Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

So "free" that they built walls and guard towers to keep people on the east side of Berlin.

 

[TNHarley]

Why is wanting proof such a taboo subject for you?

spare me your little dance. If you wanted proof, you would go look it up. You don't want proof. You want to remain ignorant, because you prefer your stupid little fetish over the truth.

I have never seen proof. I have seen models, people filling in holes with "man" and reality denial.

 

[kaz]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..

Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...

Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.

Been here before. As an official party delegate and on panels. You don't NEED violence to run a country by the consent of the governed. You just need more CHOICES on the ballot and more open debates.

Violence happens when govts are HIJACKED by parties. In reality, the LParty doesn't EXIST to be a party. And has no intention of using violence either in administering govt.

What about the court systems? Is that govt violence to you? Prisons?

The Libertarian Party is way too much party. It has endless litmus/purity tests like the Democrat party.

Sure, it's a better party than the other parties, but it's too much party

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

 

[Tehon]

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

So "free" that they built walls and guard towers to keep people on the east side of Berlin.

Marx did that?

 

[kaz]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

The founding fathers were classic liberals, which means libertarian in today's terminology. What in your mind is the difference between a small government libertarian and the Constitution as written? I don't see one

The interstate commerce clause, for one thing.

The Interstate commerce clause of today isn't what the founding fathers wrote. They wanted to prevent the States from implementing trade barriers between each other, so they gave the US legislature the power to strike down State restrictions like tariffs between States. It was leftists who later turned restrictions on government into powers of government, not the founding fathers

 

[Oddball]

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

The oxymoronic "fair tax" is itself moronic...The very notion that the feds should be laying a direct 18% (or more) tax on anything is fucking despotic.

If the federal leviathan is that immense, then it needs to be drastically reduced...Finding a "fairer" way to keep feeding it is the height of stupidity, and as un-libertarian as you can get.

 

[kaz]

It is and always was spent as it came in. It's a pure tax and redistribute scheme like any other welfare program

And an excellent one at that! It's underrated and under-funded... of course it's hard to give a shit, when you don't need it. But boy oh boy do we need it. Oh, we'll learn the hard way. Our kids more so than us.

Yes, comrade. You like getting checks of other people's money. Hail Marx!

 

[kaz]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

The founding fathers were classic liberals, which means libertarian in today's terminology. What in your mind is the difference between a small government libertarian and the Constitution as written? I don't see one

Im not much on collectives, really. And i certainly dont agree with some of their views. I am probably closer to them than other parties but...
Like when gary johnson said his dream is for semi trucks to pass each other on the border at 55mph and wave. Or something like that.
As long as this world is the way it is, i will strongly support our borders and the concept of a Nation.

Three issues that are not good tests of libertarians are the war on terror, illegal immigration and abortion. There are good libertarians on both sides of each of those issues. I'm with the majority of libertarians on the war on terror (against it) and abortion (pro-choice). But I totally oppose illegal immigration.

And BTW, Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian

 

[kaz]

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

The oxymoronic "fair tax" is itself moronic...The very notion that the feds should be laying a direct 18% (or more) tax on anything is fucking despotic.

If the federal leviathan is that immense, then it needs to be drastically reduced...Finding a "fairer" way to keep feeding it is the height of stupidity, and as un-libertarian as you can get.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The Fair Tax is a replacement for our tax system. The point is to separate how we tax and what we spend it on. All taxes other than the death tax are built into the price of the products we buy. It is one flat tax rather than a gazillion contorted taxes on the same thing.

Cutting spending is a separate topic, and I totally agree with you on that.

BTW, welcome back! I haven't seen you for a long time. You always were a quality poster

 

[Oddball]

You're mixing apples and oranges. The Fair Tax is a replacement for our tax system. The point is to separate how we tax and what we spend it on. All taxes other than the death tax are built into the price of the products we buy. It is one flat tax rather than a gazillion contorted taxes on the same thing.

Cutting spending is a separate topic, and I totally agree with you on that.

BTW, welcome back! I haven't seen you for a long time. You always were a quality poster

Oooo...Cut out the colon cancer and replace it with lung cancer...BRILLIANT!

PS: Thanks.

 

[kaz]

You're mixing apples and oranges. The Fair Tax is a replacement for our tax system. The point is to separate how we tax and what we spend it on. All taxes other than the death tax are built into the price of the products we buy. It is one flat tax rather than a gazillion contorted taxes on the same thing.

Cutting spending is a separate topic, and I totally agree with you on that.

BTW, welcome back! I haven't seen you for a long time. You always were a quality poster

Oooo...Cut out the colon cancer and replace it with lung cancer...BRILLIANT!

PS: Thanks.

You're still conflating different issues. How we collect taxes is a different discussion than how much we should spend (and thereby tax)

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

That's an oxymoron.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

As long as it’s all voluntary, go for it.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
Karl Marx-The German Ideology

I’m guessing you’ve got to be under 30. Growing up near the end of the Cold War Era, I never thought I’d hear people talking like this again.

Don’t mistake this for a commentary about the merit of your position; just a personal note. I don’t care about people’s economic preferences. All I care about is that they don’t leverage the power of government to force it on anyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Marxism, in practice, is rooted in compulsion. Implementing Marxist schemes without compulsion is like trying to go swimming without getting wet.

 

[Oddball]

You're still conflating different issues. How we collect taxes is a different discussion than how much we should spend (and thereby tax)

I'm confusing nothing...Theft is theft, no matter what nouveau, fancy, benign-sounding name you give it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear."

Actually when I think anarchy my first thought is usually of the WWI and the anarchist who is said to have started it. It doesn't appear that he freed anybody.
Frankly I would argue that humans have changed very little in the last 2,000 yrs. and not necessarily for the better.
There are always lines of authority if there is a group humans. Goes with the territory. Like it? Don't like it? Doesn't matter; it is what it is. The only way to avoid it is to avoid other humans. Ask any married man.

 

[bripat9643]

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

The oxymoronic "fair tax" is itself moronic...The very notion that the feds should be laying a direct 18% (or more) tax on anything is fucking despotic.

If the federal leviathan is that immense, then it needs to be drastically reduced...Finding a "fairer" way to keep feeding it is the height of stupidity, and as un-libertarian as you can get.

How is the FAIR tax any worse than the income tax or federal excise taxes?

 

[Oddball]

How is the FAIR tax any worse than the income tax or federal excise taxes?

How is brain cancer better or worse than lung cancer?

 

[kaz]

You're still conflating different issues. How we collect taxes is a different discussion than how much we should spend (and thereby tax)

I'm confusing nothing...Theft is theft, no matter what nouveau, fancy, benign-sounding name you give it.

Ah, so you're an anarchist. You're no more like an actual libertarian who wants to maximize liberty than a Marxist is. Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive

 

[Oddball]

How is the FAIR tax any worse than the income tax or federal excise taxes?

To answer the excise tax; that is a one-time charge on a specific thing to pay for a specific service...Though out on the very margin of efficiency and intellectual justifiability, it's still a coercive justification for a state that has run out of justification for existence, IMO, in the first place.