Are you a libertarian?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government? Exist with no taxation?

Does the OP really reflect your politiical outlook?

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what a "real libertarian" is.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Libertarian's denial of the existence of coercion that doesn't involve violence is a huge weakness in the ideology.

It's not the denial of coercion not involving violence, merely the fact that to "correct" this coercion would require an act of violence against somebody else.

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

 

[rightwinger]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government? Exist with no taxation?

Does the OP really reflect your politiical outlook?

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what a "real libertarian" is.

Do you support no government and no taxation?

Is that your Libertarian view?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarian's denial of the existence of coercion that doesn't involve violence is a huge weakness in the ideology.

It's not the denial of coercion not involving violence, merely the fact that to "correct" this coercion would require an act of violence against somebody else.

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

No, it's the position of libertarians that you shouldn't point a gun at someone's head to alleviate somebody else's coercion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government? Exist with no taxation?

Does the OP really reflect your politiical outlook?

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what a "real libertarian" is.

Do you support no government and no taxation?

Is that your Libertarian view?

It doesn't matter. You still have no say what does or does not constitute libertarianism.

 

[eflatminor]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government?

As a strong advocate of the Constitution, a document which expanded the role of the central government, I find the idea that libertarians want no government somewhat ridiculous.

You say the question was for libertarians and not anarchists, yet the implication is something only an anarchist would support. I find that odd.

Exist with no taxation?

No income tax, yes. For one, we don't need a income tax were the government...the one we libertarians support...to live within the limitations of the enumerated powers of the Constitution (not some Progressive fantasy of how far those limitations should be taken). Hell, if the government, as BLOATED as it is, lived on the revenue was had just ten years ago, we wouldn't need an income tax! But perhaps more importantly, I consider the idea of taxing a man's labor to be immoral. So did the founders, which is why it was specifically outlawed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government?

As a strong advocate of the Constitution, a document which expanded the role of the central government, I find the idea that libertarians want no government somewhat ridiculous.

You say the question was for libertarians and not anarchists, yet the implication is something only an anarchist would support. I find that odd.

Exist with no taxation?

No income tax, yes. For one, we don't need a income tax were the government...the one we libertarians support...to live within the limitations of the enumerated powers of the Constitution (not some Progressive fantasy of how far those limitations should be taken). Hell, if the government, as BLOATED as it is, lived on the revenue was had just ten years ago, we wouldn't need an income tax! But perhaps more importantly, I consider the idea of taxing a man's labor to be immoral. So did the founders, which is why it was specifically outlawed.

There are anarchist-libertarians.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarian's denial of the existence of coercion that doesn't involve violence is a huge weakness in the ideology.

It's not the denial of coercion not involving violence, merely the fact that to "correct" this coercion would require an act of violence against somebody else.

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

If someone is being forced to do something against their will by an entity other than government, and that is something you say a libertarian would support, I'd like to know about that. Please provide an example.

 

[Zmrzlina]

It's not the denial of coercion not involving violence, merely the fact that to "correct" this coercion would require an act of violence against somebody else.

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

No, it's the position of libertarians that you shouldn't point a gun at someone's head to alleviate somebody else's coercion.

Libertarian's are wonderful at framing their arguments so that they are always the victim. At the end of the day private property rights are founded on violence just the same as state power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

No, it's the position of libertarians that you shouldn't point a gun at someone's head to alleviate somebody else's coercion.

Libertarian's are wonderful at framing their arguments so that they are always the victim. At the end of the day private property rights are founded on violence just the same as state power.

Then please inform me who is the victim when one group of people takes from another to give to a third. The phone sitting to my right is my property. Who have I committed violence against in acquiring it?

 

[g5000]

The phone sitting to my right is my property. Who have I committed violence against in acquiring it?

There's this new thing going around these days. "Conflict minerals".

There May Be Conflict Minerals in Your Smartphone

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The phone sitting to my right is my property. Who have I committed violence against in acquiring it?

There's this new thing going around these days. "Conflict minerals".

There May Be Conflict Minerals in Your Smartphone

Conflict minerals have nothing to do with private property, and I can't be held responsible for what other people do. If I go buy a watermelon from a fruit stand today then the person behind the counter may use that money to do something violent, but I still haven't done anything violent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see you like to get caught up in the minutiae.

