An Honest libertarian Discussion Thread

I didn't say it was. Please do not jump to conclusions.

 

So you didn't actually address the link that I put up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought

Tell me, how exactly is it possible that there's only one type of anarchism when there are twenty different types of anarchism. I don't think you seem to understand that ALL OF THESE TYPES OF ANARCHISM FALL UNDER THE BASE DEFINITION OF ANARCHISM, JUST LIKE ALL STATISTS FALL UNDER THE BASE DEFINITION OF STATIST. An American Conservative is a type of statist, just like an anarcho-communist is a type of anarchist, but it would be insane to conflate either ideology as identical with all types of statism or anarchism... Which is exactly what you are doing to one but not the other because you're inconsistent and you don't wnat to admit that your wrong conclusion is wrong.

You don't know what the word anarchy actually means

Now you don't. A mother who lays down rules in her household is not a government. Not every rule making body is a state unless you're using the word in the broadest and most useless sense, because such a society would be so utterly different from all traditional statist societies we have seen that they're not worth comparing.

What I'm describing is exactly what many anarchists argue anarchy looks like. You are arguing anarchism is something no anarchist would call anarchism.

If I told you then you would say that I'm not an anarchist.

First of all these are not organized anarchist societies. Second of all hundreds of statist societies have far worse crimes.

So you're saying that freedom only exists as long as individuals desire to retain their freedom. So why do we need an effective constitution at at all?

Yes I do

You don't know what my stance on gun control is. You're also admitting to the failure of the system that you advocate.

... You're really putting up a pathetic argument.

 

Get a real argument instead of juvenile insults, okay?

I'm sorry, I don't see how the first three words of the Constitution justify an unlawful and tyrannical military invasion.

I'm not a southerner. I'm just someone who hasn't bought into the propaganda of Lincoln and the North. Here's a quote for you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The natural law transcends all the concerns you have raised.

 

I drank the normal kool-aid... you obviously drank the spiked one and has made you become a looney.

You just made this up.

Lol, you will make up anything to push your failed ideology.

Yes, because everybody would take that money and invest it. You honestly will make up anything to push your failed ideology. Libertarians are always very amusing.

 

That some companies do this does not make it automatically true that government regulation has helped prevent it.

I see, so we both agree that crimes are illegal, and that force and fraud can be prosecuted. Now, why does it follow, in your mind, that government regulation has helped eliminate these problems from markets?

You ask the question so why not answer it? Here is all you have to do. Create a graph of one of the problems you mention. First, plot the rate at which those problems were disappearing. Child labor, for example, was waning quickly in the 19th century. Then show, as government regulations came into existence that there was a statistically significant decrease in the rate of what might be categorized as problematic child labor.


If your assertions are true, it should not be hard to chart this. If you want an easier task, try OSHA. Founded in 1971, it ought to be very easy to show that OSHA has created a huge improvement in workplace safety.

Then, perhaps you can answer another problem: HOw do you deal with the fact that the organization that you believe protects you from companies that create bad products and harm consumers and the environment is not only the largest polluter around, but also creates products that harms people, has killed millions around the world, and locks up millions for victimless crimes? You may get a little protection in the market, though I think you have yet to prove that assertion, and in return you get severe restrictions on your freedoms, half your paycheck gone to bureaucrats, lots of pollution, murder of foreigners, and a huge prison population.

 

Constitutions are nice ideas, but they always fail in practice. Some libertarians fetishize the US Constitution. Not all do.

 

wrong thread, there threads about socialism.

The question was not directed to you .

Αρχή -Arhee means : start , principle and authority .
Someone feels that i need lessons in my mother language?

 

The point of this question is would you rather a voucher so you can chose your school or would you rather continue to pay taxes and send your child to a private school on top of still paying taxes? The reality is each child has a certain amount of money that is allotted to them, by the government. This can be determined by the total amount the school or government determines is the amount of money needed to educate the child. If a voucher program is started, folks can take that voucher, of which THEY paid for; no one else, and they can use this money to send their kids to a private school. This would help lower the classroom sizes and allow the teachers to become more hands on with fewer kids. Thus, the parents can also see how where their money is going and can make better decisions with it.

I believe a voucher system would be a lot better than the current system we have. If I want to send my kids to a private school, I still have to pay the taxes for the public school on top of the private school tuition. If I got a voucher for the money I paid in taxes, I can use to pay down some of the costs of the private school. The whole point of a voucher system is to remove corruption from the education system.

The reason folks come here is because of the system that's been implemented. They've been given benefits without them having to pay for it. I'd say allow them to become US citizens so they can be active members of society. Immigration will always serve a bigger purpose than the radicals who wish to do harm.

