The End Of Libertarianism?

[Skull Pilot]

Okay...show me you tax scheme.

Bear in mind that we've got to pay our current obligations.

OK Ed when i have a few hours to type up a proposal, I'll get it right out to you.

Like I've got nothing better to do right now.

 

[Diuretic]

This is incorrect, as I've pointed out numerous times.

Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage



Let's look at it logically. Some people expect the government to take care of them for their entire lives. The government does nothing to earn it's own money, so it taxes the citizens. We can therefore conclude that in order to take care of those who have no desire to take care of themselves, the government must take money from those who do make something out of themselves and give it to those who are far less deserving.

Not to mention that we can't afford to regardless, being around $10 trillion in debt.

Your debt can be sheeted home to incompetent government.

But back to the point. If you see government as being a ruler and separate from society then naturally you will have a hostile view of government process. If you see government as being an expression of the will of society then you'll have a more benign view of government. We pay taxes so our government (regardless of which camp we happen to be in) can function for the benefit of our society generally.

There might be some space there to discuss the function of government without getting all academic and confusing, anyway that's just a thought.

 

[elvis]

Your debt can be sheeted home to incompetent government.

But back to the point. If you see government as being a ruler and separate from society then naturally you will have a hostile view of government process. If you see government as being an expression of the will of society then you'll have a more benign view of government. We pay taxes so our government (regardless of which camp we happen to be in) can function for the benefit of our society generally.

There might be some space there to discuss the function of government without getting all academic and confusing, anyway that's just a thought.

when the government's actions do not reflect the wants of the masses, it becomes clear they are separate from most society, at least to me. power centers don't just give up power, they have to be manipulated into giving it up. they must be held accountable. trust in government leads to tyranny. i don't believe, at least in the US, that our tax dollars generally benefit the society. and it's not limited to one party or the other.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your debt can be sheeted home to incompetent government.

But back to the point. If you see government as being a ruler and separate from society then naturally you will have a hostile view of government process. If you see government as being an expression of the will of society then you'll have a more benign view of government. We pay taxes so our government (regardless of which camp we happen to be in) can function for the benefit of our society generally.

There might be some space there to discuss the function of government without getting all academic and confusing, anyway that's just a thought.

That's the point though, the government doesn't represent the people anymore. As evidenced by the recent bailout, the unpopular war in Iraq, and by the President's and Congress' low approval ratings. You want to talk about taxes, well I say no taxation without representation.

 

[Paulie]

Show me a successful libertarian society.

Well, you have libertarianism with a lower case "l" which isn't so much of anarchism as it is personal liberty and little govt. intrusion. I'd say the US was pretty close to that for much of its first 100 years of existence.

I'd trade all our modern day trinkets in a heart beat to live in that society.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Well, you have libertarianism with a lower case "l" which isn't so much of anarchism as it is personal liberty and little govt. intrusion. I'd say the US was pretty close to that for much of its first 100 years of existence.

I'd trade all our modern day trinkets in a heart beat to live in that society.

Libertarianism has to do with the role of government. Basically that government has very limited roles and takes a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that essentially dictates that government has NO power unless EXPLICITLY and SPECIFICALLY granted to it under the constitution.

Under that notion almost all of the non-military domestic operations of the government are unconstitutional. In general the federal government's function is limited to national defense, establishing treaties, mint currency, law enforcement, maintain BASIC infrastructure and establishment of national standards (not dictating nor funding the means to meet those...). Those standards being basically the rules by which commerce is conducted. that's about it. Federal Gov't has no other real purposes.

 

[Diuretic]

when the government's actions do not reflect the wants of the masses, it becomes clear they are separate from most society, at least to me. power centers don't just give up power, they have to be manipulated into giving it up. they must be held accountable. trust in government leads to tyranny. i don't believe, at least in the US, that our tax dollars generally benefit the society. and it's not limited to one party or the other.

Trust in government leads to tyranny? Are you serious?

 

[Diuretic]

That's the point though, the government doesn't represent the people anymore. As evidenced by the recent bailout, the unpopular war in Iraq, and by the President's and Congress' low approval ratings. You want to talk about taxes, well I say no taxation without representation.

Bush had two terms, someone trusted him. But I take your point about the Congress. Maybe the model is broken?

 

[Diuretic]

Well, you have libertarianism with a lower case "l" which isn't so much of anarchism as it is personal liberty and little govt. intrusion. I'd say the US was pretty close to that for much of its first 100 years of existence.

I'd trade all our modern day trinkets in a heart beat to live in that society.

I bet you wouldn't if you sat and thought about it. I think you have an idea of the past that isn't congruent with reality. I don't mean that to sound snarky. Let me put it this way. If someone from US 1876 could swap places with someone in US 2008 (equal social status) then I think there would be two people fighting to say in US 2008.

 

[Diuretic]

Libertarianism has to do with the role of government. Basically that government has very limited roles and takes a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that essentially dictates that government has NO power unless EXPLICITLY and SPECIFICALLY granted to it under the constitution.

