Sell me on Libertarianism...

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: openminded2011

Libertarianism isn't like communism, you don't have to scratch the entire government for it to become "libertarian". If our democracy endured our libertarian-democracy wouldn't look like feudalism, it would look more like the industrialization period of America.

That was a good time for industrialists, not such a good time for the working class, you had child labor, extremely dangerous working conditions, and workers had little or no voice in their workplaces. Then you had things like the Ludlow massacre, two dozen men women and children gunned down by the national guard and a mining company when a striking coal miner encampment was attacked. Workers were routinely beaten or murdered if they tried to bargain collectively. And they did so Because of appalling wages and working conditions. People don't realize how bad the working class had it back then. And this took place during a period when there was very limited govt. One of the purposes of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful. That concept should never be allowed to die.

originally posted by: Anonex

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Anonex

I'm curious then as to why you're looking to be sold on the Right-wing version.

I hear people like Ron Paul talk and make so much sense, and I'm right there with him, thinking "right on!" Then he says something crazy. He is like the silly uncle who comes off as really wise at family gatherings then says something so awful, you just cringe.

I cracked up.

a reply to: openminded2011

Well we've made a lot of progress since the 1800's. Think about where we'd be without having ever made railroads, we'd be subject to all the other superpowers. We would be getting 'Ukrained'.

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: openminded2011

Libertarianism isn't like communism, you don't have to scratch the entire government for it to become "libertarian". If our democracy endured our libertarian-democracy wouldn't look like feudalism, it would look more like the industrialization period of America.

Nope, that wouldn't be the case either. Even the early 1900's were mired in crony capitalism. Here is a post I put in a similar thread on Libertarianism about monopolies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Make sure you read the links, particularly this one:

Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads

a reply to: Anonex

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.

You are not wrong , because they most likely abused the system to get where they are under the current system.

Where you are wrong is your method of fixing the problem, but your biggest mistake is taking humanity out of the equation and misdiagnosing the REAL problem.

The reason the 1% sit high in their golden chair is because big government not because of small government (Libertarian). Big gov't is what allows for the 1% to maintain their power and wealth.

It boils down to this:
1. Gov't approves the laws and regulations of this country.
2. Lobbyist creates and drafts the laws and gives billions to congress year after year so they can review their drafts.
3. Congress and politicians have become dependent on the lobbyist and their biggest donors in order to survive.

Do you think its the 99% or the 1% that is providing congress the motivation to see things their way?

So in essence the gov't is really what controls the market and the consumers. This is why the large corporations want BIg gov't and that is why even Republicans give you big gov't. When was the last time that a republican controlled gov't ACTUALLY shrunk gov't, de regulated anything, or cut spending to any significant level when they had the chance? That should tell you something.

The problem:
1. Humanity : You can't take greed out of the equation so you must account for it.
2. Any time a group of people is in charge of overseeing things its only a matter of time before greed infiltrates it. Which created our biggest problem #3.
3. The gov't now works for the highest bidder (the 1%).

The case for libertarians:
1. Smaller gov't:
For the short term you must take away the power that the 1% has , which is BIG gov't. Remember the gov't tells us what we can do ,can't do, can buy, and can't buy and who and how we do business. The gov't is the secret weapon that the 1% (Highest paying lobbyists ) own , which allows them to control the consumer and the market.

Having a centralized governing body with to much control makes it easier for the 1% to infiltrate and take over like they have done with our current system.

Decentralize the Federal governing power and give it back to the individuals. Big Gov't or a group of individuals deciding what is right for the majority does not work for the same reasons that micro managing doesn't work for large corporations. Its a constant uphill battle where you are destined to fail.

2. Libertarians tend to be the most liberal friendly for individuals believe systems and lifestyle.

3. Libertarianism is a macro management approach which has a proven track record versus a micromanagement approach which is proven to not work in large organizations. So why do we expect an ineffective method of governing our country to work despite the facts?

4. Libertarians have a more sustainable method to ensure responsibility and accountability by placing the burden on the individuals versus an overseer.