I think you're missing the context of this question. Government assistance is currently made available, through Section 8, that give folks money for their housing expenses. As such, the money is already given to them. The difference is if we should give them a voucher, based off of the total taxes they pay, and let them use that to offset the payments for the house. Same concept as the school voucher.

Wow...and you call yourself a libertarian? Civilians have nothing to do with any war, they should ALWAYS be avoided at all costs. You will have more civilian causalities than anything else. Furthermore, it's not their fault that the enemy decided to do such an act. That's when other measures need to occur and ground troops will be necessary.

Quite possibly but the underlying points are still valid.

Fair enough, but I believe the underlying point is still valid as well.

The first one is if you would relax them, quite possibly more on the de-regulation side. This one here is simply removing all of them. I believe immigration has it's purpose and should be more open than it currently is. Granted, I believe our job pool should be looked at first before attempting to go across our borders. However, I definitely believe immigration has it's purpose for the better of the country.

Agreed but I think the FDA should serve more as an adviser board than a regulator board. Furthermore, it shouldn't prevent folks from buying cheaper prescription drugs from other countries, if they so chose. This can also help lower the cost of healthcare, as one of the biggest contributors to the rising cost is prescription drugs. If more folks are allowed to buy them from other countries, it could lower the overall cost.

That's essentially what the question is getting at.

I wouldn't generalize 'Libertarians' as simply as such. There are some who wish to see no government, thus taxation wouldn't be necessary and unconstitutional. However, taxation has become Constitutional, according to the 16th amendment. Thus, the SCOTUS wouldn't strike them down, it's other potential ones that are deemed unconstitutional that should be struck down.

This law pulls me in two different directions. One, I believe it's up to the private company to determine who they will/won't hire. Two, I don't believe it's right for companies to be able to do it. Since I go with the NAP (Non-aggression principle), I lean more towards the former than the latter. However, I don't think folks would buy into this, so it's not something I openly discuss.

Again, you're taking the point of the question out of context. We spend a lot more on our military than the second closest nation. If we cut our military budget in half, we'd still be spending more than the second nation, by leaps & bounds. If we cut it by 75%, we'd still be spending more money than the second nation.

Why do we need to be over there in the first place? I'd say we start bringing everyone home. There are no defensive needs by placing our folks in other countries. Build bases here, that's how you defend a country.

Wow...again...soldiers & civilians are two different things.

Freedom doesn't exist without government? I have to disagree. Government is only known to take freedoms away, not because of them. If no government existed, wouldn't your freedoms still remain?

Privatize them because you have to pay for them one way or the other. I'd rather see how much I'm paying for a road than someone telling me how much it will cost me.

However, the private banks should be able to mint their own coins that should be viable tender. As such, we don't need a centralized bank, individual private banks can do the same job.

How are public judges accredited, trained, reviewed, appealed over, etc? The same would hold true to private judges. The only difference is, you allow the market to determine as such. I agree that public courts should be still available, I don't believe private judges shouldn't be allowed to exist either.

But government breeds evil things. That's why I believe most anarchists wish to see government abolished, as it will be less likely to create evil. I see limited government better than no government and the government we have now. Can it still breed evil? Of course, just like anything else can.

Fair enough.

If you are paying for a service that is provided by a private company, shouldn't they be allowed to build their own police force that can uphold their rules & regulations? Why does it only have to be what the government wishes it to be?

I don't see how that's a valid reason, but if that's what you wish to go for.

How can you be so sure that a libertarian government won't be? There are some within the libertarian ranks that ride on the curtails of libertarianism to feed their own agenda (IE: The Koch Brothers). As such, we still have to be mindful of the government that's in power, no matter which political faction is in office. Evil can be anywhere, we have to stay on top of the situation if the time comes.

Government isn't necessary for freedom. What the government has to do is stay out of private individuals lives. In my eyes, the government should only be there to protect the rights of others. They shouldn't give someone freedom, like a master taking off the chains of his slave. They should be there to ensure my rights & freedoms are protected, not given.

Not necessarily as capitalism means various things to various people. In my eyes, it means no government interference and individuals determine what's best for them. As it stands right now, I believe too many 'invisible hands' are at play and completely distort the market. As such, once we get the mercantilism/corporatism out of the market, we'll see a much better capitalist market, that resembles a true free market, in my opinion.

 

The point of the answer was that when the government pays the tuition, the government owns the school. It wasn't hard to understand.

A universal voucher system leads to....government control of formerly private schools.

I say if they want to become US citizens they can go back to their country, take their place in line, which is at the END of the line, and wait their turn and WE get to decide if we want a known criminal as a citizen or if we're more willing to take our chances with someone who respected our laws.

