The three main goals of libertarianism

[kaz]

Mitt Romney's policies are 100% in line with the three main goals of the libertarian party mentioned in the OP.

That's what I'm saying. We nominated Mitt "Mr. Libertarian" Romney for a reason.

LOL.. exactly. Libertarians really lined up behind Mitt, didn't they...

True dat. I voted for him. First time I'd voted for a major party candidate for President since 1988. Though to say I "lined up" behind him would be incorrect. I voted against the guy who delivered on his threat to rule as a Marxist. However, most libertarians didn't. Made no sense to me. Yeah, the two parties suck. But there's a point where when the Devil has a gun pointed to your head and you have the chance to ally with Satan to stop him from pulling the trigger, you take it.

 

[Erand7899]

First off...................it's SAILOR, not "soldier". Never been a ground pounder or a bullet sponge (Army and Marines) nor do I ever wish to become one. When I first joined in 1982, I thought camping as a hobby was fine, but as a lifestyle left much to be desired (which is why I didn't join the Army).

I also thought that being on the front lines and getting fired at was not exactly what I wanted as well, which is why I joined the Navy.

Being on the front lines (like Beruit, Desert Storm for both Pt. 1 and 2, as well as Kosovo) was exciting enough, but in addition to going to battle stations, I could get a decent hot meal later.

Want to know what's killing capitalism? It's idiots like Mittens RobMe and his ilk. They don't care about the workers or what they produce or how well it's done, they just want to fortify their bottom line and make more cash.

And yeah..................Mittens RobMe isn't a slash about his failed campaign, it's about the people who think like him.

Odd that your love for workers doesn't extend to soldiers. Now everyone know why navy pukes are pretty much considered light in the loafers.

What you consider about Navy pukes is not even high on the "Who gives a shit?" list.

The only thing killing capitalism is gross ignorance, combined with a desire to get something for nothing. Unless you are doing business withe Mitt Romney, or working for him, nothing he does concerning making money affects you in any way. The simple fact that he makes money is what irks many of the ignorant and envious.

 

[PaulS1950]

I vote for freedom, liberty, small government and my rights.

Libertarian ideals about cover that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign; he is the captain of himself."

Watch how they all ignore this.

I don't see anyone ignoring it - but people who know a lot more about Rand than you do will also tell you that the reason no country has ever attempted to implement her ideas is because so much coercion would be required to remove all of the legislation currently preventing the plutocracy from doing whatever the hell they want.

Are you talking about Ayn Rand? Tell me something, what makes you think that most people are subjectivists? Do you honestly believe that no one has actually tried to found a government on the theory that reality exists outside people's minds?

As I mentioned earlier, a Randian society would like place no environmental controls on companies.

Why do people keep saying this? Is there something Rand wrote that no one but progressives is allowed to read where she said that we should eliminate the government entirely? If so, why did Patterson quote her to argue that the feds should pass the stimulus?

Paterson Quotes Rand, Urges State Stimulus Package: Gothamist

Do you not think coercion would be required to repress the opposition to that move?

Of course it would!

The new boss would be very, very much like the old boss - only the new boss would be a wealthy elite of company owners and bosses.

If only Rand had lived long enough to read what you wrote, she would have renounced her philosophy and admitted that you were the true leader of all mankind.

Not.

I would suggest you read what she actually wrote about the role of government sometime, it turns out she actually made the exact same argument, and she did it without the benefit of all the books you have read about how wrong she is.

In unthinking protest against this trend, some people are raising the question of whether government as such is evil by nature and whether anarchy is the ideal social system. Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy: it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

"The Nature of Government", by Ayn Rand - The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Feel free to admit you are a complete idiot now, and that simply reading of books does not make you better informed on a subject than someone else who did not read the same book.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.


That about sums it up!

You are way off, 0 for 3.


It is not the government responsibility to intervene in employment contracts. How much you earn depends on you and the putative employer.

Taxation is a bad word for Libertarians. You pay for what you use or consume.

We believe in businesses being regulated by the marketplace.

.

He is right in all three - and you seem to largely prove that here yourself.

1. With no labour laws or unions to protect employees, wages WILL go down. It's obvious.

2. Here you agree. Taxation is a bad word, hence taxes for the wealthy WILL go down.

3. Here you both agree - there would be no regulation of the market beyond what the market chooses. What the OP rightly adds is that when producers control the market, there will be no regulation at all. Monopolies - fine. Cartels - fine. That is the point here.

