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.
1) To increase morality.
2) To increase the subjective well-being of the poor.
As strange as it sounds. Freedom seems to be the cure for both of these conditions.
In the beginning, I would have considered myself a liberal. Or more specifically, I felt like the best way to achieve these goals was through a government which could provide for them.
After examining history, I realized that in every case where there was more freedom(or more specifically, small or absent government) there was always an increase in morality. As a general rule, the bigger the government, the more immoral the people.
The well-being of the poor is somewhat more complicated. Because there is a tendency to associate subjective well-being with material standard-of-living. But the reality is, there is no connection whatsoever between material standard-of-living and subjective well-being. If that was the case, our ancestors would have necessarily been miserable. But in almost all cases, they weren't.
Subjective well-being(or more specifically happiness), comes from within. And happiness seems to come from having strong relationships with the people around you, having realistic expectations, and feeling objectively free while also feeling like you have "a place" in the world. Basically, that you are needed.
Which is why, crazy religious people, even ones who live in relative poverty like the Amish, are significantly more happy, and significantly more healthy for that matter, than the average person. They tend to have much better relationships, much more realistic expectations, and always feel like they have a place in the world.
Which is why I went from a statist/liberal/quasi-communist to somewhere between a minarchist and an anarchist.
The government should simply regulate markets to create a fair playing field for business and labor to coexist.[/quore]
Please objectively define "fair". I am asking for a definition that applies to all matters above, so that it covers every situation and achieves "fair" without question.
Most of it has to do with economic policy. A few things I've mentioned already:
-higher minimum wage
-protection of worker rights
-expansion of the EPA
-encouragement of union membership
-tax reform (lifting the cap on FICA, closing loopholes, taxing investment income the same as regular income)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
You do know you will never get an answer..Right?
I already answered all your questions. You refused to read the detailed essay I provided for you distinguishing the difference between left-libertarianism and "right" libertarianism.
No, you just shout insults and moralizing condemnation, but never, EVER back up your arguments when questioned. Because you have no moral basis.
Money is an abstract idea, an agreed-to means of enumerating trade between individuals / entities. It has no intelligence, no sentience, and no means of speaking for itself. How can it have power? It's paper or digital entries without intrinsic value of ANY kind of its own.
More childish name-calling and insults, but not the slightest rationality.
Translation: "If you were as moral and good as I, you would agree with me."
Yet, you deny you claim to be morally superior. Cognitive dissonance is an intellectual deficit, and you have it in spades.
Most of it has to do with economic policy. A few things I've mentioned already:
-higher minimum wage
Will not fix a damn thing.
Quote:
-protection of worker rights
Tried and failed, labor unions are now seen in the true light as thugs and bullies of the Democratic party.
Quote:
-expansion of the EPA
Waste of time and will only harm property owners and business.
Quote:
-encouragement of union membership
Union are on the deathbed, let them die, they have earned it and can not compete in the modern age.
Quote:
-tax reform (lifting the cap on FICA, closing loopholes, taxing investment income the same as regular income)
You are aware a vast majority of those who depend on investment income are retirees? Right?
Once again we do not have a tax problem but a spending problem.
Quote:
I already answered all your questions. You refused to read the detailed essay I provided for you distinguishing the difference between left-libertarianism and "right" libertarianism.
There is no right or left libertarian, only those who are and those in name only.
1. Respect for Property Rights: if it is not yours you have no right to it.
2.Nationality Sovereignty: keeping America, its sovereignty, its borders, and its culture of liberty secure from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
3. Understanding and Defense of the Constitution: Understand the few roles of the Federal and State Government and restricting the government to those roles.
4. Protecting and Securing the Borders: Understanding that borders matter, and immigration can aid a nation as surely as if left unchecked and tightly monitored, all people and cultures are not equal in the values, views, and politics.
5. Free Markets: Allowing people to succeed and fail based on their merit, skill and hard work, not picking and choosing people based on who they know, or how gave more to your election bid.
6. Understanding the Value of Liberty: Must know that trading liberty for security is a faustian deal that never ends in anything other then tyranny and war...“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” ― John Adams
7. Sound Money: Must know the value of a currency back with precious metal and know the dangers of inflation and fiat currency.
8. Defense of the 2nd Amendment: Must understand the reason and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, its value, and the horrors of what happens to a disarmed or under armed citizenry. Must work to repeal laws on the books.
I guess I most strongly disagree with Democrats & Republicans that seem to wish us bad health & premature death, if Docs & pills don't help us. I'm against drug war & foreign wars, poison pills, 85,000 toxins approved for our air soil, food & water. Politicians for sale to the highest bidder do us these maximum harms. I'll vote Libertarian Party as they care for the 100% equally, want us to have all our rights back, limited Fed govt w/no waste. lp dot org/ I agree with them on nearly everything. Best wishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
What are the things you absolutely will not compromise on?