Todays invaders are the people that cram to the front of the ticket line and DEMAND free tickets. They're not good citizens, they don't have a right to be here, they don't belong here, they weren't invited, and the Americans don't want them.

Anyone that wants an illegal alien in this country clearly isn't an American.

Nope, didn't miss the context of the question, answered it, instead, in it's real, global, libertarian context.

Your half-measures, excuses, and partial socialism marks you as something other than a libertarian.

Libertarians don't hide from reality, which you keep trying to do. Wars are fought to be won. CIVILLIANS, not the military, work in the factories, run the trains, process the food, and write the laws. They're ALL valid military targets.

If an army puts a rocket launcher in a schoolyard, it's too damn bad for the kiddies, but they're not the Mayor's kiddies, and the Mayor's kids are much more important than the enemy's.

You want to give the nation away to thieves, and you want to lose any war we fight.

Interesting.

The question didn't ask the underlying point, it asked the validity of a specific value.

The question was rejected for improper specificity.

How can it be more open than "ignore it and use it's failure as an excuse to give the country away, because the damn people here now won't vote for us, and invading maggots will"?

And it can do so as a private agency.

No, it's not. Otherwise the Mayor would have answered the question that way.

The Mayor does. Libertarians recognize the need for a very limited government, no larger than necessary to protect freedom, and doing nothing for the people but protecting their freedoms.

People who believe no government is necessary, or who believe the government should do something besides protect their freedoms, aren't libertarians.

Taxation was always constitutional, since tariffs are taxes. What the Sixteenth Amendment did was allow the government to take your money from you before you even see it.

1) It's up to the private citizen to decide who he will and will not hire to perform a task.

2) It's right for companies to be able to do this.

It's not complicated. After all, EVERY job in private industry belongs to the people willing to pay for the task to be done. NO job belongs to the employee.

That's simple libertarianism there.

So? The Mayor's freedom is worth it, and so is that of his daughters.

What's your point, that your freedom isn't worth the cost?

The reality is that there are many things the US military is spending money on that it shouldn't be, almost all of it being social services and other nonsense. Certainly the military budget should be combed to get rid of the stupid leftist social engineering and other damaging elements.

But the determinant of adequate military spending is the mission. Defending the world's greatest nation requires the world's greatest military. The socialists are doing their best to wreck it. One of the tools they're using is establishing arbitrary spending ceilings and disregarding the mission of the military.

That's because you're ignorant of military history and military necessity. My daughter takes hapkido and she, with her little yellow belt, beat a second-degree red-belt for one simple reason....the other girl, with all her experience, let her guard down repeatedly and lost all three points.

She led with her chin. You could try to understand what happened at Pearl Harbor someday.

As a military veteran the Mayor is aware of that. How about if you let the military win the war, and you can go over an apologize to them after? There's no way people like the Mayor are going to accept your apology if we lose the war, unless your apology resembles something Japanese seppuku.

As a libertarian the Mayor recognizes your freedom to be wrong.

You should ponder historic conditions of anarchy some time, instead of prattling like a small child with a new toy.

Yeah, that's a fairly certain way of ensuring you'll be walking to Scotland, not taking the high road.

Sure...if there was an absolute standard of weights and measures, a private bank can coin money....got any idea what agency will establish uniform measures and verified purities?

Oh, that's right, it's Constitutional duty reserved to the federal government. You are aware that the nation had a period of states and private banks printing money, aren't you? Shall we say it didn't work well?

Yeah, for some reason the Mayor doesn't believe that justice should be a free-market commodity.

It's bad enough that King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, paid off Justice Roberts to scam the MessiahCare decision, but nobody even knows what coin was paid.

Sure it does, that's why government needs to be limited severly.

Anarchy is the fertilized soil of evil. Nothing good grows from anarchy.

Some people understand the nature of the company store, and some people don't.

You send them to school, but they just won't learn the important lessons.

No military = no national defense = the Rape of Nanking and the starvation of Ukraine.

It's hard to believe these things have to be explained.

Because if it sucks the blood from the people, it's not a libertarian government.

Any student of American history knows that the price of eternal liberty is eternal vigilance.

Some people have that ring in their noses and they moo, too!

Of course it is, since no government means anarchy.

You yourself up above said that limited government is better than no government.

Try to figure out what the hell it is you believe before you start attempting to correct your betters.

That's because you haven't learned how to see, you're still being guided by emotion.

Government is essential to capitalism because capitalism can't exist without a solid framework of property laws and guarantees of individual freedom.

All libertarians are capitalists, of course.