If he is right in all three feel free to help him out and point out exactly where libertarians advocate those things.

Or is this another example of your book reading making you smarter than anyone else on the planet?

 

[Toro]

1. The individual is sovereign. The rights of the individual are paramount. All power derives from the individual. There are no collective rights.

2. The role of the government is to maximize individual liberty. It's primary purpose is the adjudication of disputes regarding the violation of individual rights.

3. Redistribution of wealth through government force is a violation of the rights of man. This includes not only through government social programs but also through legislation that benefits powerful special interests such as corporations or unions.

The third point is what leftists and collectivists don't understand the most. The rise of the Tea Party first accelerated not through the expansion of government programs but because of the bailout of banks.

 

[Toro]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.


That about sums it up!

You are way off, 0 for 3.


It is not the government responsibility to intervene in employment contracts. How much you earn depends on you and the putative employer.

Taxation is a bad word for Libertarians. You pay for what you use or consume.

We believe in businesses being regulated by the marketplace.

.

He is right in all three - and you seem to largely prove that here yourself.

1. With no labour laws or unions to protect employees, wages WILL go down. It's obvious.

2. Here you agree. Taxation is a bad word, hence taxes for the wealthy WILL go down.

3. Here you both agree - there would be no regulation of the market beyond what the market chooses. What the OP rightly adds is that when producers control the market, there will be no regulation at all. Monopolies - fine. Cartels - fine. That is the point here.

Your assumption regarding point 1 is wrong.

Non-libertarians believe that libertarians are inherently supportive of the existence of corporations and hostile to unions per se. This is incorrect. Corporations are legal creations that legally protect capital. Unions are legal creation that legally protect labour. What libertarians oppose about unions are the actions of unions to restrict the rights of individuals, i.e. minimum wage. Libertarians are, however, just as opposed to corporations advancing their own interests at the expense of individual rights.

BTW, libertarians aren't necessarily opposed to regulation, particularly those that create externalities which impinge on the rights of the individual. For example, if pollution from a corporation causes death, the output of the corporation has caused the violation of the rights of the individual, i.e. dying.

 

[bripat9643]

Can't they unionize and negotiate?

No, not anymore, not really. In about half the states in the union, the "libertarians" have stripped the unions of the ability to freely negotiate a union shop agreement with business .This renders them more or less moot.
Haven't you been paying attention?

You mean they have given workers the right not to join a union.

You Po witto babies!
__________________

 

[Redfish]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.


That about sums it up!

1. wrong, the price of labor should be set by supply and demand just like the price of strawberries. If you have rare talents or skills then you get higher pay. If you have no talents or skills, ------you better get some or be ready to accept low pay, because the supply of people like you is pretty high.

2. wrong, pure partisan foolishness. true libertarians want lower taxes for everyone.

3. wrong again, Some regulation is necessary just as some laws are necessary. Over regulation aimed at helping one guy and punishing another guy is part of the socialist plan according to Marx and Alinsky. Business only exists to make a profit, without the profit motive there would be no businesses, no corporations, no mom and pop convenience stores, no GE, no GM, no Apple, no Microsoft, no pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Eric Cartman]

BriPat -

There's nothing about democracy that makes it incompatible with fascism.

Then by all means provide a list of fascist states that were also democracies.


To save time, here is the list: -

ROLF! Nope. Proving, once again, that you don't know what fascism is.

Here's a more accurate list:

The United States, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia



Of course, you simply define any election held by a fascist state not to be fascit. BUt then, you have no clue what fascism is.

That is YOUR definition, and unfortunately no dictionary agrees with it.

That is the definition. Any other definition is nonsensical and based on purely partisan criteria.

Limited government is a relatively recent, and very American concept. It did not exist in the 1940's, and is rarely referred to anyone except in the US even today.

ROFL! The concept of limited government has been around for at least 200 years. It pretty much ended by 1940. By that time the USA had descended entirely into fascism.

Can't they unionize and negotiate?

No, not anymore, not really. In about half the states in the union, the "libertarians" have stripped the unions of the ability to freely negotiate a union shop agreement with business .This renders them more or less moot.
Haven't you been paying attention?

You mean they have given workers the right not to join a union.

You Po witto babies!
__________________

No, they have limited the terms of a contract between two parties that can be negotiated. Namely a union shop or exclusivity of labor supply. Government regulation of the free market.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean they have given workers the right not to join a union.

