Where are the Libertarians?

[Mayberry]

I consider most of my views to be Libertarian, and I would also align myself with the Constitution Party. Why is it that neither of these parties seem to be able to gain any momentum? Personally I think that as divided as this country is right now, many would move towards the alternatives. I suppose like everything else, it has less to do with philosophy, and more to do with money. There's just not enough financial backing to get these parties off the ground. Republicans and Democrats have the monopoly on the money. Campaign finance reform, anyone?

[Mayberry]

Boy it's lonely in here. Maybe I'm the only one?

[Nathan Brazil]

No, but no one advocating even more controls on campaign money can be a libertarian.

[Mayberry]

Touché! The Only reason I advocate campaign finance reform though, Is because of the inherent corruption, and to level the playing field. But I suppose that does go against the Libertarian grain. But no one absolutely adheres to the party line, right?

[Nathan Brazil]

The LP doesn't apply it's own philosophy. The LP is pro-"choice", whereas the true libertarian recognizes the fetus as an individual. It does get down to definitions, but one should err on the side of caution.

As for the money, the corruption comes about when politicians start telling people how they should spend their money. CFR didn't stop George Soros from trying to buy the last election.

[RickSp]

The LP doesn't apply it's own philosophy.Â*Â* The LP is pro-"choice", whereas the true libertarian recognizes the fetus as an individual.Â*Â*It does get down to definitions, but one should err on the side of caution.


As a libertarian for over thirty years I have relatively litle patience with those who assert what a "true libertarian" may or may not be.Â*Â*Claiming that the state has the right to control aÂ*Â*woman's womb in order to satisfy a narrow religous perspective does not fit my definition of libertarian.

The LP effectively committed suicide nearly 20 years ago when it kicked out the "reasonabe radicalism" of Ed Calrk and Ed Crane and adopted a Rothbardian plank that guaranteed nothing but navel gazing. Now, for all intents and purposes it has been taken over by neo-cons. It takes no real stand on the illegal war in Iraq or presidential abuses of power, what should be the two central libertarian issues of our time.Â*

[Nathan Brazil]

So, you've not a be real libertarian for over thirty years. So what of it? A woman should have total control over her womb, until she rents it out for nine months because she said yes at the wrong time.

A fetus is a human being. True libertarians recognize this and realize that no human has any inherent right to murder another on whim. Also, don't forget the fact that the basis of civilization is that people are supposed to live up to their obligations. Getting knocked up isn't an accident, it's a bad choice, but a choice, nonetheless. And the choice was that if they get poked they ran the risk of making a human that would depend on them for a minimum of nine months.

Libertarianism is about allowing people to make choices, and about letting them enjoy the consequences of those choices.

I'm perfectly willing to let anyone take any drug they wish. If they die from it, fine. But they can't harm anyone else as a result and use their inebriated state as an excuse.

I'm perfectly willing to let anyone do any sexual thing that please them, so long as persons not consenting to the fun are not hurt. That includes persons not able to give consent, like the child the bimbo created because she was too stupid to use proper contraception.

Of course, the isn't an illegal war in Iraq, but don't let that stop your rant.

[RickSp]

Whatever Nathan. Take your fundie bromides and call them whatever you want. Support an illegal war and call it "libertarian".Â*Â*Call it a yellow brasted flycatcher for all I care. It doesn't change the underlying reality. So if you want to be a pro-war anti-individual liberty libertarian, I guess that is your choice, too.

[Nathan Brazil]

Whatever Nathan. Take your fundie bromides and call them whatever you want. Support an illegal war and call it "libertarian".Â*Â*Call it a yellow brasted flycatcher for all I care. It doesn't change the underlying reality. So if you want to be a pro-war anti-individual liberty libertarian, I guess that is your choice, too.


Not so good at reason or logic, are you? But I enjoy the thought of you squirming with angst over my correct assessment of your liberal views. I'd list your flawed assumptions, but what's the point? I should save my efforts on people capable of thinking. For the real libertarians, that is.

No, lets do it.

What do you base your use of the word "fundy" on? Define "fundy".

Define "human".

Define "illegal war", include in your definition laws passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President that authorizes use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Once you learn how to think in English instead feeling in pre-programmed ideological buzz-words, come back.

[firefox]

I'm libertarian!

[ECW]

Geez... another one. Welcome to the forum, BTW.

[firefox]

Haha you can't stop us, ECW! We'll body-slam you! Actually that's not true because it would probably be considered to be the initiation of force but still it sounds good on paper ;) Remember, libertarians and liberals agree on most things; the difference is the modus operandi.