 

My understanding of libertarianism is reflected very well in this article by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/daily/3660

He describes libertarianism as, essentially, a political philosophy that describes a particular set of rules regarding property. Per Kinsella: "Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this."

A system of property rights establishes who is the owner of any scarce (contestable) resource. Libertarians hold that every person is the sole owner of his own physical body. Libertarians also hold that ownership of external resources falls to the person who first homesteads that resource. These two principles, self-ownership and the homesteading principle, are, in my opinion, the essence of the libertarian political philosophy.

Many people associate libertarianism with the nonaggression principle, and there is such an association. But the nonaggression rule is founded on the libertarian ideas of property rights. It is wrong to initiate aggression BECAUSE you are violating property rights, either in a person's body or in the external things he owns.

As Kinsella points out, all political philosophies propose a system of property rights. The thing, I think, that distinguishes libertarianism is that ownership is considered to be complete, 100% ownership. For example, if society can tell you that you can't put a particular substance into your body, well then that implies that other people have an ownership claim to your body, that you don't fully own your body.

So anyway, I think the essence of libertarianism is their consistent application of the concepts of self-ownership and the homesteading principle.

 

Thanks Longshot. The next post I was going to contribute was about property rights, as it is the foundation of libertarianism. I haven't had the time.

 

Snorkum is right, though. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" and the government will regulate private schools that receive public money in the form of vouchers. Eventually, those schools will be subject to the same rules as public schools. I think that they might still be better, but not by much.

Libertarian principles suggest that no one be prevented from crossing a border (in either direction) who does so for peaceful purposes and that no one be prevented from working simply because they lack the proper government permission slip. No visas, no time limits, peaceful people come and go as they choose.

Citizenship is a different issue. The "US Citizen" is a fiction which is subject to the whims of Congress and need not be easy to obtain. The original citizen in the United States was a state citizen, and that is almost always a matter of residency.

The Constitution is not a libertarian document, nor is it binding on the people who live today or even the government. It's just a piece of paper that many still refer to. I think it would be better for Libertarians to articulate clear principles for government and the rights of human beings, rather than try to refer to an archaic document that does not do a good job of protecting rights.

It's a matter of freedom of association, a fundamental natural right. "Companies" are made up of individuals and those individuals have a right to choose with whom they will associate. You also have the right to choose which companies you will purchase from.

 

You claim to be a libertarian, so I ask you, what right do you have to decide who I may invite to my home or to exchange their labor for my money? When you say "WE" get to decide, you are speaking in collectivist, not to mention nationalist, language, which is far from anything libertarian. The government now decides who gets in and who doesn't. I don't get to decide those things at all, so I can't include myself in that "WE" of yours. Do you get to decide?

Those who wish to work or travel for pleasure, or simply reside here on their own dime have every right to work, travel, or reside so long as they are peaceful.

Anyone who believes that government has the right to decide who gets to work and who doesn't clearly isn't a libertarian.

You mean, like a collectivist belief that government has the rightful power to decide when peaceful people get to exchange labor for wages or when they get to cross tax jurisdictions?

When, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, do you believe it is necessary to invade another nation?

Exactly. So, tell us why you believe that government should deny freedom to peaceful people who travel about and deny freedom to citizens and other residents who want to invite people into their homes or exchange their money for labor?

Why do you believe that the Constitution is the definition of libertarianism? It's not.

Such blatant hypocrisy.

You could try to understand the events that led up to Pearl Harbor and that those events were not reflective of a peaceful, libertarian America.

You mean like the creation of the Lex Mercatoria, a system of rules and regulations created by Italian traders outside of government? Terrible thing that they did. It was so bad, in fact, that it formed the basis of the US Commercial Code. Government always exists; the question is why does it need a monopoly on the legal use of force? The roots of the word anarchy means "no rulers" not "no government." People can rule themselves; government should just assist in enforcing the few rules needed that don't infringe on the natural rights of human beings.

A private agency? Maybe a few of them.

Why do you believe that the Constitution is the definition of libertarianism? Aside from that, the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the authority to outlaw private money or tell people what money is, or even "print" money as the specific word is "coin".

Is the mayor unable to articulate this reason? Why is justice a special commodity that needs to be monopolized by a single organization?

That's what you get when you demand an organization has a monopoly on the legal use of force and on justice. Corruption. It's a great deal of power to have. Obama is just one in a long line of "kings" with increasing powers.

Which, for some reason, they then equate with military socialism, adventures abroad, American exceptionalism, and a fear of "invaders" who want to take "their jobs."

Ridiculous. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an economic one. What you choose to do with your private life is entirely up to you, whether it to be engaged in capitalist enterprise or live on a commune.

