate that?

Sun Tzu

When you have profit gains it provides you with the ability you may have not had before- helping people. Profit. Think about that word and what it means.

Mine stands as well. I lived it and continue live it. Perhaps if I hadnt already tasted freedom I would be content living in the Netherlands. As far as it being as fantasy-

Alex Rogan: I cant be a Starfighter, Im just a stupid kid from a trailer park.

Lot man: If thats what you think, then thats all your ever going to be.


Remind me to never go to your lemonade stand.

Yeah I watched him- and watch him. Im not seeing what your seeing, but then again youd rather go to a hobo for advice.


OK OK you have me there. We are not that advanced in space travel.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

Profit is individual in libertarianism. It's shared in other economic theories and in real life.
So because you managed to do well all driven and capable people should? Is that reasonable? A lot of my success depended on good luck. I worked hard to earn my scholarships and grants, of course, but others did as well. Many of them were not so fortunate and had to either borrow or go to a less expensive school.
I work within the capitalist system just fine.
You may not understand what homeless means. It doesn't necessarily mean crazy or stupid or incapable. Charles Sanders Peirce was homeless (if you don't recognize names like Flavor Flav or Charles Sanders Peirce, google them). Actually, William Shatner was homeless once, too.

jorgelito

Will, for starters, you can read up on it here for a basic reading. Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I suggest getting "Libertarianism: A Primer" by John Boaz from the libarary.

However, Libertarianism is as broad and diverse as Democrats and Republicans are. which is why typing and labels are not constructive. For example: I am a conservative environmentalist libertarian globalist.
Go figure. Didn't you used to claim being a Libertarian?

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

Willravel

That was before I understood the term (which is my own fault). It turns out I was never really a libertarian.

Supple Cow

Was there ever a question as to how you got into the college you went to, as if perhaps you were only there because of Affirmative Action? I sure know what's that's like and I bet a lot of other non-white people have experienced something similar in their lifetime.

For a more general example, there's the whole social security disaster: to be plain, it's not a sustainable system. Do you think it is? Would you feel better leaving your elderly mother in the hands of a public healthcare system funded by your tax dollars (double or triple the taxes you pay now)? Do you see how you would be achieving the same goal and probably doing a better job of it by having that money to save and invest yourself?

For the elderly who do not have family members to help care for them, do you think there aren't people out there who are just like you who would like to see them cared for? That is why nonprofits and charities exist - because people care.

Do you think that the existence of kind and caring slaveowners made slavery a good system? It sure made those lucky slaves happier and helped them to live in better conditions unlike those poor free blacks up North who had that all pesky discrimination to deal with in trying to find work and places to live. I am not saying that not adopting Libertarian ideas will lead to slavery again; I guess I'm just confused why you're arguing that people should be less free and most especially because you're doing it in a way that makes it sound like "bad" and "happy" are not completely relative terms.

From reading your arguments, it seems like you are convinced that Libertarians are all out to fuck everybody else in their own self interest. First of all, the amount of wealth and opportunity on this planet are not fixed the way our natural resources are. To act like they are is silly. Think of how many new jobs were created when computers were invented, and then the internet... I mean, a friend of mine is going off to grad school to study video game design--a master's degree in VIDEO GAMES. Just think that one over for a minute.

If someone can do that, I have a hard time seeing how one can believe that there is a limited supply of jobs for people, especially at the rate technology is being developed.

Second, a lot of Libertarian ideas (for me anyway) are about using smarter tools (systems) for achieving the values I hold. You and I may not agree on everything, but I think we can both agree that fewer people going hungry or suffering without medical care is a good thing. I just happen to see a different and, I think, better way of getting there; I believe that liberty is a prerequisite for equality. By giving true liberty to every individual, we can stop robbing people of their victories (both a rich man's profits and a non-white student's accolades) and a more true equality would result than in a system where the majority of people are either being punished for their success or having their sense of agency and self-confidence taken from them, leaving them to be less and less equipped to survive in a competitive world.

As it is now, the systems we have in place in our democratic republic encourage the bad behavior of the elite (not that I excuse them) and discourage poor, minority people from taking ownership of their good ideas and talents, setting them up for failure in the long term. Could you be where you are in your life if you believed that nothing you did was solely the fruit of your talents or that somehow deep inside, your ideas and anything you produced were somehow inferior because you had help in getting to where you are?

I think it's this last part that makes liberty ring so true for me. I don't have any statistics or studies to back it up, but I have a hard time imagining anyone ever convincing me that there is such a thing as a successful (by any measure) AND fulfilled person who made it through life without a sense of agency and self-confidence. The very nature of collectivist and authoritarian governance takes those most precious things away from the people who can withstand it the least - those who were dealt less comfort and security in this life than the Jenna Bushes.

