Your Personal Libertarian Policies?

Originally posted by Bobbox1980

How?

What could one possibly be doing on their own property that would infringe on the rights of others without violating the right of others to make their own choices about their body and property?

I don't think what you are proposing is logically possible.

Conspiracy against someone else as in planning to harm someone else. Yes, I acknowledge you have to leave your property to harm someone yet shouldn't it be prevented before the action takes place? (Or should be have police wait outside your property line to detain you once you step past your property boundries?)

Also, what if someone comes onto your property and you violate their so-called rights?

By your logic, it doesn't matter what you do on your personal property, and that anything you do is okay. There are many ways to invade other people's well-being by being stationary. Another example would be Internet warfare. If you are apt in this skill, you can digitally violate them.

For one, the Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable rights.

Who owns your body? You or the state? If it is you then you have the right to make choices concerning it, not the state. I for one can never acknowledge partial ownership by the state of my body, it is mine and mine alone.

Property is gained through the fruits of one's labor, if I own my body (and not the state) and I use it to work then the proceeds of that work belong to me (and not the state).

And what makes people think the declaration of independence is so godly? I'm not saying I'm against such treatises because infact I am for them but why do we hold such high esteem on a document? Is there a possibility it is outdated? (Many claim the same about the bible, when in reality, if Nations were to exist for 2000 years, their documentation of rights would be just as "outdated")

[edit on 053131p://111 by For(Home)Country]

reply to post by For(Home)Country


Since America created itself without a clear cultural mandate, a culture formed itself around what the settlers here valued: profit, holiness and convenience. As they shared no immediate genetic or cultural or historical background, they had to start from the beginnings of culture in the new land: its agreement on the need for unrestricted religion and profit. "Individual rights" and the pretense of "freedom" followed as a means of justifying these basic needs, showing an inversion of the traditional order of creation in the making of a new state - ideology came after the fact of the new country's assembly, and was used to tie together what existed. It was as if spillover from other lands created a new "melting pot" of ideas as much as peoples.

What happens in a melting pot, of course, is that the original consistency of everything put in is destroyed and a new homogenous society emerges with less diversity than the original raw materials. In the United States, this was the streamlining of efforts to conquer a frontier and make from it a technologically-powerful superstate. Coupled with the religious basis of the separation from the old that was the hallmark of the settlers here, this drive to industry became the impetus for a new marketplace culture of America, which used its utilitarian preference for individualism to justify its own excesses in the pursuit of technological dominance.

This belief system is highly dangerous in that it cloaks greed as virtue and justifies rampant expansion at the expense of natural cultures, which are seen as an impediment to technological growth and thus, as not only expendable but obsolete. It is impossible to argue against a culture of no-value which claims it is not a culture, so those who throw up barriers to Americanism in their native lands are seen as luddites, communists, fascists, and other demonized types of people who "don't like our freedom."

Alright, I have scoured my earlier writing and will just post something VERY simple.

Everyone has absolute rights that cannot be removed without denying them their freedom. These are not given by anything, they inherently exist. To obstruct these rights in and of itself is detrimental to mankind.

The only true law you can break as a Free Man is to hurt someone else or infringe upon someone else's absolute rights.

Others have touched base on specifics to these simple principles. The US Constitution tried to write them out more specifically but this is the basic tenet of libertarianism.

Income taxes infringe on my rights to the pursuit of happiness (property). As for your position OP that the revenue stream is necessary for the Greater Good of the Collective, shows that you personally do not want freedom for everyone.

Freedom is frightening to many people. But here is the thing, if you want everyone to follow your ideas, or the collectives ideas, you are a tyrant. You want to control everyone for your purposes.

I ask you, why do want to control me?

edit to fix syntax error


[edit on 3/1/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Thank you for the post. In all honesty, the attitude that you present is the very reason that I am awry of the Libertarian ideologies. It simply does not make sense to me for libertarians to suggest that mankind can exist with minimal authority under the premises that each human being can do what they want without infringing another's lifestyle!