5. Greed: Greed and corruption becomes a major problem when it effects an entity that has control over the majority. So the less governing body the less effect greed and corruption has over the masses.

TRUE Capitalism appears to be the most sustainable and most likely method to succeed because it minimizes the impact of greed , makes it harder for the few corrupted to control the masses, Its the macro management approach and gives the individual the power to succeed or fail.

Socialism or communism gives more control to the few (industries) and increases the impact of greed and corruption to the masses and is a micromanagement approach.

With that said there is no reason why we couldn't have a mixture or hybrid type of governing system nor must the system be static. The key is properly setting the motivating factors and ensuring the system keeps greed and corruption from infiltrating it. We have seriously failed at that hence why the 1% wants bigger gov't control.

From what I see competition is the consumers best friend and the majority of the population are consumers while the 1% are the primary providers who fear competition. Regulations and our laws is what keeps them(Oligopolies / 1%) as the top providers.

So I think the libertarian approach is the best method for NOW while the democrats approach of giving more gov't control is the worst thing for us. The more control you give gov't the more control you give the 1%. Unless you believe the billions that the 1% lobbing industry gives year after year and the millions they donate to both sides has no impact on our gov't and they are doing it out of kindness. That is all coincidence that regardless which side
(Republican or Democrat) that gov't keeps getting bigger and bigger.

a reply to: interupt42

I was constrained by time, so this is directed to the first few paragraphs of your post (see folks? governing people is complex!) and you are correct in that big govt has been bought and is now used to prop up the elites... the answer is not necessarily drastically smaller govt, though, but getting the money the heck out of the equation and getting strict with corruption.

Fighting corruption when the higher offices are corrupt is the rub. It's never easy...

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Anonex

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.

You are not wrong , because they most likely abused the system to get where they are under the current system.

Where you are wrong is your method of fixing the problem, but your biggest mistake is taking humanity out of the equation and misdiagnosing the REAL problem.

The reason the 1% sit high in their golden chair is because big government not because of small government (Libertarian). Big gov't is what allows for the 1% to maintain their power and wealth.

It boils down to this:
1. Gov't approves the laws and regulations of this country.
2. Lobbyist creates and drafts the laws and gives billions to congress year after year so they can review their drafts.
3. Congress and politicians have become dependent on the lobbyist and their biggest donors in order to survive.

Do you think its the 99% or the 1% that is providing congress the motivation to see things their way?

So in essence the gov't is really what controls the market and the consumers. This is why the large corporations want BIg gov't and that is why even Republicans give you big gov't. When was the last time that a republican controlled gov't ACTUALLY shrunk gov't, de regulated anything, or cut spending to any significant level when they had the chance? That should tell you something.

The problem:
1. Humanity : You can't take greed out of the equation so you must account for it.
2. Any time a group of people is in charge of overseeing things its only a matter of time before greed infiltrates it. Which created our biggest problem #3.
3. The gov't now works for the highest bidder (the 1%).

The case for libertarians:
1. Smaller gov't:
For the short term you must take away the power that the 1% has , which is BIG gov't. Remember the gov't tells us what we can do ,can't do, can buy, and can't buy and who and how we do business. The gov't is the secret weapon that the 1% (Highest paying lobbyists ) own , which allows them to control the consumer and the market.

Having a centralized governing body with to much control makes it easier for the 1% to infiltrate and take over like they have done with our current system.

Decentralize the Federal governing power and give it back to the individuals. Big Gov't or a group of individuals deciding what is right for the majority does not work for the same reasons that micro managing doesn't work for large corporations. Its a constant uphill battle where you are destined to fail.

2. Libertarians tend to be the most liberal friendly for individuals believe systems and lifestyle.

3. Libertarianism is a macro management approach which has a proven track record versus a micromanagement approach which is proven to not work in large organizations. So why do we expect an ineffective method of governing our country to work despite the facts?

4. Libertarians have a more sustainable method to ensure responsibility and accountability by placing the burden on the individuals versus an overseer.

5. Greed: Greed and corruption becomes a major problem when it effects an entity that has control over the majority. So the less governing body the less effect greed and corruption has over the masses.