[Anti-Racism]

Remember, libertarians and liberals agree on most things; the difference is the modus operandi.


Yes, and this is why they haven't gone too far. The left already has a monopoly on those ideas, and outside of the neocons, most on the right distrust consequentialism - even if highly individualized.

[Nathan Brazil]

Liberals and libertarians agreee on almost nothing.

Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people.

Libertarians think that rich people don't owe the poor anything except the promised wage for a day's work done.

[sbannon]

Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people.

That's absolutely inaccurate. I'm very liberal in most issues and believe firmly that all people and businesses should pay equal taxes. Not some pay more--or less based on their wealth.

And if you're speaking in the grander scale of liberals generally favoring social programs that often benefit those at the lower end, it's a simple difference in perspectives. I don't view all of these programs as the rich supporting the poor, but rather as society building itself upward--for the benefit of all. It's the whole 'hand out' vs. 'hand up' question.

Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link. By neglecting to encourage and provide opportunities to those who need it most you weaken the nation as a whole. How's that good for America?

[BoogyMan]

That's absolutely inaccurate. I'm very liberal in most issues and believe firmly that all people and businesses should pay equal taxes. Not some pay more--or less based on their wealth.

Hey Sbannon, if this is your belief you are truly not in step with the liberal idealogies on taxation.Â*Â*Go do some research on what Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have said about taxation.Â*Â*They specifically want the rich to pay higher tax rates.

[Anti-Racism]

Liberals and libertarians agreee on almost nothing.

Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people.

Libertarians think that rich people don't owe the poor anything except the promised wage for a day's work done.


Libertarians agree with liberals that individual freedom is more important than collectively getting it right.

There are rightist libertarians, and leftist ones. Then there are libertarians who are both right and left, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (http://www.nazi.org/).

[Anti-Racism]

Go do some research on what Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have said about taxation. They specifically want the rich to pay higher tax rates.


Depends on how they define "rich." If they mean the ultra-rich, should we worry? The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.

[firefox]

I think everyone should pay an equal % in taxes, if you're going to be taxing at all. It's only fair!

[BoogyMan]

Go do some research on what Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have said about taxation.Â*Â*They specifically want the rich to pay higher tax rates.


Depends on how they define "rich." If they mean the ultra-rich, should we worry? The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.


There is a class of Americans more important than others? I wasn't aware of that. Can you point that out in the constitution or any other historical document?

Taxation should be fair no matter how rich a person is.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.

Just one more way of saying "fuck the poor!"

[sbannon]

BoogyMan, you're allowing the views (or your opinion of the views) of a few vocal leaders to define an entire ideology for yourself. Just as there are far-right and moderate-right conservatives there are far-left and moderate-left liberals, and just as the moderates are the majority among the conservatives they're also the majority among liberals as well. It's just those on the far ends who get the bulk of the media coverage because they're so extreme from both sides, that shouldn't be confused with representative of the majority for either side.

Here's an example, conservative Republican Pat Robertson has said that wives are basically property or servants to their husbands. He said that when women "get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband."

Should Americans see that as all conservatives believe women are property or servants to be controlled and commanded about by the men they marry? Of-course not, just as the views and words of Pelosi or Dean can't be held as all-encompassing for liberals.

[BoogyMan]

Sbannon, interesting misundersting that you have put forth. Pat Robertson is NOT in the leadership of the republican party. The people that I put forth in my commentary are in the democratic leadership.

If your leaders are going to put forth those ideas and they go unchallenged, what else am I to think?

[sbannon]

Oh, I see, it has to be a leader of the party. Okay then, Tom Delay (while a leader of the Republican party) said this: "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure. To provide stability."

Did all conservative Republicans at that time feel that women were incapable of providing structure and stability?

I could waste time looking up similar stupid quotes from current Republican leadeship members too, but what's the point? What I said stands true regardless, the voices of a few do not necessarily reflect the ideas of everyone.

Are you honestly arguing that notion?

[BoogyMan]

Oh, I see, it has to be a leader of the party. Okay then, Tom Delay (while a leader of the Republican party) said this: "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure. To provide stability."

Did all conservative Republicans at that time feel that women were incapable of providing structure and stability?

I could waste time looking up similar stupid quotes from current Republican leadeship members too, but what's the point? What I said stands true regardless, the voices of a few do not necessarily reflect the ideas of everyone.

Are you honestly arguing that notion?


