Libertarians.....what do you think???

[FrontlineWarrior]

<< What 'Libertarian laws' are you talking about? The one where income tax is abolished, so lower income and middle class aren't paying a dime to the federal gov't? Or the one where Social Security is taken away so you can spend your money freely, instead of going to the gov't so you will get it back with extremely low interest? Is it just the plain fact that, Americans will now have no one to blame for not getting a job now? Or perhaps, that rich guys will not have to support street bums who are too lazy to find work? Please explain, I'm very interested. >>



I don't claim to know all of Libertarian policies so let's deal with the ones you mentioned.

First, income tax is not charged equally to all class levels. Low income families pay little to no income tax. Current income tax policies have a huge chunk of revenue from income tax being payed by the super wealthy. This in turn allows for money to be distributed for poor families. If this type of funding is not provided for public schools or other necessary funds, how do you think the poor will be able to school their children. Are we to believe that after 1. lower minimum wage 2. elimination of an income tax that they pay little to nothing anyway, will result in the poor having so much extra money that they can afford private schooling? Whether or not you agree with this type of &quot;steal from the rich to help the poor&quot; policy, Libertarian policy would do nothing to help the poor.

Second, Americans who are jobless for laziness have no one to blame now, they never have had any excuse. This is a moot point. I would be interested however, how Libertarians would deal with people who are not able to work because they are injured, or even those who cannot support themselves even with a job (due to no minimum wage). Perhaps this is natural selection and we should just wait for them to starve and die?

Under the Libertarian policy, as far as I know it, the rich won't have to pay for the bums on the street... unless of course they want to hire someone to take them away from their front lawn.

 

[Buddha Bart]

<< Uncompassionate and un-American >>


You cannot be more American than a Libertarian.
This ENTIRE COUNTRY was founded on libertarian ideals.

anyway, as for my presidential vote.. here's a rough sketch of how I see things.


Anti Christ--------------Liveable-----------------------------Ideal
Gore------------------Bush---------------------Browne---Not possible for humans

I will vote for Bush because he is vastly more likely to win than browne, and its more important to keep gore out.

However, the best plan for the libertarians now is to get them into all the positions short of congress.

bart

 

[Russ]

<< This is exactly why they support policies that don't give a damn about less intelligent people with jobs that aren't as good. >>



Have anybody in particular in mind, DiRF?

Russ, NCNE

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Russ,

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Buddha Bart,
Just because America was founded on certain ideals, that does not mean those are the ideals of America now.

 

[jaydee]

This cut and paste job of assorted quotes off http://www.harrybrowne.org should serve fine:

&quot;Although the government's statistics don't track this trend prior to 1950, the trend away from poverty had persisted throughout the 20th century. Except during the Great Depression years, America was becoming steadily more prosperous -- and almost everyone was benefiting.

Shortly after the U.S. government declared War on Poverty, the downward trend in poverty came to a halt. It became obvious -- or should have been obvious -- that the more money the government gave to the poor, the less people would strive to avoid qualifying for help.

The federal government's biggest contribution to welfare was to make enrollment permanent, rather than a temporary expedient. Welfare became a right -- one to which you're entitled if most other people make more money than you do. No more monitoring, no more pressure to get back on your feet, no more need to change the habits or way of living that pulled you into poverty. Your only duty was to walk to the mailbox once a month to pick up your check.

Would it be hard-hearted to do away with welfare entirely? Perhaps the question should be: Is it compassionate to teach people they can't survive without government help?

Those who truly can't help themselves will get better care from people who help voluntarily. The genuine compassion of volunteers has the best chance of leading the needy out of dependency -- rather than deeper into it.

And for those who can help themselves, but who may have lost the habit, the best we can do is to set them free. For their sake, we should get the government out of the economy, to open more opportunities for the unskilled and the inexperienced.
No government program can turn people into responsible citizens. The only way to make anyone understand responsibility is to set him free to see the consequences of his own acts.

We have to decide what kind of country we want.


Do we want a country in which everyone is dependent on the government? In such a country, everyone pretty much works under compulsion -- because most of what he earns is taken from him -- and then receives his pittance from the government, doled out to him as though he were a child on an allowance.