This fact is in itself contradictory because human nature is to take what we need for survival, and more. Social contracts outlined by enlightenment-era philosophers state that mankind bonds together to protect themselves and their property.

Indeed, we are selfish in general, and there is no denying that. Absolutely there are exceptions, but are, however, rare.

Because we are so selfish, there is nothing to stop those physically powerful from overtaking the less-advantaged. Society prevents that, and then sprouts from there. To suggest that such critical pillars to upholding the virtues of modern society are a violation of current rights can be correct in some instances, but in the instance of the tax base, is it absolutely critical that we as a people contribute to society in order to allow others to benefit.

To claim taxes are a violation of your personal rights is merely a cop-out for you to get your tax dollars back for you to spend on yourself. Putting tax spending corruption aside, tax money is absolutely necessary in a civilized society, and without it, things would fall apart.

Tax contributions merely force you to contribute to others whereas I could guarantee the majority of the population wouldn't do so otherwise if given their own free choice, which would ultimately result in the desolation of society.

I would love to watch 200 million people try and live without a government, governmental and civil structures, and no tax dollars. I think then people would gain an appreciation for what they don't have.

reply to post by endisnighe


"Freedom" is a misguided ideal, here coined as libertarianism, or the political idea that each citizen should be free to do what he or she feels like doing, as long as "no one is hurt":

The problem is that libertarianism, by enforcing de facto anarchy, will actually deplete their power by giving the masses the mandate toward “freedom” — which they will promptly use to organize themselves to crush the bourgeoisie/middle class. The masses want their freedom too, which takes the form of leaders who will continue to penalize the upper half of the middle class, as Barack Obama is, in order to appease its voters.

Any philosophy like anarchy or libertarianism which tries to liberate us, as if by an invisible hand, from government, is oblivious to the consequences of lawlessness. With no goal except “freedom,” the tendency to form a crowd that beats up on the people with money or power is unchecked.

I used to call myself a libertarian strict constructionist, until Scalia absconded with my hook! I like the three point definition best although ExPostFacto does a great job of stating something like a "platform"

One of my aha moments was when I discovered that "less government" in the form of deregulation didn't accomplish either because deregulation means reduced funding so there's no possibility of changing process and eliminate the regulatory effects on operations.

I'll have to agree with number six and just admit to being "categorically challenged."

gj

reply to post by For(Home)Country

I would love to watch 200 million people try and live without a government, governmental and civil structures, and no tax dollars. I think then people would gain an appreciation for what they don't have.

Well of course you are going to the extreme applying anarchist type rhetoric to libertarian ideals.

Of course there has to be government. But to enforce the rules of the individual is the basic tenet of the Constitution. No where in it, does it state the government's right to instill social programs. It does allow certain things such as national defense, regulating intrastate and intranational commerce and a couple other smaller things.

Show me the numbers on government outlays and I will show you the WHOLE problem we are in now.

I stated income taxes. Taking MY labor, as if it actually belongs to the government/collective, is called SLAVERY.

Why was the income tax created? To pay off war debt! Temporary measure supposedly!

Now, we have a monstrosity of a government putting their noses in everything we do.

Because we are so selfish, there is nothing to stop those physically powerful from overtaking the less-advantaged. Society prevents that, and then sprouts from there. To suggest that such critical pillars to upholding the virtues of modern society are a violation of current rights can be correct in some instances, but in the instance of the tax base, is it absolutely critical that we as a people contribute to society in order to allow others to benefit.

Yeah, I was told in my Public supplied school the same thing you are here-placing a gun to my head to steal from me for the good of the collective. I do not fall for it.

Individual, Family, Community! Not Federal Gov, State Gov, City Gov, everyone else, THAN me.

Everyone that is a proponent of big gov are in my eyes. Slave masters.

As for the big bad monsters the gov needs to protect me from, US Constitution. Read it, live it, love it. If not, admit you want a lawless society where the majority, or the minority in power, can do anything they want to the serfs.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


What? Not until late in this past century did we have problems.

I wonder why that is? Could it be the government trying to control everything? No, probably not, it probably happened because there was NOT enough control. /s

And since there has been no real free markets and real capitalism, I am sure the whole problems now, are because of those. Even though they did not exist.