TRUE Capitalism appears to be the most sustainable and most likely method to succeed because it minimizes the impact of greed , makes it harder for the few corrupted to control the masses, Its the macro management approach and gives the individual the power to succeed or fail.

Socialism or communism gives more control to the few (industries) and increases the impact of greed and corruption to the masses and is a micromanagement approach.

With that said there is no reason why we couldn't have a mixture or hybrid type of governing system nor must the system be static. The key is properly setting the motivating factors and ensuring the system keeps greed and corruption from infiltrating it. We have seriously failed at that hence why the 1% wants bigger gov't control.

From what I see competition is the consumers best friend and the majority of the population are consumers while the 1% are the primary providers who fear competition. Regulations and our laws is what keeps them(Oligopolies / 1%) as the top providers.

So I think the libertarian approach is the best method for NOW while the democrats approach of giving more gov't control is the worst thing for us. The more control you give gov't the more control you give the 1%. Unless you believe the billions that the 1% lobbing industry gives year after year and the millions they donate to both sides has no impact on our gov't and they are doing it out of kindness. That is all coincidence that regardless which side
(Republican or Democrat) that gov't keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Ok,
Just once question. If you deregulate government to death, how do you avoid monopolistic crony capitalism?

a reply to: Anonex

Simple question. The Village is starving. They need to eat.
Your said your single, no family and thus probably won't be missed much.
Do you go into the pot willingly, for the good of the village, or kicking and screaming?

Every era throughout history had a different governmental system wether it was the biggest strongest brute in the group kicking ass and winning battle victories so that everyone else fell in line all the way till now. And each system worked…until it didn't. I think we may be past this system's time and capitalistic political philosophies and ready for a new SYSTEM whatever that may be.

I won't outline any here but there are a few groups who have their own ideas about how that could work. Myself, I wouldn't even be opposed to a restructured democracy where everyone had a vote on the group decision. Today;s technology could allow that in this day and age of cell phones, apps, tablets, pcs, internet etc. Think about every time "laws", statutes, policies etc are put into play that the general public doesn't want. TOO BAD. One example was the airport body scanners. They rallied in Europe as well, but the JAA said, "ok get rid of them", here they just marched out DHS and said if you don't like it don't fly. end of story. This country no longer operates on common law and your vote doesn't count either. If you don't believe it, go read up on the popular vote and electoral vote. Electoral votes are what count and can be guided by, but don't have to adhere to the popular vote.

Bundy ranch and BLM, nobody, but some govt agency that we don't even know who they answer to since even the state's governor seemed powerless to do anything. Where's the system that says: well the people have rallied and said "F that", shut it down? It seems the people have largely lost their power.

As far as the wealth issue goes, until scarcity and a non monetary system come into play, it seems like time for a reset. Everyone knows it takes money to make money and the game is pretty much over. We don't need another 6 hours of a monopoly to know how the game ends.

Worse even if you wanted to and would be willing to walk away from it all, where would you go? The last remote places to escape are quickly being dominated. Native indigineous peoples losing their lands. You can't even run away to the woods here. If they catch you out there you;ll be prosecuted for ingesting illegal herbs for medicine, for hunting w.o a license, fishing w.o a license, for carrying a knife thats too big, a gun thats not registered and/or illegal, concealed weapons, drinking the water that doesn't belong to you, and maybe even trespassing on "public" land. And these aren't exaggerations. These are real laws that exist NOW. (i believe it was oregon state that ruled the rain water belongs to them recently. you need a permit to keep some)

I want to post this video about the ACTUAL distribution of wealth vs what the perception of it is. Please enjoy and sorry if my post is too wordy.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: openminded2011

Ok,
Just once question. If you deregulate government to death, how do you avoid monopolistic crony capitalism?

Deregulate doesn't mean do away with all regulations. One of the main purpose of gov't and regulation should be to ensure that monopolistic crony capitalism doesn't evolve. However, that requires a separation of money and state which we do not have.

In addition the crony capitalism that you despise is able to flourish because big gov't and the amount of control the gov't has over the consumers and the market. They create the laws and therefore they benefit from the laws.