Or do we want to live where people are self-reliant, proud of their ability to take care of themselves -- in a country where people get to keep what they earn, and so produce far more of value to society.
The Soviet Union showed us where the first system leads. America used to be an example of where the second one leads. Today we are halfway between the two systems, moving gradually toward the Soviet system, in which the state controls everything. The so-called &quot;middle way&quot; or &quot;third way&quot; is really a transition from freedom to slavery.

It isn't possible to give government just a little control over the economy and our lives. Once we cede that power to government, it uses the power to take more from us. That's why every year the government makes more of our decisions and leaves us with less control over our own futures.

We've already gone so far that it will require a tremendous effort to recapture our lives. If we wait another few years, it may be too late. By then we may not have the resources, the power, or the freedom to reclaim our country and our liberty.

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have made it clear that they like the present system. They advocate new programs to &quot;help people&quot; -- either new subsidies for new privileges to new recipients, or new programs that will give politicians the power to dole out your money to politically favored &quot;faith-based&quot; organizations or other charities. The latter idea will destroy private charity in America just as surely as federal aid to education has decimated private colleges and local schools.

Only Libertarians are proposing to take the federal government completely out of an area where it has no constitutional authority. Only Libertarians believe you should keep all the money you earn and decide for yourself who deserves your help.&quot;

 

[jaydee]

Dirf, when exactly did those ideals change?

 

[etech]

Just setting the record straight. It does not look like enough, but a good start and a hell of a lot better then Gore's bigger government.

3. Mr. Bush, you haven't proposed the elimination or reduction of a single government program, regulation, or law. So why do you refer to yourself as the candidate of smaller government?
Some points from Bush's plan

Support legislation establishing a bipartisan ?Sunset Review Board? to recommend elimination of duplicative and ineffective programs.

Open federal positions involving commercial activities to competition from the private sector wherever possible.

Flatten the Federal Hierarchy. Governor Bush will flatten the federal hierarchy, bringing government closer to citizens by not replacing 40,000 senior and middle managers who will retire over the next eight years, and eliminating the new layers of management created by the current Administration.

 

[vi edit]

Many studies have shown that the more help you give some, the harder it is for them to help themselves when they are required to.

If the government keeps &quot;helping&quot; out people, instead of teaching them how to help themselves, it just turns into a zero-win situation. We the taxpayers get milked of our hard earned dimes, and the people that are receiving help are up sh!t creek once their welfare terms have run out. They have no clue how to fend for themselves.

It's not something that could be done overnight, but overtime, the welfare programs could be cut down dramatically.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Well assuming that the ideals of the founding fathers are casting the poor off as people left to die, I'd say the change happened roughly in the span of 225 years.

Let's address the Libertarian propaganda.



<< Shortly after the U.S. government declared War on Poverty, the downward trend in poverty came to a halt. It became obvious -- or should have been obvious -- that the more money the government gave to the poor, the less people would strive to avoid qualifying for help. >>



This is not obvious at all. Many factors could have contributed to this. For example, we could say during 1940-1945 economy skyrocketed because of the sound investment of FDR, when it fact it was the war the boosted our economy.



<< The federal government's biggest contribution to welfare was to make enrollment permanent, rather than a temporary expedient. Welfare became a right -- one to which you're entitled if most other people make more money than you do. No more monitoring, no more pressure to get back on your feet, no more need to change the habits or way of living that pulled you into poverty. Your only duty was to walk to the mailbox once a month to pick up your check. >>



I agree with this. However, I fail to see how Libertarian policies would rectify this... unless the solution to this problem is to not give them any support at all.



<< Would it be hard-hearted to do away with welfare entirely? Perhaps the question should be: Is it compassionate to teach people they can't survive without government help? >>



Moot point because I don't agree with how Social Security is currently run. (i.e. with no incentives to work) The compassionate thing to do for Libertarians is to &quot;teach&quot; them by doing nothing to help them. Perhaps the next time someone is having a heart attack, the doctor will feel it's a good time to teach him to eat right. The real question is, what will Libertarians do to solve the unemployment problem?



<< Those who truly can't help themselves will get better care from people who help voluntarily. The genuine compassion of volunteers has the best chance of leading the needy out of dependency -- rather than deeper into it. >>



I don't know if this is a joke or not. Libertarians who propose such uncaring and indifferent policies expect us to suddenly become generous? Isn't there a conflict of philosophies here?

