Page 4 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

12 Oct 2013, 11:41 pm

lost561 wrote:
If you want government control, especially as much as we have right now, than that is taking away other peoples freedom. That's fine if YOU want to pay taxes to the government and receive government services but when you force other people to that's taking away their freedom because they are doing it against their ill will.


In that case, it is you that needs to better understand libertarianism. If you believe in absolute individual freedom, then you are an anarchist - because no social contract can exist without some measure of individual liberty being forfeit.

Libertarianism is established based on the principle that the government's primary objective is to preserve individual liberties - however there is always a point at which you protect one person's liberty by limiting another person's liberty. For instance, in protecting my natural right to life, a government can make assault a crime - but that act in and of itself limits the natural right for someone to try to take my life away.

Thus, the Libertarian party concentrates on a specific set of enumerated rights (generally, those set forward in the Constitution), and limiting the power and scope of the government as a precaution.

However, it's entirely possible to support a government that provides strong social programs, and espouses Socialist values, while also preserving individual liberty and being very strongly Libertarian.

This is very much the difference between Libertarianism as a concept, and the Libertarian party as an implementation of that concept. Just the same as the difference between Socialism as a concept, and Communism as an implementation of that concept.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, and I would love to see a country where individual liberty is protected, and where there are broad government programs to maintain a high standard of living for all citizens. Basically, Iceland.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


lost561
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 759
Location: Lost..

12 Oct 2013, 11:53 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

In that case, it is you that needs to better understand libertarianism. If you believe in absolute individual freedom, then you are an anarchist - because no social contract can exist without some measure of individual liberty being forfeit.

Libertarianism is established based on the principle that the government's primary objective is to preserve individual liberties - however there is always a point at which you protect one person's liberty by limiting another person's liberty. For instance, in protecting my natural right to life, a government can make assault a crime - but that act in and of itself limits the natural right for someone to try to take my life away.

Thus, the Libertarian party concentrates on a specific set of enumerated rights (generally, those set forward in the Constitution), and limiting the power and scope of the government as a precaution.

However, it's entirely possible to support a government that provides strong social programs, and espouses Socialist values, while also preserving individual liberty and being very strongly Libertarian.

This is very much the difference between Libertarianism as a concept, and the Libertarian party as an implementation of that concept. Just the same as the difference between Socialism as a concept, and Communism as an implementation of that concept.

Personally, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, and I would love to see a country where individual liberty is protected, and where there are broad government programs to maintain a high standard of living for all citizens. Basically, Iceland.


Let's be within reason.

No, I don't think people should have the freedom to kill another person with a gun unless it's for self defense in some cases and even then it's questionable. Yes, I am pro gun ownership. Gun control laws are the worst thing for this country.

How would you pay for those programs? Who's taxes?

Also, I would be in favor of something like that. I'm by no means a socialist but I would trade the amount of government that we have including the government employees for libertarianism with a hint of socialism.

What's your policy on taxe rates?



Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

13 Oct 2013, 2:02 am

lost561 wrote:
If you're against libertarianism than you are against freedom. It's as simple as that.


It's not that simple. You obviously didn't read the article before you posted, or at least not reason #2.

"2. Libertarianism is intellectually myopic--Libertarians cherish freedom above all, but their concept of freedom is constricted and myopic. They understand freedom almost exclusively in terms of freedom from government, not recognizing that unfettered capitalism--the libertarians’ beloved free market economy--can be as great a threat to freedom as government action."

People against libertarianism, have a much broader view of freedom, then the libertarian's limited concept of it. Us non-libitsrians support freedom for everybody, not just for the rich and powerful.



redriverronin
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 267

13 Oct 2013, 4:49 am

Max000 wrote:
lost561 wrote:
If you're against libertarianism than you are against freedom. It's as simple as that.


It's not that simple. You obviously didn't read the article before you posted, or at least not reason #2.

"2. Libertarianism is intellectually myopic--Libertarians cherish freedom above all, but their concept of freedom is constricted and myopic. They understand freedom almost exclusively in terms of freedom from government, not recognizing that unfettered capitalism--the libertarians’ beloved free market economy--can be as great a threat to freedom as government action."

People against libertarianism, have a much broader view of freedom, then the libertarian's limited concept of it. Us non-libitsrians support freedom for everybody, not just for the rich and powerful.


So what is your view of freedom? Libertarianism does want free markets but not just for the rich for normal people who don't have thousands of lawyers to make everything they do legal. Liberal and conservative views on freedom have destroyed this country for many people. At the very least half of what libertarians want to achieve would benefit a very large portion of the poor community not only economically but socially also. Liberal and conservative goals have left us all socially and economically wanting on many levels for a very long time now. Every one no matter who they are supports the rich and powerful believing otherwise is ignorant at best and dangerous at worst hope you can understand that.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Oct 2013, 6:44 am

lost561 wrote:
Again, under a libertarian government there wouldn't be all of the government employees being payed, and we wouldn't have to pay nearly as many stupid taxes. Money would be getting circulated in the economy much more than it is now. Your chances of being able to afford your own healthcare would be much greater than they are today. I'm not saying that we don't need some government, but the size of our government is beyond a police state now.


