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.
Everything about it is funny.............well sad.......but funny. You sit around and think different? If so you are the lost one.........many are nowdays..............just lost. That is what "they" want though.
I mean if you cant figure out to go find say directTV or what have you in this world you are just lost.
Libertarians aren't anarchists. That's an invention of the media-political complex to make you scared of the concept of smaller government.
Show me in Locke's "Two Treatises" (foundational text of libertarian thought from the Scottish Enlightenment) where he calls for the total absence of government?
Show me in the Anti-Federalist Papers (America's most libertarian writing in the 18th Century) or any of Patrick Henry's pre-sellout speeches as a rock solid Virginia anti-constitutionalist where the case is made for the total absence of government?
Even "Atlas Shrugged" and Rothbard's "Libertarian Manifesto" do not call for anarchy.
Easily one of popular culture's more widely accepted myths is libertarian = anarchist. Every informed, well read libertarian I know understands the absolute necessity of some amount of government, and what most of us argue for is not its absence, but its return to a much smaller, narrowly focused, proper functioning size/scope as enshrined in the sum total of founding documents (Declaration + federalist papers + anti-federalist papers + Constitution + articles of Confederation). Limited != absence. Limited government != no government.
I am OK with taxes. I understand their necessity to fund any amount of government. And I never argue for the removal of all taxation...I argue for taxation to be lower (in conjuntion with smaller government that runs on less money) and applied as fairly and equally as possible. In any tax thread, I am the guy who calls for National Retail Sales Tax, not "NO TAXES!!" What happens, like any time a libertarian throws out a libertarian idea, is that I say NRST, and someone pipes up that people will stop buying everything immediately so I really mean no taxes and that really means anarchy. Basically, I can say water is wet, and someone who hates libertarians will find a way to make that statement = anarchy.
But our government can be smaller. Much smaller, and still accomplish all of the standard "yeah, what about roads/schools/etc" things anti-libertarians think we want to get rid of. I do not need a department of defense that spends half its budget on corporate welfare, waste/fraud/abuse, and congressional slush funding in order to defend the nation. The DoD could cut it's budget by half tomorrow, and if the remining half went to actual defense instead of whatever racketeering scheme, nobody would notice. The federal workforce could be cut by 25% tomorrow, and if done with an eye on actual process optimization and not inflicting pain on Americans for politcal purposes...nobody would notice. The Department of Education could disappear tomorrow, and if the NEA and AFT actually cared about teaching children, nobody would notice.
And yes, we could drastically reduce the size of the welfare state, and besides the scam artists and grievance peddlers, nobody would really notice.
Now in any of the above, do I call for the absence of government? Might makes right? Lawlessness? No, I don't. Changing the order of sovereignty to individual->town->state->nation does not obliterate town, stae or nation, it simply says the individual should be the first order of sovereignty, what we default to when making decisions, and doing our level best to ensure the most freedom for. Crimes are still crimes, law is still law, and fair play is still fair play...but it does not need to be as massive and bloated as it is currently is.
This kind of thinking is not anarchistic. It is libertarian. They are different...really.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you support Universal Basic Income?
Without net neutrality, internet firms won't have equal stream times. This hurts competition. Big companies would contract with ISP to collude website access to takeover the information stream to their liking. Governments should own the internet infrastructure to assure equal access for consumers and equal stream capacity for websites.
If there's privately owned roads, corporations would collude with construction companies to keep mom and pop stores from competing. Government owned infrastructure makes sure that logistics and transportation can move freely without any private interest. Use this example in the net neutrality issue that's going on with the FCC now.
We should nationalize everything and put the entire country under federal control, because federal bureaucrats and politicians are perfect, non-partisans, non-agenda driven, literally the best of the best of the best.
Right-of-center Obama once again bows to the corporatists and allows his FCC to pass such an anti-consumer law policy change. A real liberal would have fought for consumers and not allowed them to be at the mercy of which corporation has the biggest coffers, leading to a squelching of speech on the free internet.
