Sindawe
Member
What Treylis & Sparticus2002 said.
Why everybody should be a Libertarian
- Thread starter twoblink
- Start date
- Status
romulus
Member
Aside from being an asinine statetment on both the moral and practical level, what's this got to do with the price of tea in china and the libertarian plank on the 2nd?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Because the same big government philosophy that seeks to take away your guns for your own protection also seeks to take away your wealth for redistribution.
Treylis
Member
You're correct in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and the LP's position on it; we somewhat diverged to talking about welfare statism.
7.62FullMetalJacket basically restated what Barry Goldwater once said: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away."
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone."
--Frederic Bastiat
Personally, I don't think that my viewpoint is asinine on either a moral or a practical level. Practically speaking, it's an utterly bankrupting proposition--there's no real way that we could pay for all of this stuff except through utterly crushing taxes, and the only reason why we can pay for what we have now is through an absolutely MASSIVE deficit--plus, the taxes we have now are crushing by past standards--and a promise that, by god, we're gonna have Social Security and welfare benefits and we're gonna tax your descendants until they scream to make it happen.
I don't think it ever was practical, is practical, or will be practical.
Morality is another issue entirely. There's more than one set of morals out there, and just because you feel that it's immoral for me not to care if nonworking bums starve, doesn't mean I feel it's immoral. If they can only survive by leeching off what I honestly produce, they're surviving only on my sufferance and that's only given because the government quite literally enforces that from the other end of a pointed gun.
A lot of people think that when those who think as I do talk about money being stolen from the 'at gunpoint', they're being overly dramatic, but, I offer as proof the simple fact of what happens when you fail to pay your income taxes. They're going to come after you, and they will do their damnedest to throw you in prison for evasion. If you do resist in any way... out come the guns. It's the guns in the first place that cause you to comply.
I also believe that income taxes are fundamentally wrong. There's a reason why they were originally specified as unconstitutional in explicit terms. Keep in mind that income taxes were also supposed to be a temporary fix, to pay for WWI.
There is NO SUCH THING as a temporary fix in government.
Those taxes are trying to pay for just about everything and utterly failing nowadays. Once again, look at the deficit and its grossly ballooning nature. Overinflated balloons do tend to pop, sooner or later.
"The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave."
--Ayn Rand
The government's first responsibility should be to protect your person and your property from violence and theft. When the government is the instigator of such injustices... it's a dark day indeed. The government shouldn't be giving everyone handouts, it merely encourages negative behavior.
I've known a great deal of people who have received 'unemployment' benefits, and EVERY one of them could have worked in any number of jobs, they were merely being picky, which means they were being lazy. Meanwhile, I actually had a job and I was paying for them to literally do nothing all day--they claimed they were looking for work, and I actively gave them the names and locations of a number of businesses that were hiring, but it was always "Oh, I don't want to do something like that." Not even as a placeholder while looking for a better job, and why should they? They were getting their lifestyle paid for at my expense.
In my experience, most people on unemployment are the same way. Even if it the general state of affairs were reversed--everyone on unemployment was actively looking for work--I would still feel that it's wrong, because it's still at my expense, just to a lesser amount.
The bureaucracy required to support this kind of nonsense is going to implode one day of its own weight, and in the meantime it's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. That kind of size crushes individual and group alike. There are numerous private charities. Let people find them and beg. I have utterly no problem with people giving money voluntarily, only by compulsion.
I am NOT my brother's keeper.
7.62FullMetalJacket basically restated what Barry Goldwater once said: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away."
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone."
--Frederic Bastiat
Personally, I don't think that my viewpoint is asinine on either a moral or a practical level. Practically speaking, it's an utterly bankrupting proposition--there's no real way that we could pay for all of this stuff except through utterly crushing taxes, and the only reason why we can pay for what we have now is through an absolutely MASSIVE deficit--plus, the taxes we have now are crushing by past standards--and a promise that, by god, we're gonna have Social Security and welfare benefits and we're gonna tax your descendants until they scream to make it happen.
I don't think it ever was practical, is practical, or will be practical.
Morality is another issue entirely. There's more than one set of morals out there, and just because you feel that it's immoral for me not to care if nonworking bums starve, doesn't mean I feel it's immoral. If they can only survive by leeching off what I honestly produce, they're surviving only on my sufferance and that's only given because the government quite literally enforces that from the other end of a pointed gun.
