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.
The tea party has very little to do with true Libertarian philosophies.
People like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann throw the word libertarian around but have no clue what it is about.
Michelle Bachmann once said she would eliminate the porn industry. that is about as far from libertarian as you can get.
They just don't get it. People like Michelle Bachmann are as far from being libertarian as was Mao.
I find it absurd that libertarians(American definition) are against big government when they are avid supporters of private institutions(big business). Big business has as much potential as big government to create an establishment that oppresses people in society. That's why I find it ironic that the tea party speaks for the Koch brothers and business interest. To think big business and private institutions have no bearings on lives of individuals is asinine.
There is no difference between private institutions and government institutions. They both have power to oppress those who are vulnerable.
The problem with libertarianism is not ideology, it is facts.
"In theory" the thinking is that corporations should be directing capital to the government, but in the minimum possible amounts.
Factually speaking, go ask libertarians if the net capital flow goes from corporations to government, or to government from corporations, and you'll have a big disagreement depending on where they get their news and information.
It is so obvious that the rich are squeezing every drop they can get out of whats left of the middle class. You would have to be blind to not see it. They want us all to go back to the 1800 slave labor. The differance between the rich and middle class is the largest it has ever been and you can bet you bottom dollar the rich want to keep it that way.
Let's not criminalize hard-working people that have made a success of their lives. It's the corporations and banks, through lobbyists (mostly former politicians bred from a pool of sharp attorneys), who've made millions from the pain of the poor and middle class.
The "business" of making laws is a perpetual-motion machine invented to circumvent freedom, usually in the name of freedom. Politicians and lawyers have never met a law they didn't like, nor a wallet they wouldn't fleece.
The problem with libertarianism is not ideology, it is facts.
"In theory" the thinking is that corporations should be directing capital to the government, but in the minimum possible amounts.
Factually speaking, go ask libertarians if the net capital flow goes from corporations to government, or to government from corporations, and you'll have a big disagreement depending on where they get their news and information.
I am a libertarian (objectivist maybe ) and I have never entertained the idea that capital SHOULD flow in either direction by dictate or any arbitrary means unless it is a natural phenomena resulting from voluntary free exchange among free people. In addition, this particular "libertarian" does not believe "corporations" should exist at all. "They" are individuals or groups of individuals in the market place and nothing more.
The only facts one need to look at to abide by a libertarian philosophy are very simple and precise. If their is an initiation of force, by any individual, group, or government, it is wrong, immoral, and is unjust. The ONLY force a libertarian would ever advocate is in retaliation, or retaliatory force, against those who initiate force. Period. Simple. Easy.
ANYONE who advocates initiating force against any individual, group, or government, for any reason, noble or evil, for good or bad, for individual or societal benefit, is not taking a libertarian stance.
I am a libertarian (objectivist maybe ) and I have never entertained the idea that capital SHOULD flow in either direction by dictate or any arbitrary means unless it is a natural phenomena resulting from voluntary free exchange among free people.
So you think businesses should pay no taxes, or you think government should refuse to provide any services to business?
What I said was just another way of saying "minimal taxation."
Quote:
In addition, this particular "libertarian" does not believe "corporations" should exist at all. "They" are individuals or groups of individuals in the market place and nothing more.
I'm sure some libertarians believe in fairies, but that doesn't make fairies a part of the libertarian platform.
Corporatism is the long arm of the government. The last thing corporations want is free markets and increased competition.
Unfortunately, big government statists love corporate tyranny. Heck, even Obama's job czar doesn't pay taxes and then he goes around firing people and cutting their benefits all while liberals cheer.
So you think businesses should pay no taxes, or you think government should refuse to provide any services to business?
What I said was just another way of saying "minimal taxation."
I'm sure some libertarians believe in fairies, but that doesn't make fairies a part of the libertarian platform.
No. If the people who own the business use services (assuming they were not forced to "buy" the service at gunpoint) they should pay for them. If they do not use those services they should not. I believe in free exchange without coercion or threat of force.
Sorry. I was not trying to define the "Libertarian" platform. I am a libertarian philosophically, note little l not capital L. I could care less what any "party" thinks or says. I talk about humans and freedom not groups who wish to impose certain beliefs on others by any means.
No. If the people who own the business use services (assuming they were not forced to "buy" the service at gunpoint) they should pay for them. If they do not use those services they should not.
What about services that are not optional, like military, or stormwater runoff conveyance? You can't turn off the rain, or turn off military protection like you would cable television. Don't you need taxation to pay for these things at various levels of government?
What about arbitration of contracts, and law enforcement? This stuff isn't optional or free, and you don't have the ability to pick and choose who pays for it. You can, however, do without the services altogether. Is that what you'd suggest? No U.S. military, just get a group of Americans together and pay Blackwater, if they want protection from foreign armies?
So you think businesses should pay no taxes, or you think government should refuse to provide any services to business?
What I said was just another way of saying "minimal taxation."
I'm sure some libertarians believe in fairies, but that doesn't make fairies a part of the libertarian platform.
What libertarian platform? The Libertarian Party, those like Bastiat, which "platform". Corporations are creations of government, of course we want them limited in scope.
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.
) and I have never entertained the idea that capital SHOULD flow in either direction by dictate or any arbitrary means unless it is a natural phenomena resulting from voluntary free exchange among free people. In addition, this particular "libertarian" does not believe "corporations" should exist at all. "They" are individuals or groups of individuals in the market place and nothing more.