 

Yes. One can't really say that it's wrong to use aggression against peaceful people unless there's a principled basis for it, which is natural rights, and natural rights stem from self-ownership.

From the basic principle (or fact) of self-ownership, one can derive, objectively, what political action is right or wrong.

I'm hard put, however, to say that all libertarians must subscribe to these notions. I think a person can be a libertarian and still on the fence about things.

 

Fair enough. However, I believe if the voucher has been determined to be X amount of money, the individual should be free & clear to use it towards their educational purposes. I think it will be a lot better form of educational structure rather than having folks simply churn out from the public educational sector. Folks won't let this aspect go, so if there is a way for me to utilize my money for schooling of my children of my choice, I'd rather do that than have nothing at all.

Agreed.

My apologizes on not diving into this deeper but the post was quite long and I didn't want to get into too much at the risk of it becoming unbearable to read. However, my principles stand on either abolishing taxes that are deemed unnecessary (Starting with income taxes) and proceeding from there or give folks the avenue to give to the government, if they so choose to do so. Some fees/taxes are needed, in my eyes, in order to provide some needed services that can be made to the general public (IE: Courts, police, military, etc). In that sense, fees/taxes aren't wrong as I believe there are some services that government should provide. In most cases, I believe the private sector can do it better, so I believe nothing should stop the private sector from performing the same work.

Agreed and hence why I stated I lean more towards I believe the company has a right to decide for themselves to whom they wish to hire. When government gets involved in this ordeal, it just begins to confound the issue and usually makes the matters worse. I would love to see a company try and be racist and no one do business with them. My gut tells me that they won't be in business for long or the business they do garner will be of like minded folks. Fortunately, they won't have too many like minded individuals and will eventually either change their ways or close up shop.

 

How about you take the negative tone out of your words and try to have a decent conversation? Let's start there and see where we can go from there.

Maybe, I see it better than the current public system that's currently being built. Our children aren't becoming any smarter and it's coming down to parents needing to teach their children things. Most parents aren't able to do that because they're working their lives away while trying to give their children what they need. If I can find more freedom in education for my child, I will try my hardest to find it.

I don't make these decisions, so I have no say in this. If I did, I'd say as long as they aren't harmful to the country, they are free to come in. As long as they are contributing to the overall economic state of the country, I'd say let them come in. If they are doing harm, of course they shouldn't be allowed here. If they are great folks, who only seek work, and folks here are willing to pay them as they can't find folks who want to do the job they need filled, I see no harm in it.

What does that have anything to do with being American? Folks of varying cultures and backgrounds, in my opinion, are beneficial to the overall growth of this country. Hell, we'll all immigrants. They're only considered illegal immigrants because of our government. If there was no borders, they wouldn't be labeled as such.

My stances are my stances. I state which I feel like I stand mostly by, but I don't like labels, I've said that multiple times. As it stands right now, we're giving assistance to folks, through Section 8, to pay for their rent. The places they live in are being further regulated through rent control. So not only are the owners subject to limiting the amount they can charge, they only receive a certain amount. My beliefs are if the folks living in these homes are paying taxes, allow them to see how much it costs. If a voucher system isn't valid way to go, then I say abolish rent controls & any government assistance. My views are to turn the clocks back and get us to a more freer state, not keep pressing forward.

No they're not. If a nation comes over to our lands and begins bombing us, it's no different than us doing it to them. I'm not fighting any war, why am I subject to be collateral damage for those who wish to see who has the biggest stick? I don't need to buy the biggest gun, biggest ship, biggest military, or any of that crap to know who I am or make me feel like I'm something that I'm not. My children are just as important as any other child. I will always hold my children higher than anyone else, rightfully so. However, it doesn't mean any other civilian is just in the way of victory.

If those civilians wish to engage in military combat, they are no longer civilians, and have become militants. I'm not hiding from anything, I just wish to give a little bit more respect when it comes to picking my battles.

Voting has become pointless. It doesn't really matter who you want to put into office, they will act as a king and want to rule over everyone. They always state they know what's best for everyone, what everyone wants. However, not a one of them actually helped everyone, just a select few.

Voting for those folks is the least of my concerns.

Protect freedoms and give freedoms are 2 different things.

I'm not ignorant of our military history. I've begun to study it, along with the policies that were enacted leading up to these wars, and I have to say that most of the wars were enacted because of other reasons. Pearl Harbor, in my opinion, occurred because of the sanctions the US imposed over Japan. Japan became a trapped rat and had no other alternative. So they struck at the US. Maybe if the US didn't have their heads in the sand and thinking that they're the almighty, maybe they would've saw that coming.