Under that notion almost all of the non-military domestic operations of the government are unconstitutional. In general the federal government's function is limited to national defense, establishing treaties, mint currency, law enforcement, maintain BASIC infrastructure and establishment of national standards (not dictating nor funding the means to meet those...). Those standards being basically the rules by which commerce is conducted. that's about it. Federal Gov't has no other real purposes.

Then the theory has no hope against the reality. May as well chuck the idea of libertarianism out, it's redundant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Trust in government leads to tyranny? Are you serious?

I would say that implicit trust in your government is extremely foolish.

Bush had two terms, someone trusted him. But I take your point about the Congress. Maybe the model is broken?

Well when he was running in 2000 he had a pretty good platform, he just abandoned the plan. As far as 2004, I don't know that John Kerry would have been any better. As far as Congress, it's not that the model is broken it's just that they forgot who they work for. The citizens of the United States were overwhelmingly against the bailout of wall street, and Congress thought they knew better. The problem is that they didn't.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Then the theory has no hope against the reality. May as well chuck the idea of libertarianism out, it's redundant.

Redundant? Is the price of rice in Botswana redundant?

 

[Diuretic]

I would say that implicit trust in your government is extremely foolish.



Well when he was running in 2000 he had a pretty good platform, he just abandoned the plan. As far as 2004, I don't know that John Kerry would have been any better. As far as Congress, it's not that the model is broken it's just that they forgot who they work for. The citizens of the United States were overwhelmingly against the bailout of wall street, and Congress thought they knew better. The problem is that they didn't.

Firstly, why am I extremely foolish to trust government? I'm not frightened of my government, I'm not wary of it. In truth I get bloody annoyed with them but since any federal government is only in for 3 years before facing election if I think they're acting up I'll vote for the other lot. But I don't distrust government. Yes, individual politicians can be terrible liars but the process itself is sound enough to trust.

If you suspect your Congress is captured by special interests you're probably right. While there are some admirable aspects to the almost total lack of party discipine in the US political system there are some drawbacks. An individual politician can be owned by special interests. In our system, with its absolute party discipline, the chances of that happening are remote. However I do suspect at that least one state government here is owned by special interests and it is in complete turmoil at the moment and will lose office next election. But individual politicians here just can't do deals with outsiders, the parties control them too strongly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Firstly, why am I extremely foolish to trust government? I'm not frightened of my government, I'm not wary of it. In truth I get bloody annoyed with them but since any federal government is only in for 3 years before facing election if I think they're acting up I'll vote for the other lot. But I don't distrust government. Yes, individual politicians can be terrible liars but the process itself is sound enough to trust.

If you suspect your Congress is captured by special interests you're probably right. While there are some admirable aspects to the almost total lack of party discipine in the US political system there are some drawbacks. An individual politician can be owned by special interests. In our system, with its absolute party discipline, the chances of that happening are remote. However I do suspect at that least one state government here is owned by special interests and it is in complete turmoil at the moment and will lose office next election. But individual politicians here just can't do deals with outsiders, the parties control them too strongly.

Implicit trust in government will make the government think they can do whatever they want, the citizens must always be wary and watch over their government. Our current administration has gone further beyond it's Constitutional constraints more than any other administration in history. They've expanded their power, destroyed civil liberties, imposed their will around the globe through military force.

The government must always be restrained by it's people, or they will eventually lose their liberty.

 

[elvis]

Trust in government leads to tyranny? Are you serious?

was Thomas Jefferson serious?

 

[Diuretic]

Implicit trust in government will make the government think they can do whatever they want, the citizens must always be wary and watch over their government. Our current administration has gone further beyond it's Constitutional constraints more than any other administration in history. They've expanded their power, destroyed civil liberties, imposed their will around the globe through military force.

The government must always be restrained by it's people, or they will eventually lose their liberty.

What are you - collectively - doing about it then?

 

[Diuretic]

was Thomas Jefferson serious?

At times he probably was, but do you think he would see things the same way today? I mean the young nation had just wrested its freedom from the most powerful empire the world has known, so I suppose he was very wary of the power of government (but you also have to see his view of government as being naturally oppressive, given the times). But I think even Jefferson, as erudite a man as he was, would see government differently now - but that is a totally hypothetical position by me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What are you - collectively - doing about it then?

Letting as many people know as possible about limited government, and there are many liberty minded people running for Congress. B.J Lawson from North Carolina's 4th district for example. I'm also a member of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.

Campaign For Liberty — Home

At times he probably was, but do you think he would see things the same way today? I mean the young nation had just wrested its freedom from the most powerful empire the world has known, so I suppose he was very wary of the power of government (but you also have to see his view of government as being naturally oppressive, given the times). But I think even Jefferson, as erudite a man as he was, would see government differently now - but that is a totally hypothetical position by me.

I think he would absolutely see things the same way today. What's changed in the world that would change his mind? The American people are now under a more oppressive government than the one we broke away from in 1776, because we became complacent and let the federal government decide that it was very nearly all powerful.

 

[Diuretic]

Okay, all that accepted, but what is being done about it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay, all that accepted, but what is being done about it?

Well, as I said before, we've got Liberty candidates running for office all over the nation. They're, hopefully, going to try to fix the government from within. If you're waiting for me to say that a militia is forming to overthrow the government, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.