IMO we need to shrink the gov't under the existing circumstances in order to take away control and power from the monopolistic crony capitalist who benefit from big gov't . Then we need to get rid of the monetary influences upon our elected officials. Then we can restructure and perhaps expand gov't at a later time. However, as long as gov't keeps getting bigger and more involved in our lives the more powerful and the more wealthy the 1% will get under the current system.

The gov't works for the 1% who are the biggest lobbyist . Asking for the gov;t to regulate and get more control in favor of the consumers and the masses is literally asking them to bite the hand that feeds them. It just not going to happen, until you get rid of the lobbying influences in Washington. In order to do that you got to shrink ,restructure then re expand if necessary . Any regulations you pass now will ultimately benefit the monopolistic crony capitalist who lobby billions to rewrite or even create the regulations in their favor.

It may sound sweet that the government should stay out of the economy, but the fact is that, if there are no controls by a good government, free market capitalism is a figment of the imagination that tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few who will abuse the rest of us for their personal profit. That is what has been happening to us for the last 50 years. It obviously is not working. After WWII, we once had a thriving middle class. Any bull# saying that we need less government regulation is just that, bull#. It was because of less government regulation that we had our great recession, and it is going to happen again, until we no longer have a middle class.

a reply to: Baddogma

the answer is not necessarily drastically smaller govt, though, but getting the money the heck out of the equation and getting strict with corruption.

Never said it was the final answer. However, its a step in getting back control from the Oligopoly lobbyist. The lobbyist pretty much dictate the market and what the consumer has to bare instead of the other away around.

Big gov't is their tool to control the market and the consumers. The bigger the gov;t the more control they have, plain and simple. Heck that is even why the Republicans despite talking about small gov;t still grows gov't control over the people. The lobbyist own both the DNC and the GOP and they ensure no matter which party is in control gov;t keeps getting bigger. Their is a reason for that.

IMO we need to shrink gov't temporarily like I said before in my previous post, remove the monetary influences , restructure then look at expanding.

However any one who expects bigger gov't or more regulations UNDER THE EXISTING system will benefit the 99% versus the 1% are naive at best.

Asking to be sold on libertarianism is going about this the wrong way. You simply need to do a tremendous amount of research to fully grasp it even tho its based on a simple principle. to be a liberal or conservative all you have to do is feel and emot.

research the non aggression principle and ask yourself this. Do you believe that someone should be allowed to force their will on you socially or politically with the use of violence? if your answer is "no" then you are probably a libertarian.

libertarianism boils down to liberty, volunteerism and the non aggression principle. If you believe everyone should have the same rights to pursue liberty, and no one should have a privilege over others, then your probably a libertarian.

I was a liberal for a very long time until I discovered that libertarianism is a factual based morally consistent PHILOSOPHY, while liberalism and conservatism are a feelings and emotions based IDEOLOGY. They both pick and chose how they want to use government tyranny in a very morally inconsistent way while pointing at each other as the problem. In other words liberalism and conservatism are two opposite ends of the same turd.

the spectrum spans from tyranny to liberty. Where are you in that sliding scale?

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: openminded2011

Ok,
Just once question. If you deregulate government to death, how do you avoid monopolistic crony capitalism?

Deregulate doesn't mean do away with all regulations. One of the main purpose of gov't and regulation should be to ensure that monopolistic crony capitalism doesn't evolve. However, that requires a separation of money and state which we do not have.

In addition the crony capitalism that you despise is able to flourish because big gov't and the amount of control the gov't has over the consumers and the market. They create the laws and therefore they benefit from the laws.

IMO we need to shrink the gov't under the existing circumstances in order to take away control and power from the monopolistic crony capitalist who benefit from big gov't . Then we need to get rid of the monetary influences upon our elected officials. Then we can restructure and perhaps expand gov't at a later time. However, as long as gov't keeps getting bigger and more involved in our lives the more powerful and the more wealthy the 1% will get under the current system.