ISPs in the US have monopolies. Customers want to jump ship from Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner, but they can't. There aren't any other competitors. These companies colluded the industry to keep out competition.
I'm not getting your second argument. First off all, I don't know where you get the idea of "multiple roads". lol The fact remains that commercial space within a given proximity share the same road. I don't see why you don't see the equivalence between road infrastructure and internet infrastructure.
First, ISP's do not have monopolies. I would agree that there isn't a lot of competition, but they do not have monopolies. If you live in the city, you will at the very least have a cable internet provider and a telephone internet provider. Many cities have multiple telephone and cable companies. Let alone wireless internet companies.
In fact, the future of wireless internet could be a transition to "white space" frequencies. Those frequencies have recently been opened up by the FCC.
While regular 2.4 ghz wireless can usually only travel a couple hundred feet at best. White space frequencies are 470-790 mhz, allowing them to travel up to six miles.
Furthermore, in most cases, the ISP's aren't really the ones providing the internet anyway. The internet as you would imagine it being, is actually the network of networks of networks which traverse the continent and the world. In many cases Verizon and Comcast are really nothing more than subcontractors of major network backbones, and as a result they have to follow the rules passed down to them by those network backbones. And most of these networks are actually redundant.
In fact there is supposedly a proposal to run a new network line from Brazil to Europe, because currently all internet traffic from Latin-America is routed through America. Which the NSA is exploiting to spy on European governments.
The internet is not a monopoly. And as long as there are multiple nations in the world, it really cannot become a monopoly.
As for roads and commercial property. My point is, mom and pop stores are at a huge competitive disadvantage to corporations if they are both forced to use commercial space. The industries which are still dominated by individuals(IE mom and pop businesses) are industries which don't require commercial space to operate. Basically, businesses that can be operated out of a home.
If you look at the history of business, until the last century most people ran businesses out of their homes. With the bottom floor being the "store" and the top floor being their home. That is no longer possible because of zoning laws which separate residential areas from commercial areas.
So the question then is, why do zoning laws exist? Or really, what is the argument for why I shouldn't be allowed to run a restaurant out of my home?
The primary reason has to do with traffic. If I operated a restaurant out of my home the street I live on would have a considerable increase in traffic, as well as the potential for people to be parking all over the street. To remedy this problem, zoning laws were passed to move traffic away from residential areas.
Thus there is a problem. If government owns roads, government has to have zoning laws. If there are zoning laws you put mom and pops out of business. If all roads were privatized, would there be more zoning laws or less zoning laws? If there are more zoning laws, then it would help corporations even more than the current system. If there would be less zoning laws, then it would help mom and pop stores.
I take the position that on average, the existence of private roads would largely eliminate zoning laws and other restrictions. Which means the existence of private roads would actually help mom and pop businesses.
t simply says the individual should be the first order of sovereignty, what we default to when making decisions, and doing our level best to ensure the most freedom for. Crimes are still crimes, law is still law, and fair play is still fair play...but it does not need to be as massive and bloated as it is currently is.
This kind of thinking is not anarchistic. It is libertarian. They are different...really.
You are correct. Basically leave us the hell alone when you get down to it. Guys who laid it on the line back in the day would agree.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you support Universal Basic Income?
The day that happens, half the country will be become couch potatoes, waiting for their weekly check of "money for nothing" to arrive, and voting for anyone who promises to give them more free stuff.
The day that happens, half the country will be become couch potatoes, waiting for their weekly check of "money for nothing" to arrive, and voting for anyone who promises to give them more free stuff.
The day is on us. Half the country are couch sitters. Hell why not just join in...............of course that is what they want. Not a half nation of sitters but the whole crew. I just drive on.............and hope and teach my kids to do the same. They are the ones who will get it in the long run.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you support Universal Basic Income?
Good question. Some scholarly libertarians have made a case for it, most have argued against it. In any philosophical circle, some folks are optimistic and others pessimistic. Libertarians are generally pessimistic where anything government is concerned, so no shock that universal basic income (or the negative income tax corollary) are typically opposed.