 

[vi edit]

I believe what they are talking about are private organizations.

IE - Muscular Dystrophy(sp?) Society, The various childrens organizations such as the shriners, and other institutions such as churches and community services.

If people are taxed less, or not taxed at all, they will in theory have more money to contribute to such organizations.

I'm not saying that it would be an effective solution, but it is very logical.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

we will have more money... but not necessarily for the purpose of contributions.

 

[Underclocked]

I'm votin' for Bob Ferengen.

 

[jaydee]

Actually we haven't had a world war in more than 50 years, and the War on poverty was introduced in the JFK, or LBJ era (can't remeber which) so you need better examples than that.
Ok, so you wholeheartedly disagree with Libertarians. However, you have to place your ideals in its place. If all you can do is complain about other plans to solve problems you should be able to defend yoursef with what you would do in that situation. Otherwise your words don't hold water. Allow me to cite specific examples wher you falter in this area:



<< Moot point because I don't agree with how Social Security is currently run. (i.e. with no incentives to work) >>



Enlighten us on how it should be run, if you will.



<< Whether or not you agree with this type of &quot;steal from the rich to help the poor&quot; policy, Libertarian policy would do nothing to help the poor. >>



Do you agree with the policy?



<< Libertarian laws would widen the gap between the upper and lower class, while at the same time not helping the lower class. So they would create more people with low pay and no support. Nice plan... if you're not affected. >>



How do you deal with this?

My guy has a plan for all of this, and I have no problem with any of it. Another thing earlier you said something which I have previously ignored, so...



<< One of the fallacies of the minimum wage plan is that they think owners will pass on the savings from deregulation and lower/no taxes to the consumer and the workers. While I see competition bringing down the cost to consumers a bit, it doesn't make sense that owners would pass on the savings to minimum wage workers. Minimum wage workers work for the minimum for a reason: they are very replaceable. This is will drive the wages down because of competition to the point that workers will no longer be able to support themselves. Oh yeah, and guess what, the government won't help you out either. >>



Let me refer you to up to date conflicts between bosses and employees. Baseball strike in 1994. Guess who won that dispute? Technically no one, but look at salaries of the players since then. Hmmmm... NBA strike a few years ago. Salaries at all-time high again. Northwest Airline stike in 1998. Pilots recieved 12% salary raise. Hmmmm... Well, these guys are far from the minimum wage, but the logic remains the same. Bosses need employees more than employees need bosses. In fact, find me one labor dispute that ended in workers returning to their jobs with no salary raise or benefits whatsoever. They may not always get EVERYTHING they want, but enough 'two steps forward, one step back' gets you some place. Moral of the story? I bet even you can figure this one out dirf.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

I wouldn't say I whole heartedly disagree with the Libertarian ideals. I agree with Libertarians in that they allow for certain personal freedoms, such as legalization of drugs as an example. What I disagree with is the economic aspect of the Libertarian agenda which I think leaves too many left behind.

As for what I think we should do, I don't have a specific plan. But then again, I'm not running for President of the United States.

NBA players, baseball players, pilots... all have skills that are not easily replaceable. However, I do see your point about unions. In fact there was a janitor strike in LA a few months ago, and I think they raised their wages a little. A possible consequence of this though is that every worker must join some sort of union in order to assure that they get paid well. Joining a union takes away more freedom for the workers than a minimum wage, no?

 

[Stealth1024]

Education is too important to let the government control. Vote Bush/Cheney and give yourself a choice as to which school to send your children!

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

I think I agree with the &quot;steal from the rich to help the poor&quot; policy of the income tax, mostly because the survival of this country depends on its citizens being able to survive in it. As citizens of this country we have certain implicitly agreed to responsibilities for others in this country, and I think taxation is the best compromise. Saying that the government has no responsibilities to the poor is pretty counter-intuitive, yet that's what I preceive the Libertarian agenda to be promoting. But like I said, I could be wrong.

 

[KingHam]

<< Saying that the government has no responsibilities to the poor is pretty counter-intuitive, yet that's what I preceive the Libertarian agenda to be promoting. >>



If it's not in the Constitution then it is not a Federal government responsibility. That's what Libertarians are promoting.