I specifically mentioned party leaders and have not tried to play and games with the topic as you seem to intimate. I would have taken his commentary as meaning there needs to be both the mother and father roles present.

No, you are diflecting again. I am arguing that if your leadership is whole heartedly going after class warfare with regard to taxation and that is NOT what you want, you need to do something about it.

[Anti-Racism]

The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.

Just one more way of saying "fuck the poor!"


"Most important" does not mean "only." Mature people know that.

[Anti-Racism]

There is a class of Americans more important than others? I wasn't aware of that. Can you point that out in the constitution or any other historical document?

LOL -- the old "false evidence" question! Here's a help guide:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

I answer questions from mature adults.

[BoogyMan]

The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.

Just one more way of saying "fuck the poor!"


"Most important" does not mean "only." Mature people know that.


Despite his poor choice of language there is no need to intimate imaturity based on Zo's comment.

[Anti-Racism]

Despite his poor choice of language there is no need to intimate imaturity based on Zo's comment.

Mature people do not argue illogically.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The most important group is the middle class, specifically upper middle class.

Just one more way of saying "fuck the poor!"


"Most important" does not mean "only." Mature people know that.


The "most important" part is what I was responding too.

Call me immature, it doesn't bother me. It's not like I consider declaring one economic class of society to be more important than the rest to be a hallmark of maturity either. And a snide comment is not an argument.

[sbannon]

BoogyMan, you're still trying to use a few political party leaders to reflect and lump the beliefs of an ideology. First of all, being Democratic leaders doesn't make them the official spokespeople for liberalism, just as being a Republican party leader doesn't make someone the spokesperson for all conservatives. I know you need that for your point of view here, but it just isn't so.

If it were true, than it would be fair and true for me to say that all conservatives believe gays are an equal or greater threat to America as terrorists: Sen. R. Santorum, "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

Or that all conservatives are delusional enough to believe that Americans earning less than $40,000 per year pay no taxes: Rep. D. Hastert, "well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes."

None of that would be fair or accurate. My simple point is that no matter how much you want it, no matter how convenient it would be, a few more extreme political party leaders are not an honest representation of the liberal ideology as a whole.

[Anti-Racism]

Or that all conservatives are delusional enough to believe that Americans earning less than $40,000 per year pay no taxes: Rep. D. Hastert, "well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes."

What does one pay with two standard deductions at $40,000 a year? Taxable income would be roughly $4,500?

[BoogyMan]

BoogyMan, you're still trying to use a few political party leaders to reflect and lump the beliefs of an ideology. First of all, being Democratic leaders doesn't make them the official spokespeople for liberalism, just as being a Republican party leader doesn't make someone the spokesperson for all conservatives. I know you need that for your point of view here, but it just isn't so.

If it were true, than it would be fair and true for me to say that all conservatives believe gays are an equal or greater threat to America as terrorists: Sen. R. Santorum, "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

Or that all conservatives are delusional enough to believe that Americans earning less than $40,000 per year pay no taxes: Rep. D. Hastert, "well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes."

None of that would be fair or accurate. My simple point is that no matter how much you want it, no matter how convenient it would be, a few more extreme political party leaders are not an honest representation of the liberal ideology as a whole.


I don't want it to be that way Sbannon but feel it would be disingenuous to look at it otherwise.Â*Â*You can gay bait all you wish but most conservatives feel that homosexuality is wrong and are not ashamed of that.

So if the democrats win the elections and begin to try and raise tax rates for the wealthy, will you fight that action?Â*Â*Your party will gladly commit that action to law without batting an eye.

[lily]

Liberals and libertarians agreee on almost nothing.

Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people.

Libertarians think that rich people don't owe the poor anything except the promised wage for a day's work done.


Nathan.....I've missed you!

I don't think Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people. I think Liberals feel that people need to be taxed, to pay for government spending. After all, we did balance the budget...with a surpluss. So on this, I will have to agree with you that Liberals and libertarians don't agree on this. Let's face it, no one likes to pay taxes, but it has to be done.

[sbannon]

BoogyMan, there's a difference between feeling homosexuality is wrong and equating homosexuals to terrorists in threat value to the nation. I don't believe most conservatives agree with that equation and as I remember there were numerous conservative and religious groups who said as much when Santorum made the comment.

I wasn't baiting you, I was trying to show that fair people aren't going to hold all conservatives accountable for the extreme rhetoric of a few--just as fair people shouldn't hold all liberals accountable for the rhetoric of a few either.