I also don't understand why you seem to think that 'competition' is such a dirty word. The root, competare, means 'to strive together'. Despite the popular connotation involving breaking down others in order to build yourself up, a more literal interpretation means that everybody strives together (as in at the same time) to be their personal best. Competition is how humans and all of life as we know it on this planet evolved and it is how we will continue to evolve, even as a society. Libertarians (the smart ones anyway) don't wish to live as islands. They just understand the conditions in which human life is best able to thrive.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Willravel

I'm kinda white, so affirmative action never applied to me. Also I went to college during the Bush administration, long after most places had dismissed AA as a bad idea. And it was a bad idea. People being accepted because of skin color is silly. People being accepted because they're gifted and capable but don't have the monetary means for higher education is friggin awesome (and it's why I was able to attend a private college).
Actually, SS can be repaired and can continue on. So long as conservatives keep their hands off it. Look at SS (and the budget for that matter) under Clinton. He made it a priority and it was greatly improved. Had Bush continued on with Clinton's plans SS wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now.

As for health care, we have one of the worst systems of all the industrialized nations. It's great if you're upper middle class, but for everyone else it's either a gamble or a dream. Compare that to all of our socialized friends. As I've said, France pays less and gets better health care. It's real world proof, not economic theory.

As for donations... there's simply no way to replace SS with donations.
Slavery is the extreme opposite of freedom, but it's also not equality so I don't see how it applies here.
Not at all, however I doubt there's anyone who could argue that libertarianism is altruistic or selfless.
There are plenty of jobs... but more and more of them are low income. I could get any one of a million jobs if I only had a high school diploma and maybe some college, but could I get one that pays enough for me to not live paycheck to paycheck?
Yes, but my way is supported by real world examples. Yours is supported by economic theory. Which is more viable evidence? Even the US medical system in the 70s and 80s, in the glory days before horrible government intervention, was a much poorer system than you can find in France today.
I'm not advocating a free ride for lazy people. I'm talking about providing opportunities for those who are trying to help themselves.
I had nothing but scholarships and grants paying my way through school. I still earned the grades, though. Do you think that diminishes my sense of accomplishment? Not one bit.
In competition, someone has to lose. I prefer to think of us as one vast group, and that our group is all the better for working together for common goals and to help one another. I don't want anyone to lose and I see no reason why they should.

Cynthetiq

that's a bunch of crap. paycheck to paycheck? A good portion of America lives paycheck to paycheck and they don't make minimum wage. Living paycheck to paycheck is a lifestyle that is not sustainable. They live above their means. All the disposable income is eaten up by living larger than they should, but that is a choice. Every time they got a raise or a promotion they increased their lifestyle. I drive a Neon not for any other reason than practicality of lifestyle. It doesn't make sense to own a depreciating asset that sits most of the week/month. In the same time I have owned the car some of my very good friends have bought and sold at least 3 vehicles.

Again, I'll point to the masses of immigrants who remit BILLIONS of dollars back to their homeland as an example to those that seemt to eek out some savings.

I have no college degree, I work in corporate job with good salary because I worked harder than the next guy. I've also lost jobs and promotions because someone worked harder than me, that may mean they completed college and have a degree, or even just technical certifications. It's a competitive job market, if I want to continue to survive in it. I have to be better than the next guy. If I don't or am not, I will lose my next opportunity to someone better than me.

Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper Into Debt

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - My husband and I made $110,000 last year, but we still live paycheck to paycheck. How can we stop doing that?

Ask the Expert: Living paycheck to paycheck - Mar. 12, 2004

gee, how come they aren't ahead yet they are making 6 figure salaries????

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

What portion is that?
Do you think that most people who don't live with their parents that make minimum wage life paycheck to paycheck? These were the people to which I was referring.
They live in squalor here in the US because it's better than the third world. I lived in squalor for a while. It's not a lot of fun having to skip dinner because there's not enough money for food. BTW, how much is actually remitted by guest workers? Is it really billions? Is that billions a year? How many guest workers are there in the US?
Do you think anyone who makes less than you works harder than you? Yes or no would be preferred.

Cynthetiq

I can't find a proper statistic for the paycheck to paycheck it varies from 25%-75%. Why is the economy in the toilet now? Because everyone got used to everyone else spending more than they could afford on a REGULAR basis. People took out loans, and borrowed against equity... this isn't rocket science.

I guess you couldn't read the earlier posts I've made, in 2007 Filipinos and Mexicans remitted $40 BILLION.