I see the patterns, do you?

Originally posted by endisnighe


Well of course you are going to the extreme applying anarchist type rhetoric to libertarian ideals.

Of course there has to be government. But to enforce the rules of the individual is the basic tenet of the Constitution. No where in it, does it state the government's right to instill social programs. It does allow certain things such as national defense, regulating intrastate and intranational commerce and a couple other smaller things.

Show me the numbers on government outlays and I will show you the WHOLE problem we are in now.

I stated income taxes. Taking MY labor, as if it actually belongs to the government/collective, is called SLAVERY.

If you feel as if your every day life can be parallelled to that of historical african-american slaves, egyptian slaves, etc, then sir, I feel very very sorry for you. In fact, I would advise you to relocate considering we have the ability to do so whereas "slaves" in prior history did not.

You also have the right to *not* work, which sub sequentially means you will not be able to survive, however, then you will be "excused" from your slavery.
Also, if you happen to find a large plot of un-claimed land, feel free to cultivate it and create your own nation. Once you have a large working force, see how long your logistical infrastructure lasts without upkeep.
I don't see how you fail to recognize the importance of adding to the collective?

Why was the income tax created? To pay off war debt! Temporary measure supposedly!

Although true, and although violent bloody war cannot be justified, I would gladly hear your solution to this problem. Without being able to produce so much during the war thanks to debt, we wouldn't of been able to been victorious at the end of World War 2. Would you of preferred that? And to let the income tax dissipate after the war would of meant certain economic woes for many western nations. Now, income tax accounts for 40% of Government revenue in Canada. Please explain to me where that would come from if we abolished it, and if we abolished it, what our social program structure would look like today?

Now, we have a monstrosity of a government putting their noses in everything we do.

Once again, I feel sorry for you. Here in Canada, I don't feel anything of the sort (other than the un-democratic closure of Parliament) but rather content with my current living standards and those around me.

Yeah, I was told in my Public supplied school the same thing you are here-placing a gun to my head to steal from me for the good of the collective. I do not fall for it.

Individual, Family, Community! Not Federal Gov, State Gov, City Gov, everyone else, THAN me.


Everyone that is a proponent of big gov are in my eyes. Slave masters.

To be fair, I could make the same accusations, labelling individual, profit and self-driven libertarians as selfish and ignorant.

I would also like to see you suggest an alternative to public schooling if, by your previous statement, you are implying that you did not appreciate your public schooling.

Also, my private schooling in University teaches that an increase in taxation can restore lost prosperity, whereas unaccounted-for and selfish bankers have lost money by foolishly playing for it, Keynesian economics teaches that Government can stimulate the economy by properly spending tax dollars.
I would suggest you take a look into this concept before you gripe at the thought of taxation.



[edit on 083131p://111 by For(Home)Country]

reply to post by endisnighe


Laissez-faire is pure BS. It's a hopeful thought. Like dialectical materialism, it has a grain of truth. Markets do regulate themselves. But the problem is, they regulate themselves for the sake of themselves. E.g. they don't do what's right, they do what is convenient for the market. Just how individuals regulate themselves for the sake of themselves.

Libertarians like that idea: they want to do their thing for themselves only. Liberals, too, but are more prone to government regulation. Same #. How many libertarians recognize the value of cohesive culture and higher values than market values?

They don't. They are thinking of themselves because it's convenient for them. They are ignoring the socialized costs, the consequences, and the culture that emerges from selfishness. They're thinking of themselves in the present tense: I want to stop paying for government, especially all these parasitic social programs, and put more money into my family. Basically, they're liberals. They want less obligation to society at large, and the least obligation toward steering it in a positive direction. They've given up on finding an answer or consensus; now they just want to feed at the trough and have no obligations to others. Obviously, they don't read history. Every time that happens, it's a precursor to mass revolt, because the masses cannot take care of themselves. Societies breed a ton of these menial workers, and import even more, and then shrug them off with "well, survival of the fittest" when some people end up wealthy and others don't. Then the masses, being incompetent at anything but very simple action, revolt and murder the wealthy. It's what happened in France.
And Russia

Many that are discussing Libertarians are using the current political party platform and not the true definition of a Libertarian. There is a difference. It is like saying the Republicans are conservative.