Just out of curiosity, which government functions do you think we should keep and which ones should we get rid of and why? I am not trolling (if that is how it comes across), I am just generally curious. There are quite a few government services that I believe should be cut back and overhauled, and a few that need eliminating.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

13 Oct 2013, 7:59 am

lost561 wrote:
What's your policy on taxe rates?


A single progressive tax on income, without exemptions or deductions - up to 50% for the wealthiest (over $100M per year).


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Oct 2013, 8:05 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
lost561 wrote:
What's your policy on taxe rates?


A single progressive tax on income, without exemptions or deductions - up to 50% for the wealthiest (over $100M per year).


I also think that there should be no taxes on those below 4 times the poverty line. Crippling the vast numbers of the working class financially is bad for long term economic growth.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

13 Oct 2013, 8:50 am

Ehh, maybe. I could be convinced to go that route if it could be demonstrated that it would be helpful. Personally, I believe that the psychological benefits of participating in the system outweigh the economic benefits of exempting them. But, I could be wrong.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,053

13 Oct 2013, 9:09 am

How do you justify taxation, sliqua-jcooter? Especially taking half of someone's income, as if the government is an equal partner...


_________________
...and the state must be destroyed.

http://needsmoremarshmallows.blogspot.co.uk/


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Oct 2013, 9:18 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Ehh, maybe. I could be convinced to go that route if it could be demonstrated that it would be helpful. Personally, I believe that the psychological benefits of participating in the system outweigh the economic benefits of exempting them. But, I could be wrong.


I lean toward the idea of public service in order to earn the right to vote. Replace many of the current federal workforce in low skill/low education categories and replace them with a public service program. Convert many of our social welfare programs into public works programs. Things like that. But to be fair, I haven't spent too much time evaluating the possible benefits/consequences of this type of system, yet.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

13 Oct 2013, 10:29 am

Magneto wrote:
How do you justify taxation, sliqua-jcooter? Especially taking half of someone's income, as if the government is an equal partner...


There comes a point (somewhere around the 100 million/year mark) where it's impossible to sustain a level of spending that keeps up with the interest earned on the money just sitting in savings accounts (never mind higher yields paid by other forms of investments). At that point, no matter what you do, you can never spend more than you earn - even if you quit your job and do nothing for the rest of your life.

At that point, it becomes detrimental to society to have too many people in that situation just accumulating wealth year after year and not spending any of it. If the government takes half of that money and spends it (it doesn't even really much matter what you spend it on at that point), you keep at least part of that money moving.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

13 Oct 2013, 10:37 am

There is nothing wrong with taxing thieves.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

13 Oct 2013, 10:42 am

Can I have that with the vitriol on the side please?


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


lost561
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 759
Location: Lost..

13 Oct 2013, 10:59 am

sonofghandi wrote:

Just out of curiosity, which government functions do you think we should keep and which ones should we get rid of and why? I am not trolling (if that is how it comes across), I am just generally curious. There are quite a few government services that I believe should be cut back and overhauled, and a few that need eliminating.


That's too much to really answer on here.

Government agency's that I can think of that need to be cut back:

The EPA is a classic example. That agency has around 17,000 federal employees with health care plans that are being paid for by tax dollars. That agency doesn't have much of a purpose and they don't accomplish much. In my government, there would be 500 EPA employees if that.

The EPA now spends 8.62 billion dollars. Instead of the EPA choosing where that money can be spent, divide 8.62 billion by 50,000 which is a good wage. That's 172,000 jobs that could possibly be created in the private market.

The department of energy is a another classic example. They have 16,000 federal employees with a 30.6 billion dollar budget. If you divide 30.6 billion by 50,000 dollars than that's 612,000 jobs created.

I know that these agencies don't spend all their money on federal employees, but when you hire people from the private sector or free market, not only is the quality better, but the prices are cheaper. Much of the work that the department of energy does is contracted through the private sector yes, but why does the government need so many employees to handle the business?

I believe that besides military and roads that everything should be minimally interfered with by government & let the free markets work their magic.

People's vision of libertarianism and free markets are very twisted and they don't know how much those 2 things would benefit society.



lost561
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 759
Location: Lost..

13 Oct 2013, 11:03 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

A single progressive tax on income, without exemptions or deductions - up to 50% for the wealthiest (over $100M per year).


That's where we disagree.

I am a believer in the flat line tax 15% for everybody.

No exemptions, no loopholes, etc.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,053

13 Oct 2013, 11:16 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
Magneto wrote:
How do you justify taxation, sliqua-jcooter? Especially taking half of someone's income, as if the government is an equal partner...


There comes a point (somewhere around the 100 million/year mark) where it's impossible to sustain a level of spending that keeps up with the interest earned on the money just sitting in savings accounts (never mind higher yields paid by other forms of investments). At that point, no matter what you do, you can never spend more than you earn - even if you quit your job and do nothing for the rest of your life.

At that point, it becomes detrimental to society to have too many people in that situation just accumulating wealth year after year and not spending any of it. If the government takes half of that money and spends it (it doesn't even really much matter what you spend it on at that point), you keep at least part of that money moving.

Oh, I can think of plenty of ways to spend that sort of money, most of which go by the name of spaceships and fusion research. If I'm ever stuck, I can just do what a lot of hyperwealthy individuals do and go eradicate a disease or two.


_________________
...and the state must be destroyed.

http://needsmoremarshmallows.blogspot.co.uk/