You Po witto babies!
__________________

No, they have limited the terms of a contract between two parties that can be negotiated. Namely a union shop or exclusivity of labor supply. Government regulation of the free market.

No they haven't. If a company wants to sign an exclusive agreement with a union to hire only members of that union, No one can stop it. Of course, no company would ever voluntarily agree to such a contract.

 

[Eric Cartman]

You mean they have given workers the right not to join a union.

You Po witto babies!
__________________

No, they have limited the terms of a contract between two parties that can be negotiated. Namely a union shop or exclusivity of labor supply. Government regulation of the free market.

No they haven't. If a company wants to sign an exclusive agreement with a union to hire only members of that union, No one can stop it. Of course, no company would ever voluntarily agree to such a contract.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop, except in those states that have passed right-to-work laws, in which case even the union shop is illegal.

Closed shop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

He's a bootlicking fascist worshiper of the almighty state who wants to sell us all into slavery, so naturally he hates libertarians.

On the other hand, I am a libertarian.

Given the fascism is libertarianism taken to an obvious extreme, I would say you are much closer to fascism than almost anyone else on this board. You've already complained about the perils of democracy and freedom once today.

(And yes, I am sure you still don't understand that statism can be both right and left wing.)

Fascism has little to do with libertarianism.

 

[deltex1]

Beat the heat...you fucking morons...

 

[Eric Cartman]

You mean they have given workers the right not to join a union.

You Po witto babies!
__________________

No, they have limited the terms of a contract between two parties that can be negotiated. Namely a union shop or exclusivity of labor supply. Government regulation of the free market.

No they haven't. If a company wants to sign an exclusive agreement with a union to hire only members of that union, No one can stop it. Of course, no company would ever voluntarily agree to such a contract.

Of course a company would agree to a union shop if they deemed that it would be more profitable than other terms on the table. A union shop is cheaper than a Cadillac health care plan. It is a negotiation, every thing is on the table and normally nobody gets everything they want.

 

[flacaltenn]

The libertarians have co-opted the GOP. Did you know David Koch was the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate in 1980? Guess who was the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988? Ron Paul. They are Republicans now - and they are doing everything to advance the three goals outlined in the OP.

That's right. We've taken over the Republican Party. That's how Mitt Romney got nominated. All part of the vast libertarian conspiracy.

Mitt Romney's policies are 100% in line with the three main goals of the libertarian party mentioned in the OP.

Yeah Bullwinkle, that's why we spent MILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of hour in volunteer time putting Gary Johnson on the ballot in 50 states. Because Romney was the perfect Libertarian... Hell 14 Republicans on the stage in 12 debates, there WERE choices there. Republicans blew the opportunity and Democrats declined to give the American people a choice besides Barack Obama. We GAVE America a viable qualified Libertarian candidate.. For the 2nd Prez election in a row...

Be advised --- I'll bump this thread once just to tell you how juvenile your OP is --- No way, I'm bumping it again.. Why don't you come back with some SPECIFIC DOCUMENTED issues rather than project your uninformed beliefs against folks who UPHOLD the Constitution and the American legal system MORE --- than either of your 2 wimpy ass parties do today...

 

[The Rabbi]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.


That about sums it up!

I hate libertarians and that was the stupidest post on the topic I've ever seen.

 

[dblack]

That's what I'm saying. We nominated Mitt "Mr. Libertarian" Romney for a reason.

LOL.. exactly. Libertarians really lined up behind Mitt, didn't they...

True dat. I voted for him. First time I'd voted for a major party candidate for President since 1988. Though to say I "lined up" behind him would be incorrect. I voted against the guy who delivered on his threat to rule as a Marxist. However, most libertarians didn't. Made no sense to me. Yeah, the two parties suck. But there's a point where when the Devil has a gun pointed to your head and you have the chance to ally with Satan to stop him from pulling the trigger, you take it.

You got the bolded part right.

But lesser-of-two-evils in the sad sellout killing our nation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.

That about sums it up!

A superb set of lies. Well done.

 

[Contumacious]

he's a bootlicking fascist worshiper of the almighty state who wants to sell us all into slavery, so naturally he hates libertarians.

On the other hand, i am a libertarian.

given the fascism is libertarianism taken to an obvious extreme, i would say you are much closer to fascism than almost anyone else on this board. You've already complained about the perils of democracy and freedom once today.

(and yes, i am sure you still don't understand that statism can be both right and left wing.)

fascism has little to do with libertarianism.

fascism has nothing to do with libertarianism.

N-o-t-h-i-n-g

.