The basic idea behind Libertarianism was having government only so big as to secure the welfare of it's people. Libertarianism is community living. Libertarianism is having a role in society as a participant in government. Libertarianism is take care of your communities needs so that collectively each person may live free lives in support of each other.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


These are exactly my thoughts, and I thank you for posting them. I couldn't agree more!

To me as well, the ideologies of Libertarianism are lazy! They take away your accountability to everyone else because its all about "you". You use the notion of "rights" and pieces of paper such as the Declaration of Independence to justify the self-driven motives of Libertarianism. And like concernedcitizan said, this specific form of thought is all about what "you" want, and its further justified by ex foliating the corruption of the current American government!

Like it or not, Libertarians, there are more people in this world than just you and your family! Cutting social programs and infrastructure just so you have more to utilize on yourself may seem beneficial to your self-driven motives, but in essence will bring more selfish harm than benevolent good.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Many that are discussing Libertarians are using the current political party platform and not the true definition of a Libertarian. There is a difference. It is like saying the Republicans are conservative.

The basic idea behind Libertarianism was having government only so big as to secure the welfare of it's people. Libertarianism is community living. Libertarianism is having a role in society as a participant in government. Libertarianism is take care of your communities needs so that collectively each person may live free lives in support of each other.

So what you are saying is that Libertarianism is Communism without recognizing human nature?

reply to post by For(Home)Country


I'm not sure what you mean by it's communism or not recognizing human nature. Expand on that a bit, I'll see if I can answer.

I would just like to ask one VERY important question.

Who decides what is best for the collective?

I guess mandating anything is on the table than, if it is better for the collective.

I was interested in discussing my viewpoints but I am getting the feeling that you do not want to hear what are our personal libertarian policies.

You sound like you just want to attack our beliefs.

I do not engage in that, sorry.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Well, as you many know, communism is all about community as well. However, Communism extends a much stronger governmental authoritative figure to ensure equality for all due to human nature. I believe we can all agree that human nature is selfish. Libertarianism however, is all about community as well, but it makes the mistake of assuming large amounts of people can work together in a collective without an authoritative figure, or enough presence of one to discourage human nature.

Therefore, communism is like libertarianism except communism asserts rule through large government, and libertarianism gives the populace the benefit of the doubt that they can preform benevolently without an involved authoritative figure. Unfortunately, we have proved that we are incapable of benevolence without enforcement.

Originally posted by endisnighe
I would just like to ask one VERY important question.

Who decides what is best for the collective?

I guess mandating anything is on the table than, if it is better for the collective.

I was interested in discussing my viewpoints but I am getting the feeling that you do not want to hear what are our personal libertarian policies.

You sound like you just want to attack our beliefs.

I do not engage in that, sorry.

I did state that I would only question, compare and contrast your beliefs if you deemed that acceptable, in my original post. If you do see this as unproductive, I will stop as I do not intend to offend you or derail my own thread.

However, you did state what I thought was the majority of the biases of your beliefs, so I went and assumed that questioning your beliefs and getting my own challenged would be natural dialogue, but I can stop.

reply to post by For(Home)Country


Well that's not the case. In Libertarianism, the government is only as big as is needed to enforce the collective will of the people. You can still have rules in a Libertarian society. You can still have enough force as is needed to enforce those rules. Libertarianism isn't even close to anarchy which I think you are making it out to be.

The US Constitution is as near to a libertarian society as we have seen on this planet. However, we have moved well away from libertarian society.

Watch the video below. It discusses the idea behind personal liberties and how the government should be in relation to those liberties. In a libertarian society we would have very limited laws, and probably operate on common law. Don't harm another human might be a law.

reply to post by For(Home)Country

Conspiracy against someone else as in planning to harm someone else. Yes, I acknowledge you have to leave your property to harm someone yet shouldn't it be prevented before the action takes place?

