Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can someone claim to be a libertarian and not believe in one of the basic founding principal of liberty in this country: that private property ownership is a right of the individual and not the government's to take away?
Property you create or your purchase from the creators can not be taken away from the individual.
Property that was stole, granted and protected via the government is in another category. If you want to purchase and hold land that is fine but you should pay society for your exclusive use of the land or don't ask government to kick off those who wish to live on your land.
Libertarianism may not = US Constitution, but the Constitution supports most libertarian ideals.
Land is a complicated matter, specifically when corporations are involved. Yes, property rights were an essential issue to our founders, and to most liberty minded folks, but where does personal property rights end and corporate rights begin? I would always side with the individual property rights if I had to chose. Corporations have no business taking property by force for their shareholders pocket books.
A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation. [RIGHT]--Thomas Jefferson[/RIGHT]
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. [RIGHT]--Thomas Jefferson
[/RIGHT]
Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds. [RIGHT]--Tom Paine, "Agrarian Justice," paragraphs 11 to 15[/RIGHT]
The going movement in this country with Austrian Economics, Ron Paul, etc. generally focuses on right-libertarianism. So I was wondering, is anyone here "left-libertarian" or maybe hold such views.
I hold a left-libertarian view in that I do not believe land can be held as a commodity or that it can be owned. I DO believe that you can have full rights to land, but I do not believe you can own the land itself.
Generally in practice, there is really no difference between owning land and owning the rights to land. However, what this does,IMO, is support my view not commonly held by right-libertarians, that land should be taxed, typically as property taxes paid on an annual basis based on the value of the land paid to localities.
I am a firm believer that taxation should follow economic reality in regards to the services government provides. In this case, I own rights to an acre of land, these rights are protected by the government as is its duty in our society. But the government does need money to protect them and enforce these rights against other people, either in court or through police etc. Therefore, property taxes are justified insofar that they are used to protect your right to the piece of land.
I also believe in smart, minimal environmental regulations. There are certain things I believe human beings, business and other entities cannot do to land because such acts might violate another's rights. Milton Friedman actually had a view like this. He said that when cars pollute, they impose a cost on another human being because of pollution, wether it's soot on your shirt or the bad air in your lung. These tend to be negligible, but neverthelss, in economics, they are a cost. Obviously, it's impossible for each driver of a car to pay for the cost they impose on you. That is why, as a society, we have decided that cars should have certain equipment that reduce the amount of pollution imposed on another person.
Both of these are examples of left-libertarian thinking IMO. Right-libertarians say that businesses should be 100% concerned with the bottom line, and that somehow through market forces, the polluting businesses will go out of business. Left libertarians say "you can do whatever you want, but if you're going to pollute and impose a cost (pollution) on other people, you are going to pay for it" This is why as a professed libertarian, I can still say that the role of government darned near requires some form of environmental regulation.
What makes you think you're any kind of libertarian?
What makes you think you're any kind of libertarian?
A long history of libertarians who do not support a Royal class.
How about Libertarian Founder David Nolan.
What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you'd state the price at which you'd be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.
I agree with your position, VTHokieFan. I hadn't considered that position to be left leaning before, just common sense. I agree with preemptive laws that seek to reduce harm before it has happened, but within reason. In the same way that it would be ridiculous to claim assault for every time a person brushed past you on a busy sidewalk, we can't claim harm for every small thing that individuals do, often unintentionally. So we would have no recourse against a neighbor's tractor pollution and things like that unless it was egregious. In that sense, some amount of regulation is necessary, but also within reason.
Left-Libertarianism is an oxymoron. Libertarians are Republicans that wish to get layed. most of the phylosophy is rooted in the Ayan Rand ideology of dog-eat-dog economics, as long as the military
and local Law Enforcement agencies exist "ON THE PUBLIC DOLE," to protect their cowardly B.S.
Left-Libertarianism is an oxymoron. Libertarians are Republicans that wish to get layed. most of the phylosophy is rooted in the Ayan Rand ideology of dog-eat-dog economics, as long as the military
and local Law Enforcement agencies exist "ON THE PUBLIC DOLE," to protect their cowardly B.S.
Thanks for stooping to give an opinion on something you obviously know nothing about.
Thanks for stooping to give an opinion on something you obviously know nothing about.
I can't stand Ayn Rand.
Some people fail to recognize there was libertarianism before Ayn Rand.
The names Frederic Bastiat and Benjamin Tucker would mean nothing to them..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
