Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Aug 25, 2009.
Presenting Libertarian Paradise :smile:
wow...what an accurate representation of libertarianism.
Funny shit, though..."I have cholera!" :lmao:
I love it! In fact, I think we should start a fund to get it shown on TV and see how many Americans fall for it.
Libertarians believe in government... they simply believe that government exists to protect and extend the rights of property owners.
Republicans believe in government, too- they just believe that government should be like any other free enterprise, for sale to the highest bidder.
Pathetic, both of them... in their myopic disregard for the fact of socialized water purification and distribution, socialized sewer services, socialized road building and maintenance, socialized defense, socialized scientific research ( which has created to EVERY new market capitalist boom of the last 70 years )...
how idiotic the fear mongering right and far right are.
And libertarians are the most confused of the lot.
I believe that's the most left biased approximation possible of Libertarianism.
That's your image of what Libertarians want, and they're the myopic ones.
The fundamental split in political direction is left and right, left says the government should do more, while right says the government should do less.
What this means is that, from the center to the right, in the current state of affairs, you have the group that believes the government shouldn't tell the markets what to do, immediately followed by the group that believes the government shouldn't tell the people what to do, which is then followed by the group that believes government should be run as a completely independent entity from the society(super-competitive).
From the center to the left, we have the group which believes the government should intervene in the markets for the betterment of the whole, followed by the group which believes the government should influence upon people's lives for the betterment of the whole, followed by the group that believes the government should have control of everything for the good of the whole(super-collaborative).
You should never think the other side is wrong; the whole idea of our system is to float a balance between these two directions(inward and outward), such that we stay relatively stably advancing. If we stick together too strongly, we don't diversify and spread into new markets or worlds. If we split apart too much, we don't stay together enough to remain gaining the strength of working together.
But, because it is a balance; there must be a perfect balance. Maybe we'll find it someday, maybe we've already found it and noone's listened, maybe it's been around for thousands of years and nobody's given it an honest try.
Well, if one thinks that, say, liberals and communists are the same thing, or that progressivism and fascism are just different names for the same disease, then the differences between libertarians and anarchists might prove elusive, too.
I believe the differences are quite obvious.
Anarchists believe in no government control whatsoever, and so are not even on this line, however most would go along if the majority could not control the minority.
Libertarians believe in as little law as possible, specifically, no laws which interfere with an individual's right to freedom; the right to do what they want with what they own. This is from the fundamental argument that Liberty, rather than Life is the more important of the basic aspects of equality to reach happiness. Things a Libertarian would be against would be government regulation on business activities in regards to prohibition; if a Libertarian were in control of government, you would see less products made illegal(such as drugs and powerful firearms), because they are a commodity, and are subject to the ideal that the free market should be free to everyone, without regard of whence they come or what they do. Instead of having a "World Market" and a "Black Market" you simply have the "Open Market", where no good is prohibited unless the PEOPLE choose to prohibit it for good reasons(like safety; sorry, one thing you can't buy is a nuke). In a Libertarian government, an individual is responsible for their actions; If you are enacting your freedom and pissing off an individual, that individual has every right(one could even say an obligation) to enact their freedom and smack the shit out of you. There is as little government/organizational involvement as necessary in regards to control of the population.
Fascism is effectively when an individual's right to freedom(through corporate success or otherwise) installs that individual as the prime entity of the society; like the alpha of the pack. There is so much emphasis on individual freedom that one individual has enacted that to become leader in some way, effectively a move back towards the days of Kingdoms and Lords. One person is in charge; Fascist nations have shaky guarantees on Equality, Life, Liberty, and the ability to Pursue Happiness. However, that's not to say all Fascists are bad. A Fascist nation under a wise and benevolent ruler is just as good, and in some ways better, than a fully democratic system. The old saying goes; Too many cooks spoil the broth. One leader is able to direct the collective in a much more polarized fashion. If the leader is benevolent, he will do this in as gentle a way as possible and respect the individuals. If he is not, he will force them. By willfully sacrificing some free will to a wise leader, the population(which will always be majority betas) now gains a sense of direction ("Follow that person"). How well this works is entirely down to the leader. Sadly, just as a bad government can be overthrown, so can a good one. A benevolent leader will be in power only so long as he can appease his aggressors, if he or she is unable to do that, attempts or successes will be had at his or her life.
