Sell me on Libertarianism...

Hello all, I hope this is the right place for this. Sorry if it isn't. I am 30 year old married working male with no kids. I am from a liberal background in a highly conservative area. My question is two fold really. I have taken that political test floating around ATS, and I seem to be a communist (lol?) but I am not so sure.

Question one where do I fit in? I hate abortion but don't believe the government has a right to stop someone from doing what they want to their bodies. I am opposed to the death penalty simply because I believe it is better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. I am pro gun, to the point that I believe gun safety should be taught in public schools. I am torn on isolationism, because our own house is collapsing and needs help, but even still I can't help but feel some responsibility to the citizens of the world who are suffering. I do not belief that American citizenship means you deserve food and shelter any more than someone born in a third world country. I do not believe the government should be able to control certain herbs which will not be discussed here, or what I do with those herbs. I believe in limiting campaign contributions and keeping government out of personal life as much as possible.

Where my liberalism comes in though, is I guess financially. Is it possible to be a social conservative but fiscal liberal? lol.. Glen Beck once said that it was immoral to take from those who have, to give to those who have not. This is where I just fundamentally can not be convinced. I am a believer in the society as a whole, working together for common good. I believe it takes a village to raise a child and that the sum is greater than the individual parts. I believe working together is the best way, even if working together has to be mandated. I believe that if someone is in need, and someone else can provide, that is indeed immoral NOT to take from those that have and give to the have not. We as human beings are not individuals but a collective. An injury to one, is an injury to all. I am my brothers keeper and have no shame in being such. I believe GOOD government can offer great solutions to problems. Just stay out of my bedroom and personal life.

So my request I guess, is sell me on being libertarian. Convince me that I am wrong that I believe it is wrong for the 1% to sit high in their golden castles while the 99% outside are starving.

As a struggling lower middle class American, tell me WHY I should NOT vote for the guy (or lady) who is most likely to "give me stuff?" Even if you despise me or that question, if you want a pro-constitution pro-free market candidate to win something as high as the Presidency, its a question you MUST answer in this day and age.

How about I sell you on dropping all Isims...

This isn't sports,

Vote the candidate, on the actual issues, no matter their affiliation, its the first step to liberation.

Otherwise, its more of the same Team BS that got us here.

I've come to see the Libertarians coming closest to the 'mind your own business' political party that there is. I wouldn't 'pull the lever' and vote straight down a party line but instead vote for individuals ... but that of course is up to you.

a reply to: Anonex

1. Were you been happy with politics when Bush was President?
2. What about Obama?

Anything different is Bound to be better.

Picking the lesser of two evils is akin to insanity

Einstein once said, those who do the same thing but expect different results define insanity.

Voting for the same groups of shrubs is absolutely insane.

Voting for just a political party is not the answer.

The only way to create change is to do something different.

Vote solely based on on personal merits and accomplishments.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

a reply to: Anonex

The problem with the idea of the greater good and the sum being greater than the whole of the parts. Is that it then becomes justifiable to see the parts as interchangeable and expendable to the betterment of the whole. Individuality then because the enemy. You cannot be you if you gets in the way of the greater good of us, and every effort of society starts to become an effort to make you into us rather than into just letting you be you.

And when the goods of the whole become antithetical to the good of you, you will be sacrificed. I hope you are perfectly OK with this thought. A lot of people say they are, but then, they've never been an outlier before the might of the state. For example, you better hope you never become the victim of a rare disease because no matter how treatable it might be, if the state deems it too expensive or too difficult to treat you ... you will be allowed to suffer or expire rather than receiving that treatment. It's for the good of everyone else not to expend those resources on you.

You better hope that you are never an individual who wants to do your own thing. If you don't fit into the state-approved cubby for you, then you will be crushed until you either are forced to fit or are chewed up and spat out a ruin and someone else who is more accommodating to the needs of the state takes your place. And don't you dare ever aspire to more and better because it won't matter. The state gives you what you get and your own aspirations mean nothing. It is only the aspirations of the state that matter.

Why would you want to suffocate yourself so?

That's why I vote libertarian, or at least anti-socialist.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Anonex

1. Were you been happy with politics when Bush was President?
2. What about Obama?

Anything different is Bound to be better.