Theoretically, I sit in the exact middle. On one hand, I can see it being far more efficient than all existing forms of welfare, were it to replace them all. On the other hand, I still see any form of wealth redistribution as inherently evil and immoral because it first requires a "taking" component that penalizes being more relatively successful than your neighbor.
Practically, I like the universal basic income more than all other forms of welfare because it's universal, transparent and much harder to manipulate or game directly because of its simplicity. Then again, knowing our government, and being solidly in the pessimist camp of libertarians, I can see UBI being ADDED to our many forms of welfare, rather than replacing them all. It would start off as "we'll phase UBI in gradually, and phase out everything else gradually" and will end up being "we'll drop UBI into the mix all at once and never get rid of anything else." This is the best argument against my beloved National Retail Sales Tax and why I know it would never work in practical terms. The government won't replace anything with a NRST, they'll simply create a VAT on top of every other tax and call it a day.
Morally, I am again on the fence. On the one hand, a universal basic income is society attempting to not have anyone left out, starving, etc. On the other hand, it requires taking from others against their will (at least in some cases), thus making obligation a condition of existence. It's easy to default to utilitarian good, and I understand that, but I am fervent "respect the rights of the individual, and let them choose their destiny so long as they are not harming or obligating others" voluntaryist. So it's just tough to side totally with a utilitarian net good because the net requires that "by force" cost component. So you know, nothing easy about trying to be a logically consistent libertarian. There are many sticking points that result in the many books/articles/papers/etc that go back and forth in the libertarian world that do nothing but agonize over these various points.
Now, adding that all up - if the reality was such that UBI replaced all other welfare, was a result of a fairer taxation system, was part of an overall reduction in the complexity/scope/size of government, and was open and transparent, then yes, I support it simply because it moves the power towards the People and away from the government, and I'll take any movement I can get in that direction.
Good question. Some scholarly libertarians have made a case for it, most have argued against it. In any philosophical circle, some folks are optimistic and others pessimistic. Libertarians are generally pessimistic where anything government is concerned, so no shock that universal basic income (or the negative income tax corollary) are typically opposed.
Theoretically, I sit in the exact middle. On one hand, I can see it being far more efficient than all existing forms of welfare, were it to replace them all. On the other hand, I still see any form of wealth redistribution as inherently evil and immoral because it first requires a "taking" component that penalizes being more relatively successful than your neighbor.
Practically, I like the universal basic income more than all other forms of welfare because it's universal, transparent and much harder to manipulate or game directly because of its simplicity. Then again, knowing our government, and being solidly in the pessimist camp of libertarians, I can see UBI being ADDED to our many forms of welfare, rather than replacing them all. It would start off as "we'll phase UBI in gradually, and phase out everything else gradually" and will end up being "we'll drop UBI into the mix all at once and never get rid of anything else." This is the best argument against my beloved National Retail Sales Tax and why I know it would never work in practical terms. The government won't replace anything with a NRST, they'll simply create a VAT on top of every other tax and call it a day.
Morally, I am again on the fence. On the one hand, a universal basic income is society attempting to not have anyone left out, starving, etc. On the other hand, it requires taking from others against their will (at least in some cases), thus making obligation a condition of existence. It's easy to default to utilitarian good, and I understand that, but I am fervent "respect the rights of the individual, and let them choose their destiny so long as they are not harming or obligating others" voluntaryist. So it's just tough to side totally with a utilitarian net good because the net requires that "by force" cost component. So you know, nothing easy about trying to be a logically consistent libertarian. There are many sticking points that result in the many books/articles/papers/etc that go back and forth in the libertarian world that do nothing but agonize over these various points.
Now, adding that all up - if the reality was such that UBI replaced all other welfare, was a result of a fairer taxation system, was part of an overall reduction in the complexity/scope/size of government, and was open and transparent, then yes, I support it simply because it moves the power towards the People and away from the government, and I'll take any movement I can get in that direction.
You are correct in so many of your points. Some will never understand though.
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.