Conservatives are those who lean in the same direction as these groups, just less so. Conservatives believe that the government should maintain more of a hands-off attitude with regards to liberty. As a republican system of function, populations have elected representatives whom they choose to represent their average point of view to the governmental body. The job of these representatives is to listen to the majority attitude and present that to the collective. Other parts of his responsibilities includes talking to the public which *disagrees* with the majority, figure out why there is that disagreement, and take those issues to the government. These issues are then to be examined and worked out not into the MAJORITY choice, but rather the EQUAL choice. No bartering for favor should happen, but the average mentality is that if you help with something, it might make someone help you when you need it. The governing body is supposed to pick through and apply the different ideals and find the most commonly agreeable version. This then goes back to the people, and if there is a clear majority, it is put to vote, and if passed, made into law.
Republics are vulnerable to corruption at a few key points; power corrupts, or so they say. First, if one group obtains a population majority, this can swing votes unfairly in their favor. Second, a representative is not strictly bound to his duty as a representative(a surrogate voice, if you will), and so his choice of actions may not always align with the interests of the common good. Additionally, without a good mix of viewpoints, you can end up with skew in political ideology. A republic system only works well if each individual group of similar opinions has a fixed representation. To reduce these effects, the founding fathers created the checks and balances system. Effectively, by splitting the power between different entities in a certain way, you prevent any single entity from having or being able to obtain absolute power.
Liberalism believes in Democracy; rather than a system of representatives, we use direct opinion. Every law that goes up for vote, is voted upon by the population directly. Most Anarchists would be in favor of a system like this with one addition; the choices of the majority bear NO hold on the laws for the minority. Liberalism is also vulnerable to corruption; secret contracts amongst groups of people, threats by these groups and other violent control methods.
Further left we find Socialism; often ruled by a dictatorship, but that dictatorship is not a requirement. Socialists believe that the government is there to provide for the people; and this is true. The question between all of the differing types is how much. Socialists believe the government should provide a lot for the people; The government is functioning effectively as the "brain" of the social organism, or the collective whole choosing to act with consideration to the group rather than to the individual. If a Socialist were in control, we would find complete provision of health services(Government provides a lot of rights to "Life"), but less emphasis on individual freedom(Government owns what it pays for, so you can't do what you want with what you have).
Even further left we find Communism; often by dictatorship, but again, not a necessity. Communists believe the government should BE the people in every way; one solid combined entity. This means there is a level of forced(if dictator-led) or generally agreed upon(if democratically led) mentality. Nobody owns anything; if it's there, it's for everyone's use, just keep it clean and in good shape and everyone gets to benefit.
The question is, which is more important to reaching happiness, Life, or Liberty? You would think that listing the rights as Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, they were implying that the way to happiness is in some particular balance of of Life and Liberty. The problem is, it's really hard to find that spot; it moves around. Populations shift in opinion, people go through hard times, or even just have a bad day, and so the true balance is elusive. Our governmental structure effectively simulates the respective benefits of each different government type on different levels.
Towns and Cities take property tax and pay for public amenities, facilities, improving tourism/income from other states, and public workers such as police and firemen.
States take state income tax and fees for registrations and other activities and pay for infrastructural work, development, insertion of funds into town governments, state troopers to maintain obedience of road laws, and other expenditures.
Federal takes federal income tax, bond money, interest, credit, and other such sources of funds and applies them towards international interaction, trade, research, defense, and other such large scale expenditures.
By distributing expenditures around, we achieve a relative balance between each individual function, incorporating many of the positive aspects of each governmental structure right and left of center without as many of the negatives of corruption because the system is split up. As differing leaders come and go, and opinions change, we will tend to develop in one direction or the other; like a tree and roots. Not enough root to tree ratio, and it falls over. Not enough tree to root ratio, and it dies of malnutrition(not enough suction to pull in nutrients nor enough leaves to gather energy). The advantage to our system is that any person from any group is supposed to be able to take office and move us in that direction. The problem is, we have to big, fat, incumbent parties which have taken the corruption by population value to a hilarious proportion. We always portray them as elephant and donkey, but in truth, they're both big fat bloated organizations who have made enemies out of each other fighting over the throne trying to occupy it by force and sheer number. The problem is, you can't get to the throne, there isn't one, so all you succeed in doing is slamming into each other and making lots of waves, bubbles, and other such problems. However, you CAN rotate around, or change places on the scale to maintain an overall balance; like gyro-stabilization, the orbit of the planets, whatever you want to imagine.
