Ten Ways A Libertarian Society Would Be Different

[busterkeaton]

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

Many economists believe that is was the inaction of the Fed that exacerbated the Great Depression. The Fed had the power to act as lender of last resort, but largely chose not too, minus some regional Federal Reserve banks.

Inflation of the 70's was largely due to the oil shocks and Vietnam war, not monetary policy. Then Volcker did a good job at combating the inflation at the expense of economic growth - there is always tradeoffs in the world of economics.

While the Federal reserve policies are not without criticism, you are mostly laying fault at inaction and events outside the Fed's power.

Since this is a libertarian, I will throw my two cents in. I don't believe that we should abolish the Fed or return to a gold standard. I wouldn't have too much problem opening up the market for money. I think the raid on the Ron Paul dollar was an abuse of power. As long as people are not trying to counterfeit American currency, I could care less if they created their own.

Yeah, I sometimes want to blame the Fed.Reserve for lots of things, too, but imagine all that real "funny money" that would be created by reverting back to a gold standard? That just isn't gonna happen(and really can't) at this stage of the ballgame. The U.S. economy is inextricably laced with the whole world's economies.....not just America's anymore.

[Widowmaker2k]

Originally Posted by BMOREBOY

If the IRS/Income-Taxes were to be abolished, how exactly would the country continue to operate or fund operations? I understand tremendous cuts would occur (or at least the cuts would be attempted) under a Libertarian administration, but somethings would still need to be paid for. Or maybe the Libertarians aren't in favor of a national tax but instead just taxes at the state level and the states are supposed to fund whatever they need as opposed to the federal government? In the case of limited-gov't, would the Supremacy Clause be eliminated? Can a state such as Illinois or Maryland become socialist if they wanted? I mean how far does the knife cut is what I really want to know because it seems like they're moderate-anarchist in regards to government. So hopefully a libertarian can answer my questions.

Fair questions, and different Libertarians would answer differently. Just like the Republicans and Democrats, we Libertarians of the world are not a unified group of ideologues, but are united by the core principal that, smaller government, closer to where you live (where you exert a far greater amount of control as an individual), is preferable to a large, distant government that tries to make as many people as possible as happy as possible.

How do I answer this question? For starters, I want to make a few points. The article at the beginning of this thread was a bit extreme for me. You simply cannot implement radical changes over night, and I wouldn't support doing so. What is needed is gradual change in the general direction of more individual freedom. I might start by curtailing a small portion of the federal income tax (say 1/3 of it), and require that the States pay the government directly (by any means of taxation they see fit, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution) based on the percentage their gross state product contributed to the gross domestic product (So for example California contributed to 13% of the US GDP, so they would contribute 13% of the funds that were not recovered through the income tax system). If this was successful, I would slowly increase the percentage of the federal income tax that is cut, until it was gone completely or the results became undesirable. I don't see how this violates the supremacy clause. State governments have the power of taxation, I don't see anything wrong with letting the States determine how to collect the taxes as opposed the federal government. I have always had a gripe about federally imposed tax brackets. $100,000 per year is a lot of money in rural Arkansas, it's simply not in San Francisco or New York City.

Generally, governments do a better job governing their citizens the closer they are located to them geographically, and it's important to keep power as decentralized and diffuse as is practical. I'd like to think of power as a limited resource - there is only so much control one human being can exert over another human being. People like to characterize corporations and/or wealthy individuals as evil because they collect large amounts of profit (money), but governments and/or politicians do the same thing with power. Just like many find a patchwork of small businesses across the country preferable to multinational conglomerations and retailers, wouldn't it be preferable to have smaller governments around the country that let their own citizens determine how they'd like to be governed (with the caveat that they cannot violate the federal constitution)? Certain services, like certain industries in the private sector, are better served being provided by a large centralized body, such as defense. I'm not arguing that we should back to the Articles of Confederation as our governing document, but I am arguing that things like taxation could be left up to local governments without harming the greater good.

Just as an example, the county I live in is very rural, but we have a fund established that if you are seriously ill or injured, and cannot afford to pay your hospital bills, the county will contribute a certain amount of them so that you are not bankrupted by your medical costs (I'm not 100% sure on the details, if you have to pay the money back, etc., because I've always had insurance).

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

Who are you to tell someone else that they can't choose to associate with, hire or rent to whomever they want, regardless of your politically correct nonsense? I don't advocate racism, but who would I be to dictate MY beliefs to the property owner of either a company or rental property?

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

... The law that bars discrimination is itself 100% unconstitutional because it is wholly in violation of the 1st Amendment in that it prevents free speech. I am my own person. I own my body. I own my thoughts. No one can make me change my thoughts or beliefs. I own them ...

So you think society should be able to impose it's will on someone's thoughts? If a person doesn't like someone because they are black, white brown, red, yellow, purple, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, tall, short, fat, skinny, stupid, or for whatever other reason they may have... THAT is their NATURAL and GOD given right. It is called FREE WILL, and no amount of legislation or regulation can EVER take free will away.


You know, the more you statists reveal yourselves for who you are, the more I hate each and every one of you. Your sickness, combined with the current political correctness plague will cause the complete destruction of individualism. You and way too many have a sickness that I simply cannot understand. You want to control others, yet I bet you don't want to be dictated to by others. That makes yours a sickness of selfish and stupid people.

Calm down and take a deep breath, dude.

You are bringing up broad but nebulous philosophical and rhetorical suppositions. Let's talk about specifics, and living in the real world.

No one is trying to control your thoughts or forcing you like, befriend, or marry someone you don't like.

The fact is there will always be prejudiced people, and there will always be discrimination against some people whether it is illegal or legal, fair or unfair.

I am a property owner and a landlord, and city and county ordinances and state law mandates that I can not discriminate against renting to a person because of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. These laws were put in place to correct historical outrages that made the lives of many citizens (usually but not always minority groups) miserable and are in themselves a form of persecution. How would you like it if you were forbidden to live in a neighborhood you like because of your religion? How would you like it if you were turned away from every hotel in a city because of your color? Historical events, political struggles, legal battles, violence in the streets, changes in society and the law have all contributed to what we have now.

As a landlord, I know how to discriminate legally. Yes, there are perfectly reasonable, legitimate, and even honorable ways to deem ineligible a prospective tenant from renting from me. My personal opinions on the subject of this race or that religion have nothing to do with it.

[foadi]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

How would you like it if you were turned away from every hotel in a city because of your color?

most countries don't have laws against refusing service based on race. and i can't think of any of them where travelling is a problem.

but your post reminded me of a motel i used to live at in pasadena, ca. it's owned by an old chinese couple. short story, they didn't like black people. not once in the cumulative nine months i stayed there did they rent a room to a black person. they'd be told all the rooms were full and would be directed to one of the other motels. so that stuff happens regardless of the laws against it.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

Somalia

Why use Somalia as an example of a "basket case" when we already have East St. Louis?