And congrats to your daughter, but keeping your guard down and purposely bullying other countries around are two different things.

No amount of sorry can bring a civilians life back. If they're not fighting a war, there's no reason to attack them. At that point, you're no better than the rulers telling you to go fight a pointless war. Tell me again why we 'liberated' Iraq again? I'm sure "The Mayor" has a few opinions on that as well.

And as a self-proclaimed libertarian, I find expecting the government to give you freedom to be wrong, as well.

Why do I need to take the high road? If roads aren't built, just gives folks more of a reason to figure out how to build small flying machines that can get you from point A to point B, without roads. Limitation will always limit innovation. No roads, no worries, something else will follow.

It didn't work the way the government wanted it to work. So they decided to put sanctions onto how the money was minted or printed, so they could control it. If a private bank or company gives me legal tender, that can be used as a form of money, what difference does it make if I have 20 varying things I can pay goods with? This is one of the reasons why bartering has become such a hot thing. Folks trading among themselves that they both deem to be as an equal trade. The same can be said for any private tender.

State military, not national. Meaning the police/swat and all of the other government entities used to coerce folks into the rule of law. The question had nothing to do with national defense.

Doesn't make it any better.

Again, remove the negative tone if you wish to engage in any form of decent conversation. Secondly, government doesn't give me freedoms, that's the point of my statement. You beg to your master and ask for them to take the chains off of you, that's your ideal of freedom. Mine is just leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. If I don't bother you, don't bother me. Anarchy, socialism, minarchism, facist, statist, voluntarism, or any other word you wish to use, doesn't matter to me as long as I'm not bothered and I'm not effecting anyone else, that's where I will have my freedom. I don't need someone to tell me what my freedoms are, I know what they are.

Capitalism has been used in so many different ways, folks don't know what it means anymore. What you are talking about is one way of capitalism, mine is without government interference. If we wish to trade a good between each other, why do we, me and you that is, need to have government involved in this transaction? As long as we're both satisfied with the trade, we're both better off because of it. It's when government interferes with the market, tips the scale in favor of the select few, that's when it becomes an issue and one sided. The more you allow government to interfere, the more they will.

As BHK stated and I'll reiterate, libertarianism is a political belief, capitalism is an economic belief. They're not one in the same and some libertarians may believe in another form of market. I believe in a free market, that resembles true capitalism. Not corporatism, not mercantilism, but a true capitalist, free market.

 

That's not what libertarian principles suggest. Libertarian principles say that since we own this side of the border, we control who crosses it, in either direction. In order to cross there has to be mutual agreement on both sides, just like the border on anyone's backyard.

And, if they wish to come over to work, they first need permission to cross the border. This nation clearly DOES NOT need 20 million Mexican invaders when 47 million legal residents are sucking down welfare.

Yeah, that's why the Constitution gives the CONGRESS the job of writing the laws on immigration and naturalization, because citizenship is a "states rights" matter. Article I, Section 8.

Actually, the Constitution is what Americans like to call "the law". Since it doesn't have an expiration date, it's still as valid today was it was the day it was ratified. If you don't with to submit to the Constiution, the Constitution grants you the freedom to leave. It's 100% binding on all lawful federal governments, of which King Obama's isn't one.

You would do better to come to understand the document you're pissing on.

Certainly there are anti-libertarian themes in the Constitution, such as eminent domain, but the Constitution was not written in a modern context (or it wouldn't exist at all), and the Constitution was written to satisfy the requirements of preserving liberty in the real world. So many pretend libertarians can't figure out that the real world doesn't match they're wet dreams about society.

 

The right that the Mayor lives in the real world, not some fantasy movie set.

The Mayor would be just fine with anyone hiring anyone for anything given the following prerequisite conditions be met:

There's no such thing as taxpayer funded assisted medicine, housing, food, water, education, transportation, clothing, or ANYTHING.

There's no such thing as war.

There nation providing the warm bodies has an equal standard of living with this one, AND they allow 100% reciprocity on warm body exchange.

Good luck with that. Since this is the real world, and those invading hordes have zero respect for US law, and many of them are sucking down the Mayor's tax dollars and devouring the future of the Mayor's children, no, at this present time humanity is not mature enough for your liberal paradise. The Mayor's spelling mistakes are rare.

IF humanity ever finds itself in a position where the preconditions are met, there will be no objection from rational persons for complete freedom in hiring and travel.

You don't expect that to ever happen, and the Mayor knows it never will.

One doesn't reject an ideal because of flaws, nor does one give away the farm for some magic beans.

Welcome to the real world. The Mayor told you that Rothbard character was a dumb-ass. Libertarianism isn[t about committing suicide.