KingHam

 

[jaydee]

KingHam is right. Look up the constitution. Fed gov't has very little power regarding a surprising amount of key issues. Its been pointed out that the U.S. Constitution only lists three federal crimes: Piracy, counter-fits(sp?), and treason. And if you think about it, it really makes sense. What other crimes, have to do with the national gov't? The rest should be state regulated.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Hmm I don't know about that. Not saying I disagree, just saying I don't know.

What I perceive to be the Libertarian agenda doesn't seem to be arguing against the Federal laws of taxation per se, but the nature of these laws itself whether federal or state governed. They seem not to be asking &quot;do you want the federal government to regulate support for the poor (and instead the state to do that)&quot; but rather &quot;do you want that at all&quot;.

Since there are Libertarian congressmen and so forth, I'm assumming that Libertarian ideas about income taxes, minimum wage etc. extend to the state and local level as well. I could be wrong on this, but I think that's right, right? Well anyway, if that is the case, well I guess we come back to what I was saying earlier... that Libertarian changes would leave the poor behind.

 

[JellyBaby]

My fellow Libertarians!! Good to see a thread like this--it's much overdue. Jaydee, great work with your posting. Couple of things re: libbies before I go to sleep: Even Harry Browne has said not all of his ideals will be acheived. The point is that libertarians will work toward the goals Jaydee and others have mentioned. Not all of it will happen overnight. The basic tenet is reducing the oversteps of the federal government. Harry's all for States rights and full power for state and local governments to exercise their legal will. So if you think all helpful social programs will magically disappear under libs. you're dead wrong!

An acceptable voting route might be to pick Bush to nullify Gore but to vote for Libertarian senators and reps. at your state levels. There are more running now than ever and at least 2 in my state!

 

[ThurzNite]

As a Libertarian I have a saying:

You have the right to get what you deserve.

By deserve I mean EARN. That means if you are poor you didn't earn enough money to have the same lifestyle as that guy in the beverly hills mansion. Now I know that sounds harsh but hear me out. If you are sick and need medical care but can't afford it, maybe you earned the assistance of some nice person/group who is willing to pay for it by being a good person. No one is entitled to anything. If it comes down to a poor person needing assistance and there isn't a single person or private charitable organization willing to help, they haven't earned it. They haven't contributed positively to society in any way, shape, or form. The truth of it is there will always be private charities that will help EVERYONE. But I work for my money, if I don't think you are good enough to deserve it more than me, I'm keepin it!

People must face consequences and take personal responsibility for being poor, or stupid, or a loser, or whatever &quot;lower class&quot; you want to call it.

Charity at gun point isn't charity at all, it's robbery.

Edit: The above was posted by my roommate using my computer.
Jay

 

[Dan]

Here's another registered Libertarian who is glad to see this thread. We need more exchanges of ideas like this and I applaud DiRF for hanging in there and participating in this process.

As I see it, one of the primary thrusts of Libertarians is to reduce the scope of the Federal Government. We need to get the Feds out of everything from Amtrack to Education to our bedrooms.

Let's consider the question of who will take care of all the poor people if the government won't?

First, it's reasonable to assume there will be less &quot;poor people.&quot; The federal bureaucracy has a vested interest in making sure there is a certain level of poverty in this country. Have we ever seen a government program that actually solved a problem and put itself out of business?

Second, there will be less &quot;poor people&quot; because a percentage of them always seem to be able to go get a job and support themselves when the government handouts are removed. (Several Republican governors proved this with &quot;workfare&quot; programs. (Aside: The Republican Congress pushed through a similar concept at the Federal level and the Clinton/Gore Administration now takes credit for &quot;welfare reform.&quot

Third, when taxes are reduced and people have more money they contribute more to charities like the United Way. Witness the fact that charitable contributions by individuals, as a percentage, were much higher during the Reagan years than they have been under the Clinton years.

 

[jaydee]

The reason Libertarian ideals won't be reached, is because of Repub/Democ. congress, (not to steal the Dems excuse for accomplishing little). All we really need is a couple Libertarians in a few key positions (Senate or Governer) and only then will the people hear what they truly have to say. It should snowball from there but I could be wrong. The toughest challenge will be getting a few Libertarians in a few key positions to begin with.

 

[64bitloopy]

Until they garnish at least 5% of the popular vote, what will it matter.