He's a lawyer, that is their way. (And one way I can tell that Jillian is NOT a lawyer.)

I prefer to think bigger.

The cases in question can easily be debated. Saul Goodman believes that citing a case ends the discussion. In court of law, this may be the case, but in a political debate, the MERIT of the case comes into play.

The government we have today is not working. It is terribly expensive, unjust, uncontrolled, warmongering, enslaving, corrupt, dangerous, etc.............

Government IS the problem. The two major political parties are too. They promote big government to keep the status quo...so they can enrich and empower themselves to the detriment of the American people.

The answer is LIBERTARIANISM.

We need to return to the rule of law. Currently the law is applied to some, but not others. Where Saul becomes confused is in his belief that the SCOTUS are the supreme rulers of the land, and that their word is law. We need to return to the use of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Notice that Saul cannot support his position using the Constitution, only the edicts of unelected rulers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think the industrial revolution was invented by rich assholes to get richer off the back of poor workers and its only gone down hill since then.

Which explains why your net contribution to humanity is to smoke dope and play video games.

 

[g5000]

I think the global derivatives crash of a few years ago is a great example of where libertarianism fails. Even that big fan of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, had to admit its shortcomings after the crash.

I know libertarians believe it was the Greenspan and the Federal Reserve's low interest rates which caused the crash, but low interest rates were but one factor. And Greenspan's low interest rates were inspired by his libertarian beliefs. He was simply providing a helping hand to Wall Street. He gave them what they wanted.

At the root of the problem was the fact there was way too much money available for investment and too few good borrowers. It is as simple as that.

The middle men who facilitate the transfer of money from an investor to a borrower get fees for providing this service. It is in their interest to keep the process going as long as there are fees to be had.

And so when they ran out of good borrowers to lend money to, they began lowering the lending standards, and they used derivative products to transfer the subsequent higher risk to others.

It was the throwing out the window of the underwriting laws of the Universe which had been learned over centuries where libertarianism broke down.

The "free market" advocates were able to convince regulators to untie their hands and lower their capital reserve requirements. In addition, they were able to get the government to completely deregulate their derivative products, and thus anyone was allowed to bet on the success or failure of these investment products whether or not they had an insurable interest. That is simply astonishing! And it is still allowed to this day!

These gambling derivatives (credit default swaps) are where the "financial weapons of mass destruction" came in. These instruments of death were time bombs which would greatly amplify the fallout effects of the inevitable defaults that would come from lending people way too fucking much money who had no business borrowing money.

Whether the Fed lowered interest rates or not, the financial middle men of Wall Street were going to make sure that $75 trillion of investor money was moved around and got into the hands of borrowers, good and bad alike. They wanted those fees! Greenspan simply did his part to help Wall Street, in the belief they would self-regulate and not drink too much from the punch bowl.

How wrong he was.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYtnW_1lUU]WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AN HONEST MAN APOLOGISES Alan Greenspan's - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah those pesky facts getting in the way of your capitalist utopia mate? Sucks eh.

You obviously didn't even read the paper you linked;

{Nevertheless, socialist reformers successfully petitioned government to remedy child labor abuses for which the government itself was responsible. Government snatched freedom and food from the mouths of those children who were unfortunate enough to come under its authority. It was the marketplace and the private sector that allowed free-labor children to edge toward independence and to eat. Once again, the disease of government masqueraded as a cure. - See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34727/Wendy-McElroy-The-Industrial-Revolution-You-Havent-Met/#sthash.bVUMQYJf.dpuf}

 

[Zmrzlina]

No, it's the position of libertarians that you shouldn't point a gun at someone's head to alleviate somebody else's coercion.

Libertarian's are wonderful at framing their arguments so that they are always the victim. At the end of the day private property rights are founded on violence just the same as state power.

Then please inform me who is the victim when one group of people takes from another to give to a third. The phone sitting to my right is my property. Who have I committed violence against in acquiring it?

No one gives a hoot about your phone. If you control the resources required for life and the people say F-that and 'violate' your private property rights the guns come out just the same as if you are defiant to the state.