I have views that most won't agree with (not looking for a debate), but I'll list my principles
1. Non-aggression principle: the initiation of force against another person is immoral
2. Respect for property rights: if someone solely owns something, nobody else has a right to it
The more you try to rationalize the corrupt perspectives you support, the more you make my point about how irrationally self-serving the right-wing perspective you advocate is. I wonder if you think that you can browbeat the moral repudiation of the egoistic claptrap you spew with large volumes of typing. The reality is until you actually adopt a moral perspective, you'll be unsuccessful in convincing anyone other than weak-minded sycophants that your nonsense defends your perspective from the legitimate condemnation I've posted. But heck, keep spinning your wheels, and doubling-down on the offensive self-centeredness you prefer. It's a useful demonstration of what I've pointed out.
The more you try to rationalize the corrupt perspectives you support, the more you make my point about how irrationally self-serving the right-wing perspective you advocate is.
How are my perspectives "corrupt"?
How are our views "irrationally"?
Quote:
I wonder if you think that you can browbeat the moral repudiation of the egoistic claptrap you spew with large volumes of typing.
So insults instead of facts..Please tell me why we have not just whipped the floor with you people? I mean the only reason you have had any real power is the media towing your line and low and no info voters blinding voting for you to get handouts they need because your polices harm the economy.
Quote:
The reality is until you actually adopt a moral perspective, you'll be unsuccessful in convincing anyone other than weak-minded sycophants that your nonsense defends your perspective from the legitimate condemnation I've posted.
I have long ago do so, and it far better then yours..
What "legitimate" condemnation? You just throw up your hands an screw "I am moral and so are my ideas and you dont support them and the horrors the unleash you are greedy, mean, evil, insert personal attack here" ect
Coming from the side that claims that want a better education for the students of this nation but block real reforms like School Vouchers and Charter schools? Is that "moral"?
Coming from the side that claims that support the working and middle class but fight any attempt to cap and limit legal immigration? Is that "moral"?
Side as whole I know you bUU may have different views
Coming from the side that claims "The border is as secure as it ever has been" and yet we have millions of persons coming into this nations reducing wages, committing violent crimes and reducing this nation to a 3rd world slum? Is that "moral"?
Side as whole I know you bUU may have different views
Coming from the side that claims it feels want to reduce energy prices yet at every chance it prevents using the massive deposits of Oil and Gas, preventing the reduction in prices of energy and millions of great paying jobs? Is that "moral"?
Coming from the side that claims it does not want to make it hard for businesses to expend yet passes an obamanation (pardon the pun) of a 2,7000 bill many members of Congress confuses to not even reading that to date has creating 20,000 pages of regulations “associated” with the new law. 20,000 pages with more to come? Is that "moral"?
Coming from the side that claims it does not want to limit the right to keep and bear arms yet has been behind every successful and failed attempt to infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Yet has been the party that stands up the same day as a mass shooting and and prostitutes dead kids to advance an agenda which is antithetical to our Republic? Is that "moral"?
Quote:
But heck, keep spinning your wheels, and doubling-down on the offensive self-centeredness you prefer. It's a useful demonstration of what I've pointed out.
How is what I am say "offensive"?
How is people taking change of their lives and securing their futures "self centerdness" while others who demand everything from every one else are seen as noble victims of insert struggle or problem here?
Its a great demonstration of you dodging every question. But hey we are not fighting a losing fight, more and more people are rejecting altruism and flocking to self interest..Your a Dinosaur roaring at the coming Asteroid a fitting analogy...
Most of it has to do with economic policy. A few things I've mentioned already:
-higher minimum wage
-protection of worker rights
-expansion of the EPA
-encouragement of union membership
-tax reform (lifting the cap on FICA, closing loopholes, taxing investment income the same as regular income)
I already answered all your questions. You refused to read the detailed essay I provided for you distinguishing the difference between left-libertarianism and "right" libertarianism.
You cannot be a libertarian and encourage union membership. There are differences of opinion between libertarians, but there is one core defining principle in libertarianism. That is the principle of non-violence. Employing force to achieve one's ends is a non-negotiable dealbreaker when it comes to libertarianism. It is the central principle from which all else in libertarianism flows. Unions are by nature violent. Not in the sense of physical violence, but in the sense that unions achieve their goals by using threats. That is their reason for existence - to force employers to do what they want them to do, regardless of whether the employer wants to do it or not. Unions are inherently anti-libertarian.
You can negotiate new employment contracts all you like. But as soon as you use the threat of work stoppages as a negotiating tactic, you have left libertarianism behind. "Do what I want or else bad things will happen to you" is not libertarian. Never has been, never will be.
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.
