Libertarianism

[Dak]

There were proto-communistic elements in the French Revolution, and despite the claims by the Tea Party, I hardly think that they're comparable to the American Revolutionists. Consider that both movements are anti-establishment, xenophobic, and depend on the working class for furthering their agenda. The American Revolution was not a working man's revolution.

Well obviously the Tea Party is to the American Revolutionists as a real gun is to a nerf gun. At this point of course the upper class is not revolting, because they have swayed the law making, something they were unable to do as colonial British subjects.

Taxation without representation was the issue. The rich in America do not pay even close to the same % of taxes as the middle/low middle class does.

 

[Badbird]

And the rich should. The middle/low class should pay far lower taxes then the rich.

 

[Dak]

There should be no income tax or property tax anyway.

 

[Badbird]

(In my opinion) yes, a income tax is nedded for tons of reasons. One that it helps our public schools, roads, and fire and police department.

 

[Dak]

Go away and learn what the income tax is for and come back and try again.

 

[Einherjar86]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ppn8223nSU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Badbird]

Go away and learn what the income tax is for and come back and try again.

The taxes are for people levied on the level of their income.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Would you just change your name to Parrot already.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

There should be no income tax or property tax anyway.

Go away and learn what the income tax is for and come back and try again.

This. National sales tax is the way to go. Then everyone actually does pay their fair share.

 

[Death Aflame]

Because I am a too busy at the moment to produce nuanced, convincing arguments, what follows is more or less naked ideology. That said, it should still be an interesting addition to this discussion (specifically as a counterpoint to those here who identify as part of the statist left).

I identify as a left libertarian (also as an anarchist, libertarian socialist, and most specifically: mutualist) and I find the TC's premise of a "free society" to be flawed. You make the classic mistake of framing the discussion on assumptions of how society works: namely, that the government protects the interests of the people by keeping the rich and powerful in check. As a result of this premise you draw the conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist type of free society would be extremely detrimental to the well being of people in general.

I come from a different base assumption: the state protects corporations and elite interest through monopoly power and control over the legislature. To paraphrase Adam Smith, wherever the legislature is asked to moderate the relationship between workers and owners, the legislature always has as its advisors the owners. Take away monopoly power and I believe that the equilibrium nature of the free market will significantly and forcefully decrease firm size, due to inherent economic efficiencies of smaller, locally based producers and service providers. Getting even more specific, I believe that the most efficient firm would be organized in a cooperative model, and be relatively small in size.

I follow Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in their blueprints for a free society based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and equality of opportunity. Perhaps the best way to understand the free society that I am talking about is captured in the market anarchist term, first coined by Tuckerite Francis Tandy: Voluntary Socialism.

So no, I don't agree with the argument that a free society necessarily will result in a wild west scenario of robber barons and private armies oppressing people.

Something that people tend to overlook is that big business is hardly a champion of free markets.

Exactly. Well said, Cythraul. I think perhaps that you and I are closer ideologically than I initially realized.

 

[Death Aflame]

For some reason, most libertarians hate Chomsky.

He identifies as a Libertarian Socialist (similar to the Spanish Revolution Anarchists) iirc.

 

[Badbird]

I know that Death Alfame. I was referring to the more right-wing libertarians.

 

[Vimana]

I don't know a ton about the philosophy, but every libertarian I met was deluded to an insane degree. One argued that the big bang was not possible because matter would be destroyed as it was created or something. Bad understanding of science, to say the least. Another one used internet sources that must have come from a google search like "why black people suck" to "prove" that black people were less intelligent than white people. *Sigh*

On government involvement, I can see why too much wealth distribution can feel like a lack of freedom. With everyone having close to the same wealth, it's hard to rise or fall, making financial situation less based on merit. However, on the opposite side of the spectrum, if an economic oligarchy happens, the merit of the individuals will not matter. The smartest people from the low class will have almost zero possibility of working their way up, and the stupid people born into the high class will have almost zero possibility of being demoted.

The Republican party is full of shit and has been for some decades.

Dot. I usually support the conservative approach, but hearing stuff from the Republican party makes me roll my eyes. I wish there were a respectable conservative party that was more about changing at a pace that makes it easier to understand what works and what doesn't, rather than a bunch of mindless zealots bent on subduing the opposite party's agenda.

 

[Badbird]

Check the Constitution party if you want to Tetrissitatus. Not sure if that what your looking for when it comes to right-wing party's but it got a platform that conservative.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

The Constitution Party sounds like what he's accusing libertarians of being. They seem to me to be republican extremists; the most fundamentalist of the religious right. I used to read Liberty magazine, and the pundits and commentators for that publication seem to fall under the anarcho-capitalist and classical liberalism models.

 

[Death Aflame]

I know that Death Alfame. I was referring to the more right-wing libertarians.

Seems obvious to me then why right wing big 'L' Libertarians would dislike him.

 

[Death Aflame]

The Constitution Party sounds like what he's accusing libertarians of being. They seem to me to be republican extremists; the most fundamentalist of the religious right. I used to read Liberty magazine, and the pundits and commentators for that publication seem to fall under the anarcho-capitalist and classical liberalism models.

Was it this Liberty magazine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(1881–1908)

'cause I like that one. The religious one seems like a shitty neocon soup though.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Try this link instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(1987)

 

[Badbird]

Seems obvious to me then why right wing big 'L' Libertarians would dislike him.

And I agree with you. But where both small l leftist libertarians.

 

[Badbird]

The Constitution Party sounds like what he's accusing libertarians of being. They seem to me to be republican extremists; the most fundamentalist of the religious right. I used to read Liberty magazine, and the pundits and commentators for that publication seem to fall under the anarcho-capitalist and classical liberalism models.

I just want to know what type of conservative politician does he want. But I forget that the Constitution Party is far more extreme then what he wants. Maybe he should check the Libertarian Party. And do you read Reason btw?