 

[g5000]

There are email exchanges where you can see the people sowing the mass destruction knew they were creating a disaster. But they did not care. They were going to get their fees, then run off to the Bahamas when the house of cards came down.

This is where the libertarian belief that personal self-interest and the interests of society will always be aligned by the "free hand" is exposed as idiocy. I'm a big believer in the free hand, but I just not THAT stupid.

Thus the need for external controls on markets.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government? Exist with no taxation?

Does the OP really reflect your politiical outlook?

An answer you as a Communist will not understand; DIRECT taxation is abhorrent. George Mason wrote that direct taxation is evil, that to tax a mans land is to confiscate that land and make the previous owner nothing with the crown as landlord. If the federal government, or any government may collect rent on land occupied, then they alone are owners of said land and the concept of private property is a farce.

Mason focused on property tax, as no viable system to tax income was present in 1783.

Government, being necessary to secure certain rights, among them defense of the nations borders and the arbitration of disputes between the states, are vested with the power to tax. Our government was vested with the power to tax transactions, not people. Taxing a transaction has many aspect, it cannot be bartered or bought. The income tax code is an essay in corruption - every exemption in the code is the sale of an indulgence by our corrupt state to a special interest - be the sale for cash, or for votes, it is still a sale. You cannot sell an exemption to some from a sales tax, or a stamp tax, or a tariff. This is why you Communist detest transaction taxes, the goal of a pampered elite not subject to the laws of commoners is supreme among Communists, transaction taxes thwart that.

I do not object to paying taxes, I object to paying income and property taxes - direct taxation is the basis of corruption in this nation - it is completely evil.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think the global derivatives crash of a few years ago is a great example of where libertarianism fails. Even that big fan of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, had to admit its shortcomings after the crash.

I know libertarians believe it was the Greenspan and the Federal Reserve's low interest rates which caused the crash, but low interest rates were but one factor. And Greenspan's low interest rates were inspired by his libertarian beliefs. He was simply providing a helping hand to Wall Street. He gave them what they wanted.

At the root of the problem was the fact there was way too much money available for investment and too few good borrowers. It is as simple as that.

The middle men who facilitate the transfer of money from an investor to a borrower get fees for providing this service. It is in their interest to keep the process going as long as there are fees to be had.

And so when they ran out of good borrowers to lend money to, they began lowering the lending standards, and they used derivative products to transfer the subsequent higher risk to others.

It was the throwing out the window of the underwriting laws of the Universe which had been learned over centuries where libertarianism broke down.

The "free market" advocates were able to convince regulators to untie their hands and lower their capital reserve requirements. In addition, they were able to get the government to completely deregulate their derivative products, and thus anyone was allowed to bet on the success or failure of these investment products whether or not they had an insurable interest. That is simply astonishing! And it is still allowed to this day!

These gambling derivatives (credit default swaps) are where the "financial weapons of mass destruction" came in. These instruments of death were time bombs which would greatly amplify the fallout effects of the inevitable defaults that would come from lending people way too fucking much money who had no business borrowing money.

Whether the Fed lowered interest rates or not, the financial middle men of Wall Street were going to make sure that $75 trillion of investor money was moved around and got into the hands of borrowers, good and bad alike. They wanted those fees! Greenspan simply did his part to help Wall Street, in the belief they would self-regulate and not drink too much from the punch bowl.

How wrong he was.

WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AN HONEST MAN APOLOGISES Alan Greenspan's - YouTube

Nonsense. Greenspan was a follower of Ayn Rand years ago, but turned around and abandoned those beliefs long before he became the Fed Chairman, which in and of itself disqualifies him as a believer in free markets. Nor does artificially lowering interest rates have anything to do with libertarianism or free markets. Austro-libertarians believe that the market should set the interest rates, not a central banker or the government. As such, when savings are low, as they were and are, interest rates should be high. Artificially keeping them low is indeed meant to enrich government cronies, but that is not libertarian at all. It was libertarians who were Greenspan's biggest critics.

And nobody questions that artificially low interest rates were but one factor in the severity of the crash, but it is artificially low interest rates which led to malinvestment and the business cycle.