The Libertarian Thread

[Backdrifter]

 

[Kelly]

I would vote for that....

 

[The Overlord]

wow......no.



@Thirdworld and this party becoming mainstream...

Unless the (L) party chooses people that can articulately, without coming off as a complete idiot as their spokesperson and their Presidential candidate, they will stay a party with no real future.

So far, even though I agree alot with their platform, there is no way in hell I would vote for their candidates that they have chosen over the past years of my voting career.

Norm is a libertarian and he seems to believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to US military action.

 

[Paradoxium]

Michael Moore is a dick, he knows the difference between corporatism and capitalism. He even ****ing admitted it on video to a student. He just likes to rebrand for expedience towards some of his ideological outcomes. Of he predictably tries to steer away from answering the full and original question.


Don't get to caught up with the Ron Paul money printing simplicity of dollar devaluation. That is the simple story, monetary value has a lot more to it than that. You need to account for credit destruction and velocity of money, even Peter Schiff when pressured on this conceded to some of this. Gold for an example is not necessarily a hedge on inflation. Notice during the high dollar rally Gold was still up? It's no coincidence. Gold is a crisis hedge.

Consumers have recently spent more, but the fundamentals are still wrong... this probably contributing to the rise in money velocity (ergo recent decline). On top of some of the speculative hype as well. Most countries are buying up Yen and Euro in their reserves now (2/3, with the last third in USD). It's nice the MSM does NOT mention any of this too.

 

[Thirdworld]

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.

 

[Kelly]

*just sitting back with the popcorn and diet coke, waiting for Norm to read these posts*

 

[Thirdworld]

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.

I recant, I thought you meant Noam (Chomsky). Though I'm interesting in hearing Norm's POV through his own words. @ Paradoxium very true but HR 1207 is just the rallying point to reforming and fixing our economy. That is for people who understand "capitalism" is not to blame especially since we have a mixed economy based on Keynesian and not an actual free market.

 

[Paradoxium]

I hear the senate version tries to water down the audit bill.

Unfortunately I don't think the monetary system will ever be big enough of an issue until it burns everyone in the ass. The fractional reserve system is purposely complicated. In fact I don't even think they really teach it at school (they really gloss it over or do not test it)... on that note, Kel, is the fractional reserve system part of the curriculum of where you teach?

 

[Paradoxium]

double post

 

[The Overlord]

I recant, I thought you meant Noam (Chomsky). Though I'm interesting in hearing Norm's POV through his own words. @ Paradoxium very true but HR 1207 is just the rallying point to reforming and fixing our economy. That is for people who understand "capitalism" is not to blame especially since we have a mixed economy based on Keynesian and not an actual free market.

No Norm the poster here.

*just sitting back with the popcorn and diet coke, waiting for Norm to read these posts*

I'm not scared of him. (=

Anyway I recalled Norm stating the ends justify the means in regards to torture of terror suspects and Gitmo and that public opinion should have an effect on the Health Care debate, but not the Iraq war.

I have seen other libertarians around the web with similar views about the military.

Is there any cohesive Libertarian policy on military and foreign affairs?

 

[SuBe]

Paleo Libertarians believe in near complete non-interventalism.
NeoLibertarians believe in National Security peppered with pre-emptive strike diplomacy if threat disrupts national interests.

 

[Paradoxium]

Probably mean consequentialist libertarianism ?

 

[Paradoxium]

Still thinking, is neo libertarian really a label for the consequentialist view? Or is it just Libertarianism, and the non-interventionist are basically Paleo Libertarianism to Libertarianism?

The way a consequentialist sees something both intervention and non-intervention has a consequence (as far foreign policy goes). As a result of this, you need to make a very thorough cost benefit calculus. Which way ultimately maximizes happiness and prosperity for the said nation?

Major Action A with Consequence A,

Major Action B with Consequence B,

Major InAction C with Consequence C.

Within each Major Action there is immediate pro/cons and long term pro/cons. Within each set, are a permutation of different outcomes depending sets of action. So 3, 2, 1 matters differently to 2, 3, 1 and to 1, 2, 3. Perhaps Major Action A is the most desired outcome, but statistically speaking, to arrive a particular sequence of 3, 2, 1 is low. Major InAction C, which has the second most favorable but statistically most probably sequence to arrive it might be more desirable. But C also has a low probability of a sequence that is disastrous. But are the cost benefit worth it?

Something like that

 

[SuBe]

Dox, too many labels. Let's just stick with "Real Americans"

 

[The Overlord]

Paleo Libertarians believe in near complete non-interventalism.
NeoLibertarians believe in National Security peppered with pre-emptive strike diplomacy if threat disrupts national interests.

That seems like code for giving a blank check to DoD and the State Department, which seems like a bad idea to me.

In the 80s DoD and the state Department felt arming Saddam was in the national interest and look how wrong they were there. Why should they get a blank check? Why shouldn't they get any oversight?

It seems illogical that you think people are taking away your freedom with Obama's health care system, yet you want to spend tax payer money on something the majority of the population doesn't support, are you not taking away their freedom?

If I think the Iraq war, illogical and immoral and I believe it doesn't serve any national interest, why should I have to pay for it? The war was only supported because of a bunch promises where made about and those promises were broken, why should people continue to support a war based on broken promises?

If any any other government project was run as badly as the Iraq war was (where they literally lost money that was sent to Iraq) you would be up in arms over it, so why should the Iraq war get a pass?

 

[StorminNorman]

Norm is a libertarian and he seems to believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to US military action.

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.

No Norm the poster here.

I'm not scared of him. (=

Anyway I recalled Norm stating the ends justify the means in regards to torture of terror suspects and Gitmo and that public opinion should have an effect on the Health Care debate, but not the Iraq war.

I have seen other libertarians around the web with similar views about the military.

Is there any cohesive Libertarian policy on military and foreign affairs?

Once again you fail to fully comprehend my posts.

I never stated that the public opinion SHOULD effect any policy one way or the other, I have stated time and time again about the political realities.

The political reality is that the public opinion will absolutely effect the Health Care debate because elections are so close, because the public is keeping an eye on government spending, and because the debate is so loud. Also Democrats from Conservative districts are feeling the pressure due to votes on Stimulus, Bailouts and Cap and Trade.

The case for the Iraq War was completely different because Americans (rationally or irrationally) were gun-ho for Iraq at the time. You can argue the why or how all you want. Now yes, I do not believe the government should be completely obedient to the people's wishes either. If military commanders on the field are saying that the operation is winnable, I don't believe in surrendering even if the majority of the American people do.

Now, that being said, I only believe in the use of military conflict as a last resort - which it obviously was not in Iraq. I believe the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq was poor and that more should have been done before putting boots on the ground. However once we were there, once operations began, once men and women were killed for this mission - we owed it to them and ourselves to finish the job. I am glad we did.

 

[Paradoxium]

Some readings. They are free legal digital copies, but they are also sold on Amazon. I personally like using Adobe Digital Editions to read through this stuff (which I also use to buy up digital books).

Economics in One Lesson
Henry Hazlitt
http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf
http://jim.com/econ/

Economics in One Lesson is an introduction to free market economics written by Henry Hazlitt and published in 1946, based on Frédéric Bastiat's essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (English: "What is Seen and What is Not Seen").

America's Great Depression
Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Rothbard blames the interventionist policies of the Herbert Hoover administration for magnifying the duration, breadth, and intensity of the Great Depression. Rothbard explains the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which holds that government manipulation of the money supply sets the stage for the familiar "boom-bust" phases of the modern market. He then detailed the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve from 1921 to 1929 as evidence that the depression was essentially caused not by speculation, but by government and central bank interference in the market.

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises' praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.

 

[SuBe]

 

[Paradoxium]

Rothbard's America's Great Depression is quite telling about Hoover. It actually separates what Hoover said, and what Hoover did. This why it drives me up the wall every time keeps going on about him being laissez faire. It's like calling Bush a fiscal conservative, and thus fiscal conservatism does not work.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/hoover_the_myth.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/10/economic_crisis.html

From Chapter 11 about Hoover's New Deal

Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, work-sharing, maintaining wage rates ("a large majority have maintained wages at high levels" as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, Hoover declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, Hoover urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:

1. Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;

2. Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;

3. Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;

4. Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;

5. Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;

6. Legalize Hoover's order restricting immigration;

7. Do something to weaken "destructive competition" (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;

8. Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;

9. Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).

Hoover also displayed anxiety to "protect railroads from unregulated competition," and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment

With a $2 billion deficit during annual year 1931, Hoover felt that he had to do something in the next year to combat it. Deficit spending is indeed an evil, but a balanced budget is not necessarily a good, particularly when the "balance" is obtained by increasing revenue and expenditures. If he wanted to balance the budget, Hoover had two choices open to him: to reduce expenditures, and thereby relieve the economy of some of the aggravated burden of government, or to increase that burden further by raising taxes. He chose the latter course. In his swan song as Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon advocated, in December, 1931, drastic increases of taxes, including personal income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and postal rates.

Obedient to the lines charted by Mellon and Hoover, Congress passed, in the Revenue Act of 1932, one of the greatest increases in taxation ever enacted in the United States in peacetime. The range of tax increases was enormous. Many wartime excise taxes were revived, sales taxes were imposed on gasoline, tires, autos, electric energy, malt, toiletries, furs, jewelry, and other articles; admission and stock transfer taxes were increased; new taxes were levied on bank checks, bond transfers, telephone, telegraph, and radio messages; and the personal income tax was raised drastically as follows: the normal rate was increased from a range of 1? percent-5 percent, to 4 percent-8 percent; personal exemptions were sharply reduced, and an earned credit of 25 percent eliminated; and surtaxes were raised enormously, from a maximum of 25 percent to 63 percent on the highest incomes. Furthermore, the corporate income tax was increased from 12 percent to l3? percent, and an exemption for small corporations eliminated; the estate tax was doubled, and the exemption floor halved; and the gift tax, which had been eliminated, was restored, and graduated up to 33??percent.[1] Hoover also tried his best to impose on the public a manufacturers' sales tax, but this was successfully opposed by the manufacturers.

 

[The Overlord]

Once again you fail to fully comprehend my posts.

I never stated that the public opinion SHOULD effect any policy one way or the other, I have stated time and time again about the political realities.

The political reality is that the public opinion will absolutely effect the Health Care debate because elections are so close, because the public is keeping an eye on government spending, and because the debate is so loud. Also Democrats from Conservative districts are feeling the pressure due to votes on Stimulus, Bailouts and Cap and Trade.

The case for the Iraq War was completely different because Americans (rationally or irrationally) were gun-ho for Iraq at the time. You can argue the why or how all you want. Now yes, I do not believe the government should be completely obedient to the people's wishes either. If military commanders on the field are saying that the operation is winnable, I don't believe in surrendering even if the majority of the American people do.

Now, that being said, I only believe in the use of military conflict as a last resort - which it obviously was not in Iraq. I believe the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq was poor and that more should have been done before putting boots on the ground. However once we were there, once operations began, once men and women were killed for this mission - we owed it to them and ourselves to finish the job. I am glad we did.

How long was Vietnam considered "winnable"? What about WWI, how many people died in that conflict, because everyone thought it was "winnable"? Wasn't WWI supposed to be over by Christmas 1914? How people died in pointless conflicts because their leaders thought these things were winnable, even as the years pass and more men are lost?

Public opinion on the war had a major effect on things, considering it was based on broken promises and public opinion turned against the war when those promises were not met. It is very hard to maintain a war when the public is against it. The USSR lost the Afghanistan war, in part because it became unpopular with the public and the USSR was a dictatorship, so public opinion can affect a war, no matter what. So saying public opinion is important in Health Care debate, but far less important in the Iraq war, seems completely flawed! Besides how can you say the war is winnable when the definition of victory kept on changing, it certainly isn't winnable by the promises the war was based on: finding WMDs and having no more then six months of fighting in Iraq.

It still seems like a major contradiction that you think other people are taking away your freedom with this Health Care bill, but you have no problem spending other people's money on a war that hasn't met its promises.

 

[bell110]

Firstly I think Libertarians (or classical liberal) are going to become more popular in our society when people realize the massive corruption in the other parties. As far as why more people aren't Libertarians I think it is just like why religion has stayed with us. People are mainly born into being either party and brought up with like minded people so they stay in that mindset. It's no secret that most states have been PERMA-Red or Blue and that what we are fed.

I agree with the second part you said. People born of a certain party tend to stay with it. I'm starting to think Libertarians will never become popular. Too many people are of the mind set that since they are not big, there is no reason to vote for them. They will either vote for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all, and that is a shame.

A viable, well spoken, and intelligent candidate makes all the difference.

Well, that doesn't explain Bush.

Besides how can you say the war is winnable when the definition of victory kept on changing...

That's exactly HOW they are going to win.

I have a great idea. Obama can say passing health care will give us victory in Iraq, and we can leave. That way everyone wins: Democrats get health care legislation and Republicans get a victory in Iraq. It's too crazy NOT to work.

 

[Thirdworld]

I agree with the second part you said. People born of a certain party tend to stay with it. I'm starting to think Libertarians will never become popular. Too many people are of the mind set that since they are not big, there is no reason to vote for them. They will either vote for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all, and that is a shame.

Primarily I think the popularity will come in the form of Libertarian minded people getting Republican nominations. As for the party itself it could only can gain popularity if we do hit "the greatest depression". People looking for answers will turn (hopefully) to more Austrian/Libertarian ideas and writers. There is already some evidence of this today with book sales.

 

[Marx]

Well, that doesn't explain Bush.

Bush was the guy people 'wanted to have a beer with'. Beyond that, I can't explain it.

 

[The Overlord]

Primarily I think the popularity will come in the form of Libertarian minded people getting Republican nominations. As for the party itself it could only can gain popularity if we do hit "the greatest depression". People looking for answers will turn (hopefully) to more Austrian/Libertarian ideas and writers. There is already some evidence of this today with book sales.

But I don't see any evidence of the GOP becoming more Libertarian.

 

[Thirdworld]

But I don't see any evidence of the GOP becoming more Libertarian.

Citizens who associate themselves with the GOP I think are more open to Libertarian ideas especially the younger generations. The GOP will eventually have to listen to these people more if they ever hope to change news like this -> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...l_republicans_have_lost_touch_with_their_base