The problem with this system is quite obvious; it becomes ridiculously complex relatively quickly. The more complex a system is, even if relatively even power distribution, the more likely it is to break down and become corrupt; which is exactly what we've been seeing.
The solution, in this case, is to condense and simplify; not reduce or increase in size, just rearrange. Like when the magnetic lines of the sun get so tangled that they reverse and rearrange, so too our government has become to tangled that we need to rearrange it.
The system is fine, we just need to simplify it. All things considered, graphite and diamond are made out of the same material, their difference lies only in their structure.
Grade 10 Social Studies.
Through exclusion you are acting as if the leftist parties aren't for sale. I want you to look at something: Top All Time Donors List Top All-Time Donors 1989-2010 Summary | OpenSecrets
Notice that the top 10 are almost exclusively Democrat.
You cant cite government enforced monopolies as being proof that the free market is a failure. The government keeps private companies, who could do it better, cheaper, and faster from competing.
How do I know? Culligan Water. Why is it that people forgo their tap water to pay for bottled water even though the tap water is almost free? Because the government is 1) unresponsive to criticism, 2) unresponsive to mistakes, and 3) unresponsive to cost overruns.
"Socialized Scientific Research"? WTF is that? Microsoft isn't socialized. Neither is Apple. Neither is the Massachusetts Instituted of Technology. I'm serious, what the hell are you talking about?
This goes for your whole post: What happened to "liberal tolerance"? Another myth. The sad fact is that there are people WAY smarter than you that believe the exact opposite of what you believe. Calling anyone 'idiotic', 'pathetic', or 'confused' is just a way to demonstrate, absolutely, your own ignorance.
You should be embarrassed.
Gave me a chuckle.
This may piss off some folks here, but I just gotta say it.
I'm a libertarian who knows that many of the "opinions" some liberals (and even some conservatives) hold regarding libertarians and their beliefs (as well as many other subjects unfortunately) are simply total BS. I've already read a few at the start of this post.
Will I argue with ignorant sneering weasels who don't bother to think or educate themselves? No, not worth my time. I'd advise others against it as well.
I enjoy discussing all sorts of things but I refuse to get drawn into a pissing match with nitwits.
Very true. What's sad is that the vast majority of this country share Libertarian ideals, they just don't know it. The LP takes the best of the left and right and merges it, casting aside the garbage from both sides of the political spectrum.
Right wingers when it comes to economic issues, and complete progressives when it comes to social issues. The libertarian ideal is to avoid tyranny, not to embrace it like both the conservatives AND liberals.
I don't see how people can get off making these ridiculously false claims about Libertarians, but then again, there are people who believe this Death Panel bullshit Palin spouted off.
edit: We already have death panels, dumbasses. They are called insurance companies
You get the government you deserve. Remember that partisans. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, you are responsible for the mess we are in.
Oh yeah, I would also like to point out to the demagogues on both sides, the free market is not a philosophy like capitalism or communism, but merely a pricing mechanism that can be built into any type of economy.
YES, you can have a socialist economy operating with a free market. All a free market does is manage prices.
Capitalism and socialisms' concerns are CAPITAL. Not pricing. Free market pricing mechanism has always been a given for a capitalist system to work.
Lenin began to realize this after the economic failure of his policies in the newly formed Soviet Union. He then instituted the NEP, "New Economic Policy", allowing for a free market to set prices on goods and even for people to own property (small business only). The Soviet Union immediately began to have a turnaround for the better, but Lenin was visciously attacked by his comrades on the left, and was soon dead leading to Stalin's pricing system called Central Planning, which history has shown to be a dismal failure.
So before you nitwits go around shouting "communism" at anyone with whom you disagree, you may want to make sure you got the definitions of the words right first. You are likely railing against Central Planning, which even the most ardent Communists today recognize as a failure.