Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
libertarians are just wanna be anarchists
I tend to lean libertarian, and in no way shape or form do I approve of anarchy.
So I'd have to disagree with you there.
Well, you're not a full Libertarian. Libertarians are slightly confusing because they rally against large government and regulations and infringements of liberty yet still call for a government to exist and governments cant exist without force and well you see the paradox. It's like they want to be anarchists but don't have faith in the human race to coexist.
Regulations should be a means, not an end. Their biggest problem is that they are written by bureaucrats with their own agendas and are not subject to approval by voters or their elected representatives.
As far as minimizing income disparity, I believe North Korea is the leader in that category. Is it better for a country to have a median annual income of $30,000 with less income disparity or $50,000 with more income disparity? Would we be better off without Microsoft?
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.
"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is or used to be the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Cato's Mission | Cato Institute
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.
"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is or used to be the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Cato's Mission | Cato Institute
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom.
"Liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina tend to be supporters of human rights and free markets but its meaning has clearly been altered in the contemporary United States.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is or used to be the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.
Cato's Mission | Cato Institute
Are you capable of expressing a single original thought in a cogent manner?
I explain my own politics.
I explain my own politics.
I just like to share Cato's explaination of how convoluted and mired in PC_ness politics in America has become. For this topic I'd say the biggest problem has been that the regulated have become the regulators.
Fox and the Henhouse.
Or is that someone elses idea?
I explain my own politics.
I just like to share Cato's explaination of how convoluted and mired in PC_ness politics in America has become. For this topic I'd say the biggest problem has been that the regulated have become the regulators.
Fox and the Henhouse.
Or is that someone elses idea?
Government = regulation
You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility.
There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above.
The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny.
So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.
the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country.
You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility.
There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above.
The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny.
So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.
I find myself in a quandry.
I am not one for posting short posts to respond to really stupid stuff. However, were I to write a proper response to your post, it would have to be almost of book length.
So I will post a link to a book instead, and strongly suggest you read it, you foolish, foolish, foolish person: BARNES & NOBLE | The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition by F. A. Hayek | Paperback, Hardcover, Audiobook[/url]
How quickly we forget the utter defeat and failure of Keynesian economics the world learned just two decades ago...
You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility.
There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above.
The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny.
So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.
I find myself in a quandry.
I am not one for posting short posts to respond to really stupid stuff. However, were I to write a proper response to your post, it would have to be almost of book length.
So I will post a link to a book instead, and strongly suggest you read it, you foolish, foolish, foolish person: BARNES & NOBLE | The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition by F. A. Hayek | Paperback, Hardcover, Audiobook[/url]
How quickly we forget the utter defeat and failure of Keynesian economics the world learned just two decades ago...
So since you lack the ability to refute the idea that regulations are a benefit you refer me to Hayek? There is a penalty society pays for poverty and not having welfare and that is more crime and more poverty. Welfare helps and so does regulations.
I find myself in a quandry.
I am not one for posting short posts to respond to really stupid stuff. However, were I to write a proper response to your post, it would have to be almost of book length.
So I will post a link to a book instead, and strongly suggest you read it, you foolish, foolish, foolish person: BARNES & NOBLE | The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition by F. A. Hayek | Paperback, Hardcover, Audiobook[/url]
How quickly we forget the utter defeat and failure of Keynesian economics the world learned just two decades ago...
So since you lack the ability to refute the idea that regulations are a benefit you refer me to Hayek? There is a penalty society pays for poverty and not having welfare and that is more crime and more poverty. Welfare helps and so does regulations.
Who is against regulations? You're the one implying we're anarchists.
There are things the government shouldn't have control over. A lot of things in fact. But that doesn't mean we want to get rid of the government entirely.