The gov't works for the 1% who are the biggest lobbyist . Asking for the gov;t to regulate and get more control in favor of the consumers and the masses is literally asking them to bite the hand that feeds them. It just not going to happen, until you get rid of the lobbying influences in Washington. In order to do that you got to shrink ,restructure then re expand if necessary . Any regulations you pass now will ultimately benefit the monopolistic crony capitalist who lobby billions to rewrite or even create the regulations in their favor.

So we get rid of bank robbers by decreasing the police force?

Reply to OP:
So in your view it is fair to hand me everything on silver platter without having done any sort of work to the point where I have everything I need and am comfortable. Okay, then why should I do any work whatsoever? I'd be disabled in that I would have no motivation to work because if I do work and get more than others, it will be taken away from me. It would be a mental disability. Last time I checked people don't actually work just for fun. They work to keep food on the table.

Have you noticed that ever since the introduction of the welfare state by Europe that personal incomes and the middle class is starting to go away? There has been no greater and unprecedented change to the economy than the huge welfare system and now we are looking at the effects. Capitalism is gone and here is the product of big government which of course is needed for your redistribution system.

originally posted by: Anonex
I believe working together is the best way, even if working together has to be mandated.

There is no such thing as mandated working together. There is mandated work, and that is slavery. I'm sorry but you seem to be doing mental gymnastics into thinking I'm working with you. No, I'm working for you but not getting paid to do so.

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.

So if I'm blind and you can see its immoral of me not to take one of your eyes provided a surgeon can properly implant one of them in my head?

Anyone who starts to get into politics at the local, regional, or national levels quickly realizes that politicians are corrupt. Why is that? There is a reason. Its because the basis of all modern politics is extortion and shooting people dead. Do you want a job extorting people and shooting them dead? Cool, join the government. You can pick the IRS if you like extortion, or the Army if you like killing people for the National Offense. Every country starts as offense, not defense. Steps taken in every country including the USA:
1. Kill your competition, literally.
2. Install your own racket to force the citizens to comply with your rules whether or not they agreed with them or the sytem in any way (ie US North vs. US South).
Its been the 1-2 punch of kill and pillage for all of history. And these are the organizations you want telling me what is fair to do with my money? From my logical perspective, I don't want crazy gun-nuts with itchy trigger fingers on my side of the planet. Obama and Ried and friends need to get the hell on the other side of the planet... they are twisted lunatics who you would probably love since they will gladly take other people's things with or without permission and kill whoever objects.

There has never been a Democracy anywhere in the world. Never. Democracy is a Santa Clause story for adults. The US is a Republic and it was founded by a small minority. Your system of welfare is simply not based from the ground up on Democracy. It is based from the top down based on extortion and violence.

Trying to legally force "fair" is foolish. Everyone has their own opinion of what is fair. So who's opinion gets finalized? Obama's opinion? And how is Obama's opinion fair?

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.

Very few liberals can identify that their politics are actually just as selfish as conservative politics. Yeah, voting to give your self other people's money IS SELFISH TOO, and you seem to get that.

The number one reason that I reject your financial liberalism is that your system encourages one world government, inescapable, that controls every single aspect of your life. That may not be what you want, but its always what you get. The fact is people can vote with their feet. When you try to steal too much of my things because I think it is unfair, I will move to greener grass where my things are not stolen. Then theives like you say: "Hey, that guy is escaping with MY money (not yours) and EVADING TAXES (defending property) by moving. That greener grass must now come under MY control so I can keep getting your money. That is the end game of your system of "equality" (inequality). One inescapable hell hole.

To me, its fair to reward people for their work by acknowledging their property rights to what they have earned. And its fair for everyone who has money to spend it however they wish. And its unfair for someone who does not have property to forcefully take another person's property. That is my idea of fair.

a reply to: openminded2011

So we get rid of bank robbers by decreasing the police force?

Yes, if the police force is working for the bank robbers.

I always hear ignorant people that say Libertarian would lead to fascism and corporatism. If that was the case then why do major corporations not fund Libertarians. It's quite simple, they need government to cheat. Limited government and states rights will decentralize power and has no use for major corporations. That's why the moderates and big government leftist get all the donations.