As for your question on taxes, I can't say either way without more details than "the Dems will raise taxes". I mean, Republicans have run us into the largest hole ever, sombody has to pay for it now. Deficit spending isn't sustainable for the long haul, at some point the debt must be paid down.

Would I oppose any "special" taxes or penalties specifically against the wealthy or businesses? Yes, certainly. I did when they wanted to impose them on the Oil Industry over and over. A search here will prove that.

But, I'll support the closing of numerous loop-holes in the tax code which benefit the wealthy and business right now--as well as eliminating tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthy over the middle or lower classes. I'll also continue to support the Estate/Death tax.

And just as I'll support the above which benefit the wealthy over the rest, I'll oppose any new ideas which target the wealthy over the rest as well.

[BoogyMan]

BoogyMan, there's a difference between feeling homosexuality is wrong and equating homosexuals to terrorists in threat value to the nation. I don't believe most conservatives agree with that equation and as I remember there were numerous conservative and religious groups who said as much when Santorum made the comment.

I wasn't baiting you, I was trying to show that fair people aren't going to hold all conservatives accountable for the extreme rhetoric of a few--just as fair people shouldn't hold all liberals accountable for the rhetoric of a few either.

As for your question on taxes, I can't say either way without more details than "the Dems will raise taxes". I mean, Republicans have run us into the largest hole ever, sombody has to pay for it now. Deficit spending isn't sustainable for the long haul, at some point the debt must be paid down.

Would I oppose any "special" taxes or penalties specifically against the wealthy or businesses? Yes, certainly. I did when they wanted to impose them on the Oil Industry over and over. A search here will prove that.

But, I'll support the closing of numerous loop-holes in the tax code which benefit the wealthy and business right now--as well as eliminating tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthy over the middle or lower classes. I'll also continue to support the Estate/Death tax.

And just as I'll support the above which benefit the wealthy over the rest, I'll oppose any new ideas which target the wealthy over the rest as well.


I will need to consider your words here Sbannon, but did we just agree?

I don't know that I would agree that business credits should be removed as tax code tools to spur economic growth but I think we have found common ground here.

[sbannon]

I'm glad to see it. And to be clear on my remark about loop-holes in the tax code regarding business, I'm not speaking about some of the more minor offerings which target mostly small businesses because I support those as being for the overall good of the nation. Small businesses account for a majority of the employment in America and the percentage is growing each year, encouraging that growth is good for all in my opinion.

I'm talking more about some of the legislation and tax code loop-holes which are allowing American companies that have outsourced jobs overseas to then also funnel their money off shore as well to avoid paying taxes on it. There's nothing good or patriotic about American businesses cheating their fiscal responsibilities at any time--but especially during a time of war.

Again, glad to see we may have some common ground.

[Nathan Brazil]

Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people.

That's absolutely inaccurate. I'm very liberal in most issues and believe firmly that all people and businesses should pay equal taxes. Not some pay more--or less based on their wealth.

And if you're speaking in the grander scale of liberals generally favoring social programs that often benefit those at the lower end, it's a simple difference in perspectives. I don't view all of these programs as the rich supporting the poor, but rather as society building itself upward--for the benefit of all. It's the whole 'hand out' vs. 'hand up' question.

Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link. By neglecting to encourage and provide opportunities to those who need it most you weaken the nation as a whole. How's that good for America?


How is it good for America when the concentrations of wealth needed to create new businesses, new jobs, and new opportunities are drained to provide hammocks for those very people that complain that thare no new opportunities, no new jobs, and no new businesses to help them?

You want to help the poor? Recognize there are two kinds of money out there. Yours, and not-yours. "Not-yours" means you don't have any say in how it's spent, and you only get that say by threatening those people with guns.

THATS the heart of liberalism.

[firefox]

I don't think Liberals feel that rich people should be taxed to support poor people. I think Liberals feel that people need to be taxed, to pay for government spending. After all, we did balance the budget...with a surpluss.Â*Â*So on this, I will have to agree with you that Liberals and libertarians don't agree on this. Let's face it, no one likes to pay taxes, but it has to be done.


I agree with you that a government cannot very well spend beyond its means, at least not over the long term. Your assertion that "services must be paid for" is absolutely true, but where we differ is probably in that I support very few, if any, government "services", whereas your "line" may be drawn in a slightly different place.

The reality is, the vast majority of Americans are for smaller government, but usually with caveats that seem personally beneficial or good for "society". Since everyone's ideas of what these few governmental functions should be, we end up with a HUGE, wasteful welfare/warfare state that doesn't serve anyone very well at all!