Though you may if you wish.

Try learning the basic principles and language of democracy, and try learning how a representative republic works.

No, they don't. They do not now, never have had, and likely never will have the right to travel anywhere they please. Do stop pretending humans are saints and angels. Their "right" to travel stops dead in it's tracks at national borders, and right now every nation but the United States has borders. Not having borders is destroying this nation almost as surely has having Democrats.

That would be true if it was 7575 and woman managed to survive. Since it's 2013, it's not true.

Real world, welcome to it.

The national government has little proper jurisdiction over who works where.

The national government has 100% jurisdiction over which aliens may be in this country. Since the FEDERAL government is the sole authority on which aliens are in this country lawfully, the FEDERAL government is the sole authority determining which aliens have permission to work in the US.

Did all of you people grow up on trust funds and have no idea what the real world is like?

That's a serious question. So many damn libertarian wannabes can't figure out that the real world is populated by billions and billions of people who have no problem at all taking what they want using guns, bombs, fraud, deceit, and socialism. People being a good libertarian wannabe and pushing for policies that weaken the Mayor's family's security and future wealth are people taking from the Mayor without his permission, and thus they certainly can't be libertarians.

You want to give away the farm? Fine. Give away your own farm. Leave the Mayor's farm alone.

The Mayor never said it was necessary to invade another nation unprovoked. Oops, your strawman just suffered a mortal wound.

Back to this (*)(*)(*)(*) again?

Read the earlier posts.

Where do you invent your positions? Yes indeed, you simply MUST sell your farm, you have far too much straw on hand.

What? When one citizen can hire any lawful resident they wish, so too can any company.

Just because the Mayor isn't a friggin' legalistic lawyer Lewinski-ite and doesn't waste prose filling out all the ifs, ands, or buts, doesn't mean you can't figure out what his positions are if you take off your pinko covered glasses.

Gee, all you have to do is ask why the US declined to engage in commerce with Japan....did Japan have some hidden "right" to trade with us when we decided our interests were better served by cutting them off from our scrap iron and oil?

The Mayor is betting you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the United States selling arms globally, but for some reason you blame the United States for selling Japan war materiel so they could continue their conquest of Manchuria.

The Mayor is also betting you never heard of the USS Panay.

Since when did a government agreement become the history of anarchy?

It's certainly possible. Who would wind up buying it, Wells Fargo or Bank of America?

Since it isn't, since you keep repeating yourself, tell us why you hate the Constitution. Which freedom does it grant that you hate so much?

OOH! He's found the Constitution. Nope, doesn't outlaw private money. Nor does the Constitution grant Congress the power to fund education, welfare, socialist security, and practically everything else but the military and the general functions of the government. It's WONDERFUL that you've found the Constitution. How long will it be before you tell us that the Air Force is unconstitutional?

The Mayor, for one, WANTED the Treasury to mint one of those platinum 10^12 dollar coins. It would have done wonders in stopping the growth of national debt....because creditors would have stopped lending.

Okay, you need to read the Oresteia, too. The Mayor never presumes to express ideas so eloquently presented by Aeschylus.

Besides, it's apparently time you started studying the roots of the civilization you have such disdain for. It's almost dead, so your opportunity is fading.

Actually, you get corruption where you have people. It's like heart disease, it can be found everywhere.

What you have when it's the government that's corrupt is the opportunity to cut it out on election day. Granted, with so many DemocRATs infesting this country, that is never going to happen, but the opportunity used to exist.

Tell us, when your opponent's private judge on your opponent's little patch of private land, rules that you're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed royally, to whom do you address your appeal?

America IS exceptional. Read the Constitution some time. In Canada, Mark Steyn was sued for no other reason than he wrote an article that was less that approving of their muslim masses. The United States is the only nation that places the natural human right to own firearms as second in importance to just about nothing else except the freedom of speech itself. America's failings happen almost exclusively when the DemocRATs force the nation into some Constitutional violation or another.

What's military socialism, putting the wives of junior enlisted men on welfare because Congress is too cheap to pay the men what they're worth, because they're buying votes with welfare instead?

When you find the Mayor saying American history is a perfect illustration of perfect libertarian principles in a perfect world, let him know, okay? Your farm has nothing but stubble left.

Libertarianism is a socio-political economic philosophy. Do try to understand it someday, if you aspire to become one when you grow up.

 

One point:

Taxes are never "unnecessary". What's almost always unnecessary is the uses the taxes are put to.

Taxes serve to build spending, which is almost universally directed at buying votes.

Freedom cannot exist without government.

Government cannot exist without financing.

Hence, sorry to say, paradoxically freedom cannot exist without some kind of taxation.

The goal of the libertarian is to get government, and hence taxation, to be as small as humanly possible. This is the great failure of the United States in the last century.

The goal of all freedom minded people is to reduce government spending to the barest minimum.

 

Who is this "we" that you speak of? You claim to be a libertarian and yet you use the rhetoric of a collectivist.

A nation that has the rightful authority to prevent people from crossing one direction has the same rightful authority to prevent people from crossing in the other.

There's nothing in the clause that mentions immigration. Do you mean Section 9, which relates to slavery? Or, perhaps, your intellectually dishonest reference to human beings crossing the border for work or travel as "invaders" leads you to believe that "we" need to be defended from "them."

It's just as lawful as Bush's government, or Clinton's, or Bush I's, or Reagans, etc. Which is, to say, that it's not lawful and yet none of those presidents were significantly different than Obama. Hatred of Obama doesn't make you a libertarian.

What a ridiculous notion, your "love it or leave it." Why do you call yourself a libertarian again? You have far more in common with a conservative progressive, or "neocon" as they are more popularly called.

Just because I don't idolize doesn't mean I don't understand it.

 

Mr. Mayor is a xenophobic nationalist conservative and pretends that he is a libertarian. His argument imply otherwise.

Oh? You reject all of the principles of liberty because of your fear of "20 million Mexican invaders." I'd call that rejecting principle due to a perceived flaw. Or, maybe it's just pants pissing.

The mayor doesn't even know what libertarianism is. He thinks it's a Constitution-fetish coupled with a burning hatred of "King Obama."

Ah, you said you were a libertarian. You want me to embrace your collectivist notions and pretend to be libertarian.

So many people have different opinions than you and don't cower in fear of foreigners and then go on to claim that their view of all those dangerous and scariest foreigners is the only possible one that people can have. The mayor argues from the position of an intellectually dishonest conservative xenophobe.

 

[FONT=&amp]We have already summarized the basis for libertarianism, the axiom of the Non-Aggression Principal. Delving further you can discover what constitutes the basis for the Non-Aggression Principal, and that is the libertarian concept of property rights. Unlike most authoritarian principals, the basis of property ownership is that of self, and all other basis of ownership is an extension of that. Well, what does this mean?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Basically, the first principal of ownership is that every person is full owner of their own lives. An intrusion upon this ownership is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principal. That one is easy enough to conceive because most people (with the exception of the most radical authoritarians) believe to some extent in this libertarian concept of self-determinism. Be what of external property, or that property which is not of one’s own agency? Well, in a very real sense all rights of external property extend from this basic concept as well. All scarce goods (including one’s own body, lands, and object of value in an economy and positional good, in my estimation) are initially unowned, and a reasonable determination of ownership must be logically made. Steven Kinsella best summed it up as such:[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]This is the best explanation of ownership of external property I have seen, and kudos to Longshot for linking the full article in his previous post. [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]This is why the Non-Aggression Principal is so very important to a libertarian. It sums up what constitutes moral and immoral action, which is transgression of property rights (whether body or external). Rape is a violation of property rights, as is murder, theft and fraud. This is also why many (not all, mind you) libertarians believe that taxation is immoral, and call for voluntary association of societies for protection of freedoms through courts, military and police. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]From here, we can delve into the various side debates of ownership, such as Mayor Snorkum and BleedingHeadKen has above. These various theories of ownership (of which all debate on freedoms really begin) is what constitutes the various branches of libertarianism. Examples are Georgians (which denotes homesteading cannot be applied to land), intellectual property rights (the claim that homesteading does not exclusively apply to only tangible scarce resources but intangible resources as well), etc. I encourage you to discuss and debate these concepts in a respectful manner. [/FONT]

 

Sure it can. You've just never seriously considered the alternative.

 

No, it can't.

The Mayor has lived in cities that abandoned government for a while.

Anarchy isn't conducive to life, let alone liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

This isn't political theory here, it's just a fact of human nature.

If you're going to deny the realities of human nature when inventing a political/economic philosophy, you may was well go all the way and just become a flaming socialist.

 

You haven't addressed the arguments.

You shouldn't be wedded to your axioms. Axioms have a bad habit of getting jammed in uncomfortable places when reality is applied to them. So instead you just call names and duck and weave and dodge.

Haven't rejected a single principle of liberty. What part of "no trespassing" as a libertarian priority did you fail to comprehend when you got your crackerjack libertarian diploma?

That's an argument? You must therefore believe that King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, is the true libertarian messiah.

You're not worth the effort. You should stop posting because people who talk to much can't learn anything.