No will, I'm not saying someone else who earns less than me isn't working as hard. I'll tell you if they aren't increasing their skillsets by degree or specialization, then yes, they aren't working as hard. In comparison to just other IT workers, if I am not learning another technology then I am not working as hard as I possibly can to continue to better myself.

I guess there's no comment about the "My husband and I made $110,000 last year, but we still live paycheck to paycheck. How can we stop doing that?" because it is not endemic to poor people. It is something that happens to people who have no idea how to budget and spend money. It's no simpler than that.

Again, $40B remitted by Filipinos and Mexicans. People who aren't making large salaries seem to know and understand how to budget their money.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 01 : 47 : 27-----
further, I don't know why you are surprised if someone calls bullshit on something. Bullshit is bullshit plain and simple. Stop with the feign expressionless crap and either state what you have to state as opinion or fact, that's it. Pretty simple. I'm happy to admit something as fact or opinion. I could easily pawn it off on you to say, "Look it up, just google it" but that's not your responsibility.

Living paycheck to paycheckomg - CNN.com
Careerbuilder is a pretty skewed resource since, they are only going to be surveying people with computers and internet access.

Paycheck to paycheck: Make your dollars stretch further - Dec. 14, 2006
Do you live paycheck to paycheck? | ItsYourTimes.com

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Without a proper statistic, it's probably not a good idea to throw out guesses, even if they are as broad as 25-75%. I would assume it's somewhere between 0-100%.
So you're saying that the only reason the American dollar is tanking, that people are in more financial trouble, is because people spend more than they make? That seems a somewhat incomplete analysis.
I did, but the information isn't complete. How many of the Filipinos and Mexicans in the statistic are here legally and as such would have every right to do whatever they please with their hard earned money? How many people are there? If there are 80 million, then that's only $500 per person per year, which isn't that much considering that minimum wage here in California (where most of the Mexican and Filipino workers settle) is about $12,000 a year after taxes. Like I said, we'd need more information to get a clear picture of what this all means.
Let us say there is someone who is working as hard as you and also is seeking out every opportunity to improve skills and marketability. The point is that even when someone does everything right they can still end up losing.
That seems off subject so I chose to leave it alone, especially considering I explained it:
This is surprise: , this is me simply ignoring a poor debate tactic (like using a completely vague and mildly inflammatory descriptive term like "bullshit"):

"I disagree" or "This isn't correct" (followed by evidence/a good argument) would communicate more clearly what you were thinking, and it wouldn't be even remotely hostile.

Cynthetiq

Again, if you read my quotes, the remittance is WORLDWIDE. It is not just what is paid from just the US. It is total sent back to the countries. Filipinos are not just working the USA, again, those living in UAE sent $.5B back to the Philippines in 2007.

If you'd like to parse it further, you are more than welcome to. It doesn't matter because again, they pay to house, feed, and transport themselves to and from their job. Somehow they send back all this money. I'm not interested in that kind of analysis paralysis. See you'd rather pull my source and statistic apart rather than back your opinion up with facts or sources. Instead, you'll say that you can't tell how many people are remitting the money. That's a load of crap since you are just saying plainly, "most people who don't live with their parents that make minimum wage life paycheck to paycheck? These were the people to which I was referring" Well, how many are there who are living with their parents? Can you tell? How many people are you talking about? 10? 100,000? Millions? Or you just speaking in phantoms of "Well, I think that there are some... because that's what I believe?"

The amount remitted is fact enough that people making wages are able to save money. It means that money is being saved from low wages to high wages, since a good number Filipino workers are in the support medical profession (nurses, phlebotomists, lab workers) to also housekeeping and childrearing.

It is simple two line budgeting. Since you are well versed in economics, you should understand this: your expenses should never be more than your income. Write down your income on line 1. Write down your income on line 2. Subtracte line 2 from line 1. If line 2 exceeds line 1 you are spending more than you earn and will become saddle with debt.

I'm not a hostile person, I am frank and to the point. I speak my mind and speak it fairly. You may find it hostile, and that's your baggage that you bring to the table, not me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I know to not spend more than I earn, but what if I lost my job? I have about a year's worth to sit on while I work my ass off to find a job, but what if my next job is only $36k a year? $24k? What if my income dips below the point where I can realistically cut spending? I don't think I could live on $12k a year even with extreme budgeting. If I lived with many room mates in the worst place imaginable, ate nothing but the cheapest food, walked to and from work and the store.... and what if I had a wife and several children to support on that amount? It'd be easier if they lived in an impoverished nation where the USD still had value, but if they were here in the US making sure they were fed and clothed could become very difficult.