The wealthy rely on big government to protect their wealth. Without their government allies who will protect their property? Certainly not an angry mob.

a reply to: amfirst1

Glad to see others get it.

My idea of libertarian government would reduce the numbers of government employees and bureaucrats by eliminating the duplication. Every single state in the US has a department of education. Every county, every city in the US has a board of education. Why do we need three different entities to educate a child? The truth is that we don't. I know a whole bunch of parents who are doing fine jobs of educating their children at home and with the help of other like-minded community members and public libraries. It doesn't cost them $13-20k per year to do it either!
The Department of Education's budget last year was in the $70 BILLIONS range. They didn't produce a single graduate from any school. They spent their time writing new regulations and revising old regulations on the proper way to educate children. They never taught one child.
Since the Department of Education was created the levels of bureaucracy in local school systems has skyrocketed. I don't know what the current figures are but a few years ago I saw a study showing the level of administrators in all school systems had increased by 700% in the 30 years since the Dept. of Education was created. The percentage of dollars going for administration instead of academics was staggering.
Get rid of the Federal educrats and state and local costs of education will drop. Administration can be cut drastically and money formerly paying bean counters and scribes can be put to use in academic endeavors.
If the simple elimination of one federal agency can make such a dramatic difference in education, just imagine the others that could have the same effect.
How about the Dept. of Energy? Is there a state that doesn't have a Dept of Energy? I'm all for developing sustainable energy sources. I'm not in favor of corrupt politicians setting up their buddies in faux energy companies to the tune of hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
Think of a libertarian government as one who has simply downsized to become more efficient.
Here's a suggestion I heard recently from a libertarian: pass a law saying that each federal representative shall spend a specified number of days in his district holding town meetings in which he reads to the audience the laws he will be voting on when he represents them.
That would solve some problems, wouldn't it?
Make them do the job and actually write the bills they are proposing rather than relying on lobbyists.
The libertarian view is that most of us don't need force hovering over our shoulder to do the right thing by others. We get all peevish when that force is exerted to "protect" us from ourselves. Telling me that I can't drink raw milk from my neighbor's cows is just a bit much. Same with all the plants the Creator put on earth. Who can grow them? Who can use them?
My view of the role of government is to protect me from predators. There are a whole mess of predators out there in the corporate world and I want protection from those folks. But the fellow down the road isn't a predator. I know him and trust him. The fact that some surveyor drew a straight line on a map that puts him in one state and me in another isn't the government's business. He's not going to sell me tainted milk to meet some goal set by his investors.
His family is drinking the same milk. Yet, if the current trend of ultra-regulation for the "safety of the children" continues, I see a food black market heading our way.

Wow... At first you sounded like a libertarian... But you agree with stealing from people? You think it immoral not to steal... And you need me to convince you that you are wrong... You want me to tell you that stealing is wrong? Okay I'm being a bit pedantic and I don't want to be. I think something got a little muddled here...

So we have alex and peter... Alex worked every hour he had to build a business and put his house and family life on the line, he provides jobs for other after some time and grows bigger.

Peter decides to spend his days drinking beer and partying and lazing about...

You are saying Alex should support Peter... You are saying some entity should come and steal from Alex and give it to Peter cos it would be immoral if they didn't?

Really I am struggling here...

Even besides this story... Stealing is wrong...

I think I know where you are going wrong, let me pose something to you... You rightfully have a distaste for the 1%, but you see they are the 1% because of government... Government works for big business... Business and capitalism is NOT evil, some choose to use government to their advantage... They bribe them and get pals with em... THAT is where the problem lies because now we do not have a free market with real competition, we have manipulated markets... Big business pay no tax but you do! Lol That is because tbey are friends with gov...

Government is the problem, we can't have it...

Do you know how much people are "taxed" (read stolen from) right now? I would say 70% of your money is taxed! Taken from you! Government did this... But they didn't take from their friends in big business...

Now I don't want to steal from big business... All I want is to not be stolen from either! Imagine having that 70% not stolen from you!!! Imagine how much wealthier and easier your life would be!

I think you are only a few steps from anarchism, sod libertarianism lol