Let me answer 1 and 2. I was and am very unhappy with both. To me, Bush started two unjust wars, but ironically he did have a decent prescription drug plan for seniors. Bush also started all this droning and infringement upon civil liberties but Obama just expands it. I think there is reason for conern over our current privacy situation, but I think there is a little paranoia regarding things likfe Facebook. I support the ACA only because it is a "better than nothing" solution, and better than the Republican solution of "die of illness if you are too poor." I am disgusted with the Republican controlled House wasting so much time trying to repeal something that isn't going to be repealed. I voted for Obama because I wanted Guantanamo Bay closed, I wanted BOTH wars to end, and I wanted the rich to pay their fair share. At least with Bush I got the policies I expected.

originally posted by: shaneslaughta
Picking the lesser of two evils is akin to insanity

Einstein once said, those who do the same thing but expect different results define insanity.

Voting for the same groups of shrubs is absolutely insane.

Voting for just a political party is not the answer.

The only way to create change is to do something different.

Vote solely based on on personal merits and accomplishments.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's say hypothetically there was a candidate, of any party other than D or R that I supported 100%. What good would my vote do for someone that is going to likely get less than 1% of the vote? A libertarian that got even 25%, or even just 5% of the vote, would likely hand over the victory to Democrat. Is that what you all want? It really is a lesser of two evils decision, even if it should not be.

a reply to: Anonex

Whom do you think the RICH are what do you imagine is someone's fair share?

originally posted by: Anonex
As a struggling lower middle class American, tell me WHY I should NOT vote for the guy (or lady) who is most likely to "give me stuff?" Even if you despise me or that question, if you want a pro-constitution pro-free market candidate to win something as high as the Presidency, its a question you MUST answer in this day and age.

Ask yourself where they are going to get that "free stuff" they are promising to you. They are going to take it from somebody else. Most likely, your children and your children's children.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Anonex

Whom do you think the RICH are what do you imagine is someone's fair share?

I don't have the magic numbers. True Communism where everyone from janitors to doctors make the same is not the answer. I think something akin to the way Iceland, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland do things is probably best. Unbridled capitalism just leads to monopolies and starvation. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but I don't have the answer to who is rich and who isn't, that's a better question left to someone with more education than I.

a reply to: Anonex

Libertarianism: live and let live; military should only be used for national defense; no permanent allies; no pre-emptive strike; government has no right to contribute to or inhibit the economy; taxes should be a flat percentage (5% fed, 5% state) and across the board with no fluctuation, ever.

That sounds pretty sweet to me.

originally posted by: Anonex

Let's say hypothetically there was a candidate, of any party other than D or R that I supported 100%. What good would my vote do for someone that is going to likely get less than 1% of the vote? A libertarian that got even 25%, or even just 5% of the vote, would likely hand over the victory to Democrat. Is that what you all want? It really is a lesser of two evils decision, even if it should not be.

Well for starters.......STOP thinking like that. There lies a major part of the problem.

Ohh no, the liberals will only get a few votes so why bother.......kind of a self fulfilling prophesy isn't it?

Edit: Maybe that's not the best way to put it. But if everyone thinks with that train of thought then it surly will come to pass.

There are really only two political ideologies. The rest is just centrifugal bumble-puppy, an entrenched positive feedback loop used to prevent people through distractions from paying too much attention to the realities of their social and polit­ical situation.

lib·er·tar·i·an
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 :a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
1:favoring obedience or subjection to authority
2: a political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as subordinate to the power or authority of the state
3:exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Anonex
As a struggling lower middle class American, tell me WHY I should NOT vote for the guy (or lady) who is most likely to "give me stuff?" Even if you despise me or that question, if you want a pro-constitution pro-free market candidate to win something as high as the Presidency, its a question you MUST answer in this day and age.

Ask yourself where they are going to get that "free stuff" they are promising to you. They are going to take it from somebody else. Most likely, your children and your children's children.

They should "get that free stuff" by taxing the banks, and energy sector correctly just to start. There should be a strong minimum wage. Doubling the minimum wage isn't enough to really fix the horrible wealth disparity that we have right now. It's really, really inexcusably bad. It's pathetic we can't even get a $10 minimum wage. But hey if you want minimum wage workers to rely on government hand outs to survive, rather than forcing their employers to pay them appropriately, more power to you. We also need a maximum wage. John Adams (one of the founders of the holy constitution) said we should have a maximum wage of what today would be equal to about $500k. Even I would say that is too low. Warren Buffet said it best recently, that he should write a book on how to survive on $500 million a year because apparently some people can't.

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Anonex

Whom do you think the RICH are what do you imagine is someone's fair share?