I think conspiracy laws are BS. They were created in an effort to bust up the mob but the ends do not justify the means. What if I hatch a conspiracy to hurt someone and the police catch wind of it and they bust me. Technically I have not hurt anyone yet nor attempted to. Busting me for the conspiracy is busting me for pre-crime, thought crime.

Furthermore what if I leave my property and go to hurt this other person but then decide not to and drop the whole thing. Busting people for conspiracy denies them the right to change their minds and decide not to go through with an act to hurt another.

Also, what if someone comes onto your property and you violate their so-called rights?

By your logic, it doesn't matter what you do on your personal property, and that anything you do is okay. There are many ways to invade other people's well-being by being stationary. Another example would be Internet warfare. If you are apt in this skill, you can digitally violate them.

If someone came onto my property without my permission they would be violating my rights, "my property, my choice". This would give me the right to defend my property but not to go beyond that. The first step in such a situation would be to tell the invader to leave. If they did not leave the second step would be to call the cops. If at any time they attempted to damage or destroy my property before the cops arrived, if I had a phaser that could be set to stun I would use force to protect my property. In reality I do not own any weapons so I likely would just wait till the police arrived. If they attempted to attack me before police arrived I would try to flee or defend myself with force if necessary.

If I digitally violated someone else's computer then I would be violating their property rights.

I do not think you understand the full weight behind the concept of "your body, your property, your choice". It does not mean a person can do absolutely anything, it means they can do anything with their body and property as long as it does not deny another person from doing the same with their body and property.

And what makes people think the declaration of independence is so godly?

I don't think it is so godly, I just brought it up, I wish you had addressed my main points below it though:

Who owns your body? You or the state? If it is you then you have the right to make choices concerning it, not the state. I for one can never acknowledge partial ownership by the state of my body, it is mine and mine alone.

Property is gained through the fruits of one's labor, if I own my body (and not the state) and I use it to work then the proceeds of that work belong to me (and not the state).

reply to post by concernedcitizan

They've (libertarians) given up on finding an answer or consensus; now they just want to feed at the trough and have no obligations to others. Obviously, they don't read history. Every time that happens, it's a precursor to mass revolt, because the masses cannot take care of themselves.

That is so incredibly condescending, my god that was an arrogant thing to say.

concernedcitizan and For(Home)Country, you both sound codependent to me.

You should research codependency. People who are codependent feel like other people are incapable of making responsible good decisions and therefore have to have decisions made for them. Codependents feel like they must sacrifice their own happiness for the sake of others.

Mental Health America - Factsheet: Co-dependency

Co-dependency is a learned behavior that can be passed down from one generation to another. It is an emotional and behavioral condition that affects an individual’s ability to have a healthy, mutually satisfying relationship. It is also known as “relationship addiction” because people with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive. The disorder was first identified about ten years ago as the result of years of studying interpersonal relationships in families of alcoholics. Co-dependent behavior is learned by watching and imitating other family members who display this type of behavior...
...Attention and energy focus on the family member who is ill or addicted. The co-dependent person typically sacrifices his or her needs to take care of a person who is sick. When co-dependents place other people’s health, welfare and safety before their own, they can lose contact with their own needs, desires, and sense of self.

reply to post by For(Home)Country

Like it or not, Libertarians, there are more people in this world than just you and your family! Cutting social programs and infrastructure just so you have more to utilize on yourself may seem beneficial to your self-driven motives, but in essence will bring more selfish harm than benevolent good.

How can you possibly be doing "benevolent good" when you support forcibly taking money from people through taxation like the income tax with fines and jail as penalties for not helping others?

Don't you see that your idea of doing good is poisoned right at the roots?

How can an act of good come from an act of evil? How can putting food on one's table be good when you have stolen the money to pay for that food from someone else?


I do recognize that we shouldn't ignore those below the living wage line but unlike you I do not think we have to steal from people in order to help the poor.

The open source community has been a tremendous generator of wealth in our world and they did so without taxation and in many cases without charging money or receiving payment, all because the community freely decided to contribute to something larger than themselves.