The key is to have an informed, consistent view of politics. To be truly principled, people need to know that liberty and freedom are all-or-nothing. You must defend EVERYONE's liberties, not just your own, otherwise you'll eventually be brought down as well.

[lily]

I agree with you that a government cannot very well spend beyond its means, at least not over the long term. Your assertion that "services must be paid for" is absolutely true, but where we differ is probably in that I support very few, if any, government "services", whereas your "line" may be drawn in a slightly different place.

I think I get pretty much the idea of where you are coming from. Reading you, Patrick and I believe either Nathan or PAD is libertarian. That's where you got me.......we all agree there should be taxes, but none of us agree which is a fair tax and what to spend it on! Anderson and Peroit were laughed off the debate stage when they talked about flat tax.

[Cobra]

I don't think there should be taxes and since we will never be free of taxes it is a completly safe thing to dream about.

[Mayberry]

I don't think there should be taxes and since we will never be free of taxes it is a completly safe thing to dream about.

You could come close to that dream with the Fair Tax. Buying used items would essentially exempt you from taxes. It's the perfect system. The guy buying a brand new Leer jet pays a large tax bill for it. The guy buying a used Chevrolet pays no tax. Not only does Fair Tax help the poor, it encourages recycling! Why buy new and pay tax, when you can buy used and avoid it?

[Cobra]

I have a strange feeling a lot of people who pull the strings wont like the idea or we would already have it.

[Mayberry]

I have a strange feeling a lot of people who pull the strings wont like the idea or we would already have it.

Of course they don't like the idea. But if people would contact their reps and push for it, it would get done. Personally, I bother my reps about it at least once a month!

[Cobra]

Tell me a little about it and I'll email my reps. Doesn't sound like a bad idea and I haven't bothered them in awile.

[Jefferson/Hoffman '08]

I don't mind paying taxes, but why can't the taxed have an option to choose where their money goes? I, for one, don't want to spend my money on a 750 ft. wall or whatever to keep out the Mexicans, but wouldn't mind investing it in Healthcare. Then no one could bitch about where money goes cause they will have had an oppertunity to put it where they wish.

[Leopardpm]

I don't mind paying taxes, but why can't the taxed have an option to choose where their money goes?Â*Â*I, for one, don't want to spend my money on a 750 ft. wall or whatever to keep out the Mexicans, but wouldn't mind investing it in Healthcare.Â*Â*Then no one could bitch about where money goes cause they will have had an oppertunity to put it where they wish.


if you were not being forced to pay, then it really wouldn't be taxes, huh?

Actually, I agree with you - this would be a great improvement on government funding: set a standard tax rate and have each taxpayer choose which PRIVATE programs to 'donate' to.Â*Â*The more detailed the options, the better:

Tax Form:
State total Income:Â*Â*$I
Tax Paid =Â*Â*$I x TaxRate%

Apportion by percentage where it gets distributed to with the sum percentages equaling 100%:

National Defence = ______
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Welfare = ______
Â*Â*Â*Â*Court System = ______
Â*Â*Â*Â* Road Service = ______
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* --------------------
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* TOTAL = 100%

It would be better to break each category down to individual companies:

Road Service
Â*Â* Road Service Company A = ______
Â*Â* Road Service Company B = ______
Â*Â* Road Service Company C = ______
Â*Â* Road Service Company D = ______

It might get way to huge, but I am sure there would be a number of ways to cut it down to manageable groupings and determinations of which company gets to be on the Tax Form.

Still hate the thought of an Income tax at all though!
Â*Â*

[Jefferson/Hoffman '08]

I understand not wanting an income tax, I don't want one either, but I'm not convinced it's a practical idea. Convinve me - I WANT to be convinced!!

[Leopardpm]

I understand not wanting an income tax, I don't want one either, but I'm not convinced it's a practical idea.Â*Â*Convinve me - I WANT to be convinced!!


research!
When I first was trying to understand the purpose and reason for government, I googled Private Roads, and all sorts of different ideas on privatization. Probably the single most source for alot of things can be found here - look in the media section -
The Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org)

[firefox]

The income tax is primarily (today, exclusively!) used for paying off the debt on finances borrowed from the Federal Reserve and other central banks. This creates inflation, the hidden regressive tax that robs us more than any other, and there is absolutely NO representation for it! I recently saw an estimate that showed that at only 5% inflation per year, 64% of one's earnings are lost over a 30 year working career! by the time the average person dies, fully 90% has been expropriated!

[micfranklin]

There really needs to be a libertarian party elected into Congress. We need it now more than ever.