I don't have the magic numbers. True Communism where everyone from janitors to doctors make the same is not the answer. I think something akin to the way Iceland, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland do things is probably best. Unbridled capitalism just leads to monopolies and starvation. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but I don't have the answer to who is rich and who isn't, that's a better question left to someone with more education than I.

The problem with this that everyone who thinks that thinks it because that's what they've been taught, not what they've experienced. Even back in the days of the robber barons, capitalism wasn't truly "unbridaled" as you are likely thinking.

Now, no one I think is arguing that there is no role for some regulation, but what we have is strangling business and becoming a mechanism for cronyism whereby winners and losers are chosen. In order for the system to work, the rules need to be the same for all just like they are in any game you play.

And, of course, when you outsource the answers to who is or isn't rich, you are only playing the game of elitists. It's the answer they want you to give. Then, they can tell you who is RICH which will very often boil down to anyone who makes more than you do because then they can use your sense of envy to provoke enough outrage to buy your vote. Don't let yourself be so easily manipulated because someday, you, too, might wind being what someone else considers RICH. Let me tell you. 1.) You won't feel RICH, and 2.) It's no fun to try to defend yourself because society trains everyone to think you're automatically being a greedy d*** when you do it even if you came up from only having $50 and a bicycle yourself.

You may also be interested in following this thread. It looks like its going to be good.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Anonex
I wanted the rich to pay their fair share.

Just to satisfy my curiosity ... what is your definition of 'rich' and 'fair share'. I will give you my own example. By USA standards, I am poor. Some would even say I am very poor, but I have seen people that are poorer than me. By 3rd world standards, I might be considered rich. Would that make it right for the government to take from me and give to someone else? The problem is we seem to think 'the government' is the answer to everything. People used to help each other. This would fall under your "it takes a village" analogy. Then people started relying on the government to 'fix' everything and we forgot how to help each other. So, imo when you vote for someone that 'gives you stuff', you voted for the bureaucracy that will always be wasteful. You just let someone buy your vote with a promise that you have no way of making him or her keep. Oh, you can say "I'll vote them out if they don't keep their promise." but that will not change what they did while in office. Then you vote him/her out and vote for the next promise. That promise is broken and rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

The 'villagers' stopped helping each other because 'the government' will do it for them. Yeah right. That's working great.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Anonex

Whom do you think the RICH are what do you imagine is someone's fair share?

I don't have the magic numbers. True Communism where everyone from janitors to doctors make the same is not the answer. I think something akin to the way Iceland, Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland do things is probably best. Unbridled capitalism just leads to monopolies and starvation. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but I don't have the answer to who is rich and who isn't, that's a better question left to someone with more education than I.

The problem with this that everyone who thinks that thinks it because that's what they've been taught, not what they've experienced. Even back in the days of the robber barons, capitalism wasn't truly "unbridaled" as you are likely thinking.

Now, no one I think is arguing that there is no role for some regulation, but what we have is strangling business and becoming a mechanism for cronyism whereby winners and losers are chosen. In order for the system to work, the rules need to be the same for all just like they are in any game you play.

And, of course, when you outsource the answers to who is or isn't rich, you are only playing the game of elitists. It's the answer they want you to give. Then, they can tell you who is RICH which will very often boil down to anyone who makes more than you do because then they can use your sense of envy to provoke enough outrage to buy your vote. Don't let yourself be so easily manipulated because someday, you, too, might wind being what someone else considers RICH. Let me tell you. 1.) You won't feel RICH, and 2.) It's no fun to try to defend yourself because society trains everyone to think you're automatically being a greedy d*** when you do it even if you came up from only having $50 and a bicycle yourself.

If more thought like you, then we might we closer to ended the biggest problem, which is the polarization of opinions. The answer is not "every man for himself" but it isn't taxed and regulated to death either. YOU may not be arguing for no regulation, but too many out there definitely are. The extremists on both sides are really hurting us from making any progress.

Also, I knew what I was getting myself into with this thread. I am well aware the overall pro conservative-libertarian free market whatever you want to call it on this website, and I appreciate the civility offered to me in this thread thus far. You will win a lot more American hearts (and votes) with reason than you will with extremism.

a reply to: Anonex

I worked for Gov. Gary Johnson, the presidential candidate for the Libertarians in the last election and those people really know how to party. That was reason enough for me to switch.

Politics is just entertainment for the military industrial complex anyway. Nothing is going to change thru voting so you might as well have a good time!! Unless you enjoy the company of pissed off elderly old white dudes; then the Tea Party fits the bill.