Is this probable? Not yet, but unemployment and low paying jobs are on the rise even here in the SF bay area. If the USD continues to fall, gas continues to rise, and unemployment and low paying jobs continue to grow I could find myself having to relocate to a different country in order to keep from being impoverished. Oddly enough I'd be more likely to find decent work in more socialist (relatively) countries like Canada, Japan, and many European countries.

Cynthetiq

I don't know what you could do Will. I can say that you probably cannot get work in Canada, Japan, or many European countries unless you already have a work visa. I've been trying to get expatriated for over 10 years now and still haven't been able to. It isn't that simple as deciding to move. Do you really believe that any country will just allow someone to waltz in and take a well paying job from a countryman?

As far as the unemployment, low paying jobs, etc. I can only tell you what I did for me.

I originally filled this with lots of detailed personal history, but suffice to say since 2001 I've been laid off several times, hospitalized, and had other "rainy days."

Yet with all this strife and layoffs, I've done what was required of me, which is spend less than I earn and try to maximize my earnings in some fashion.

In comparison to other friends who were struck by the same layoffs, they have not recovered their salaries, they took paycuts and remained with the cuts they took. Some didn't even take jobs that would have tied them over claiming something like,"I'll lose more if I take this job than what the state will give met..." Meanwhile they lost their house, their cars, their credit rating. One friend filed for bankruptcy because he could no longer afford to pay the credit cards that fueled his continued lifestyle after getting laid off.

I'm sorry Will, I can't be worried about how the guys in NYCHA projects are making ends meet. I have to worry about how I'm going to pay my monthly bills and take care of my own family first before I worry about someone else. Once that's covered, I'll extend myself to help another person. But like they say on the airplane, "Put the mask on yourself first, before assisting someone else." There is some simple logic there that makes sense.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Supple Cow

So you think that the person who makes $100,000 a year loses because there is someone who makes $300,000 a year? You think that the silver medalist in the Olympics loses because she doesn't win the gold? Really? I find that hard to believe. My whole point was that people are different. You always felt the pride of your accomplishments perhaps because you've never had anyone look at you like you don't deserve to be somewhere because of your skin color or gender. Yes, I am suggesting that that happens. Yes, I already said that it happened to me. In your world view, people are only able to be equal AND actually have the tools to help themselves only if that doesn't happen. In my world view, people are different and some mindless collective doesn't make decisions that are supposedly best for everyone. People who have the same interests can band together to meet their needs.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Sun Tzu

I didn’t mean to sound arrogant and assuming. The thought I was trying to convey was it’s my opinion that so many people out there will never realize their potential. The main culprit is the programs they carry with them (another thread)- referring to the desert wasp analogy. I think many people don’t seize the opportunity that is present in abundance. It was also not my intention to sound as though I am above anyone; like I said my college era racked up $70,000 of DEBT and that was after using the GI Bill.

When you say fortunate I think of fortune. It’s my belief we make our own fortunes regardless of the circumstances. Watch the movie “In Pursuit of Happiness”. I have a friend who was struggling with debt and then on a simple idea zip pots :: Story he is set for life. With the experience I have had traveling and living in other countries I truly don’t believe there is anywhere that provides the opportunity for innovation, creativity, and realization of potential as the US. If you have read any of the threads I did in paranoia you would know that I firmly believe that there are some very serious issues hanging over us. But I was always happy to come back. I’m not knocking the people you mention who you view as less fortunate. I see their misfortune in them not tapping into the very essence that would change the circumstances that make them unhappy.

Again my verbiage was poor wording. I didn’t mean to suggest you didn’t know what you were doing in a free market system. I know you are intelligent and able, so I apologize for coming across like that. What I meant was you seem to put up obstacles against yourself, just as I believe many do. The old expression of taking lemons and making lemonade- meaning your lemonade would be sour from self defeating thinking. Not from lack of ability, but vision. It’s also an occasional problem of mine to fall short in respecting different people have different visions. So who am I to knock the methods in which you gathered and processed the information your foundation is built upon. The problem for me is, depending on who becomes president; the vision can greatly affect me in what I view as negative. But the name of the game is overcoming obstacles.

If you have the time- read this book: it’s easy reading and free. Written in 1937: Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. There is also a challenge to implement the philosophies and prove him wrong. For someone result orientated and proof based it would be right up your alley. If I knew you personally, I would issue you the very same challenge because I’m confident what the result would be.
Download Think and Grow Rich - Audio & PDF Formats Available
A couple of things we agree on. As far as opportunities for those trying to help themselves: did they try starting here Small Business Administration ?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking