Libertarian Thread(articles and discussion)

[Lady Catherine]

Inspired by Ohso

I thought I'd start a thread where we can discuss and debate libertarian principles, ideas, and articles of all kinds from individualist anarchism to libertarian socialism.

Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the government should be at the very minimums required to run it. I believe that capitalism is the most effective form of economy, limited taxes, no "nanny" laws and programs, and for the most part I don't give a rat's ass about what you do, as long as you don't harm my family or me.

So...do we have any other libertarians? If so, what philosophies?

[senach]

Inspired by Ohso

I thought I'd start a thread where we can discuss and debate libertarian principles, ideas, and articles of all kinds from individualist anarchism to libertarian socialism.

Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the government should be at the very minimums required to run it. I believe that capitalism is the most effective form of economy, limited taxes, no "nanny" laws and programs, and for the most part I don't give a rat's ass about what you do, as long as you don't harm my family or me.

So...do we have any other libertarians? If so, what philosophies?

I find that argueing for minimal taxes,is a cop out,no income taxes full stop,it is as if we need to pacify the moochers by giving ground to their delusions,there is nothing the state can do for me,that i cannot get from the private sector by contract.

[Lady Catherine]

May I ask how many firearms and I.e.ds you have as a minarchist , and how far you are willing to go to live free?

I do not own explosives, but my husband and I both own handguns and a shotgun. To answer your second question: pretty far.

I find that argueing for minimal taxes,is a cop out,no income taxes full stop,it is as if we need to pacify the moochers by giving ground to their delusions,there is nothing the state can do for me,that i cannot get from the private sector by contract.

I'm assuming you're an anarcho-capitalist or individualist anarchist?

[nivek]

I'm a simplisisist (and a rather drunk one at that)

[senach]

I do not own explosives, but my husband and I both own handguns and a shotgun. To answer your second question: pretty far.


I'm assuming you're an anarcho-capitalist or individualist anarchist?

I am a man whom will trade with anyone regardless of the race creed or colour,i believe that fair exchange is no robbery,and yes i have have been described as both a anarcho-capitalist and a individulist,and a bastard by my ex's,though in my defence,well i have no defence in this socalist world,yet i would go vikingr if pushed to the edge's of society,i would become a Murphy to survive and feed my family,but i would rather trade than raid.

[omegaflux]

I used to consider myself a minarchist, and still do I guess. I believe(d) that the only role government should have is protecting the natural rights of citizens. Lately I've been questioning the legitimacy of government as an institution. I've been pretty angry lately, though, so I'm not ready to say I've made the swing to anarcho-capitalist until I've calmed down and had a chance to think things through with a clear head and rational mind.

[Lady Catherine]

I am a man whom will trade with anyone regardless of the race creed or colour,i believe that fair exchange is no robbery,and yes i have have been described as both a anarcho-capitalist and a individulist,and a bastard by my ex's,though in my defence,well i have no defence in this socalist world,yet i would go vikingr if pushed to the edge's of society,i would become a Murphy to survive and feed my family,but i would rather trade than raid

Which is cool, to each their own.

I used to consider myself a minarchist, and still do I guess. I believe(d) that the only role government should have is protecting the natural rights of citizens. Lately I've been questioning the legitimacy of government as an institution. I've been pretty angry lately, though, so I'm not ready to say I've made the swing to anarcho-capitalist until I've calmed down and had a chance to think things through with a clear head and rational mind.

There are days when I feel like an individualist anarchist.

I found this article:
The Inequality of Statism

What does everyone think?

I like this excerpt:

But freedom and competition brings with it vertical mobility. It is true that inheritance and familial context dictate one's starting conditions, and that's not something I necessarily agree with. But it is a fact of economics that freer countries means more vertical mobility.
In caste-based societies, around 3 to 5% of leaders and captains of industry come from the lower classes. In freer countries like the United States, the percentage can go from 30 to 50% (Pitirim Sorokin, "Social and Cultural Mobility", 1959). John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are two recent examples.
How important are our starting conditions, really ? Age-adjusted parental wealth, by itself, explains less than 10 percent of the variation in age-adjusted child wealth ("The Correlation of Wealth Across Generations," December 2003 Journal of Political Economy). And half of this 10% is due to similarities in financial management between parents and children (such as the affinity towards saving and investing wisely). Contrarily to what some critics say, social mobility is not a zero-sum game. The more a society rewards its most efficient members, the more productive it becomes. And the more productive it becomes, the more resources are available to all. In a free society, more people will rise in economical status than people who will go down

[omegaflux]

I found this article:
The Inequality of Statism

What does everyone think?

I think it's funny the side ads that Google generated which included "Libertarian T-Shirts" and "Want to Join The FBI?". The two seem rather incompatible.

But I'll have to actually look up the studies referenced before commenting.

[Kim]

I'm assuming you're an anarcho-capitalist or individualist anarchist?

LOL...I can see someone has a penchant for ists and isms.

[Percy]

I am of mixed political philosophy.

I see Government as not only essential but naturally occuring. People organise one way or another and some people aspire to power.

I also see Government, as it is natural and made of people, as organic. It obeys natural rules. It will grow and it will die. It will grow so as to out-grow other natural forms that use the same resources. It will attempt to 'over-power' other life-forms.

Therefore it needs a degree of pruning and control.

It is best as a small part of a much larger garden and preferably be kept in a shed in a pot alongside old tins of paint for the fence and the lawnmower.

As for Tax. This is a payment by citizens to the common good. There is quite little, in fact, that is 'common good' that cannot be met by individuals simply being helpful to one another at an immediate level.

Income tax is an onerous and self-defeating tax. It is universally a deterrant to work. I refuse to pay it, myself.

[Lady Catherine]

LOL...I can see someone has a penchant for ists and isms.

You got that right!

I am of mixed political philosophy.

I see Government as not only essential but naturally occuring. People organise one way or another and some people aspire to power.

I also see Government, as it is natural and made of people, as organic. It obeys natural rules. It will grow and it will die. It will grow so as to out-grow other natural forms that use the same resources. It will attempt to 'over-power' other life-forms.

Therefore it needs a degree of pruning and control.

It is best as a small part of a much larger garden and preferably be kept in a shed in a pot alongside old tins of paint for the fence and the lawnmower.

As for Tax. This is a payment by citizens to the common good. There is quite little, in fact, that is 'common good' that cannot be met by individuals simply being helpful to one another at an immediate level.

Income tax is an onerous and self-defeating tax. It is universally a deterrant to work. I refuse to pay it, myself.

You come off as a classical liberal personally(you seem to share share my husbands views on government).

[nickb275]

Do people really have to fit in some kind of ism, ist, or box? Who benefits from such labels? We all just one big fucked up family-ism. Now there's a box. Popsicle's and cotton candy dancing in my head, ladidadida!!

[Lady Catherine]

Do people really have to fit in some kind of ism, ist, or box? Who benefits from such labels? We all just one big fucked up family-ism. Now there's a box. Popsicle's and cotton candy dancing in my head, ladidadida!!

But labels are fun...

[dad_savage]

But freedom and competition brings with it vertical mobility.

This is a lie, but it is a lie that allows things to go on as they are. Vertical class mobility only exists up to a point. There are levels of wealth beyond what we think of as classifying a person well off, wealthy, rich or even incredibly rich. There is the demographic for whom increasing wealth does not increase quality of life (above a certain point everything is already the best) and merely a way of keeping score. There is no reason why we should allow individuals to possess such rediculous amounts of capital; the only reason we do is because we like the idea that they can. If they can maybe some day we can, but this will never happen. There are rare lucky individuals who do land in incredible wealth, but this does not happen ordinarily, and it is not a game of skill or determination. A man may work hard all his life, he may save, be clever, etc. He will never have billions of dollars. This is just a fact of life.

The unlimited freedom we give this demographic to piss away, accrue (not earn) and hoarde finite resources for little or no reason is a sad indication of our priorities.

Invade The Isle of Man

Billionaires and Capitalists

It's OUR money!

I believe that capitalism is the most effective form of economy, limited taxes, no "nanny" laws and programs, and for the most part I don't give a rat's ass about what you do, as long as you don't harm my family or me.

American Dream

Elitism, Intellectualism, Meritocracy and Equality

This belief is sustainable only when one has learnt to swallow a particularly tempting and dellusive but totally untrue idea.

In a free society, more people will rise in economical status than people who will go down

This is, in some ways, the idea. The reality:

in a free society that is surrounded by less well-off societies and propped up via the appropriation of their resources more people will rise in economical status than will go down.

The illusion the unaltered version of this quote propogates is that if the whole world were free, and capitalist it would be possible for the wealth of all persons to rise concurantly, and that standards currently enjoyed only by a minority may be some day exported to the majority.

Capitalism works, quite badly really when you consider how fucked the world is, only for the moment, and it works only for certain lucky populations, but it cannot work for everyone. If we ever wish to reach a point where the majority of living humans exist at a standard even just within the bounds of something condusive to human dignity capitalism, in its unfettered sense, will need to be given the old heave ho. Just a sad fact of life; before anyone accuses me of being platonic though I'll note I do not yet think we are prepared to take that step. It would at least be nice to see more people understanding that hypothetically, at least, at some point it will need to be taken.

Now I realize this might sound like crazy talk from a man who so energetically derides statism but I'll clarify; my attitude to the state is entirely determined by the nature of the state. A benevolent state can freely be allowed much more power than can a self-propogating monster of a state. The quality of our present form of Government and the individuals that tend to rise to power within it is what informs my anti-statist opinion. This is not an unalterable situation, at least hypothetically.

Note to those who object to tax this is my attitude:

Taxation grew out of tribute, a respectable term for protection money. But it has come a very long way since those times. For the vast majority of people the implied social contract is extremely beneficial. We get peace and stability which allow us to exercise freedoms and we get the benefit of prosperity. Our lives today are much better than those in the days before the Leviathan came into existence, when most lives really were nasty, brutish and short. No individual deserves to be rich or could be rich without the efforts of other people. Left to themselves people can make a living as farmers and fishermen or hunter gatherers, nobody on his own can ever be meaningfully rich. Being really rich requires other people to trade with (or co-operate with). It follows that nobody is really entitled to say that everything they have is all down to themselves and their own actions. It is not. We all owe a moral debt to the people around us who enable us to live the lifestyle we do. We need customers to buy our products and services, without trade, without other people, nobody can be rich.

I do however object to tax at the moment. It is my most effective form of protest, but I am not protesting the idea of tax itself.

[Percy]

In a society where income tax is the norm, especially 'progressive' tax rates, we inevitably reach a situation where welfare income is taxable. This is just 'churning' money and using the residual benefit to pay an army of rent-seeking scum bureaucrats.

The idea of helping the poor and those unable to cope with adult and self-responsible life, even temporaily that way, is laudable, but when done directly it is less wasteful.

Taxes which contribute to the common good, such as roads, public safety and cleanliness, defence and health can be seen as justifiable and can be organised at Governmental level. But taking income from people simply to give 'grants' to
small-group interests is a form of theft. Funding an army of busybodies at national or local level is misappropriation.