A lot of people think that when those who think as I do talk about money being stolen from the 'at gunpoint', they're being overly dramatic, but, I offer as proof the simple fact of what happens when you fail to pay your income taxes. They're going to come after you, and they will do their damnedest to throw you in prison for evasion. If you do resist in any way... out come the guns. It's the guns in the first place that cause you to comply.
I also believe that income taxes are fundamentally wrong. There's a reason why they were originally specified as unconstitutional in explicit terms. Keep in mind that income taxes were also supposed to be a temporary fix, to pay for WWI.
There is NO SUCH THING as a temporary fix in government.
Those taxes are trying to pay for just about everything and utterly failing nowadays. Once again, look at the deficit and its grossly ballooning nature. Overinflated balloons do tend to pop, sooner or later.
"The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave."
--Ayn Rand
The government's first responsibility should be to protect your person and your property from violence and theft. When the government is the instigator of such injustices... it's a dark day indeed. The government shouldn't be giving everyone handouts, it merely encourages negative behavior.
I've known a great deal of people who have received 'unemployment' benefits, and EVERY one of them could have worked in any number of jobs, they were merely being picky, which means they were being lazy. Meanwhile, I actually had a job and I was paying for them to literally do nothing all day--they claimed they were looking for work, and I actively gave them the names and locations of a number of businesses that were hiring, but it was always "Oh, I don't want to do something like that." Not even as a placeholder while looking for a better job, and why should they? They were getting their lifestyle paid for at my expense.
In my experience, most people on unemployment are the same way. Even if it the general state of affairs were reversed--everyone on unemployment was actively looking for work--I would still feel that it's wrong, because it's still at my expense, just to a lesser amount.
The bureaucracy required to support this kind of nonsense is going to implode one day of its own weight, and in the meantime it's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. That kind of size crushes individual and group alike. There are numerous private charities. Let people find them and beg. I have utterly no problem with people giving money voluntarily, only by compulsion.
I am NOT my brother's keeper.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
And this is why democracy is a doomed and immoral form of government, so why is the United States Government trying to forcefully spread it all around the world...on my dime (and to much flag-waving)?
MR
Mark Tyson
Member
What Microbalrog is trying to say is: "Toro! Toro!"
But since the subject has been brought up, why do libertarians tolerate taxes for "the common defense" but not "the general welfare"?
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Good point. And the reason that libertarian minarchy is not consistant. Reasonable libertarian minarchists must, at some point, become market anarchists.
MR
romulus
Member
There's a difference between A) the welfare state that entitles others to live at levels of near-prosperity by handing over to them significant portions of your income, and B) the state proving vittles to keep someone alive. To make the latter causal or consequential to the confiscation of guns is, well, too funny for any real consideration...
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
I do not know the reality in which you live, but my reality resembles your description in choice "A."
Jay Kominek
Member
Personally, as a libertarian, I would quite gleefully tolerate corporate income taxes, just not personal income taxes. Corporations are artificial entities without inherent rights as far as I am concerned. The state can tax them as much as it likes, because it creates them. You can do business without being a corporation.
Instead, states get rid of their corporate income taxes, and tax people.
I think if we cut out a lot of the total crap in the government, corporate income taxes would take of most everything. They're the big money makers these days, anyways.
(It would also make incorporating more of a trade-off than it is. Sure you get your liability protection, but the state slurps off n% of your income.)
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
I wish I could in good faith vote third party....but I know I would be tossing my vote in the trash..>>>so here I go....Rupublican again. Lesser of 2 evils.
Jay Kominek
Member
Any particular reason you need to keep repeating the same tired line? We all know you're the Republican Party's biggest fan, does it serve any purpose to keep reminding everyone?
Glock Glockler
Member
There's a difference between A) the welfare state that entitles others to live at levels of near-prosperity by handing over to them significant portions of your income, and B) the state proving vittles to keep someone alive.
The difference is in degree, not in general principle.
how would you prevent the millions of poor from starving to death?
Mirco, how much time have you spent in the US? I'd really like to see these starving millions we have here, cause I dont see that, in fact the biggest problem that the poor here have is obesity.
If you want to help the poor why dont you remove the govt created barriers to creating wealth? In the relatively free-market in America you can go into the Chinese buffet in almost every town and for $6 get a meal of greater quantity and nutritional diversity than even many higher-ups in the USSR had, but you see plenty of starvation in 3rd world socialist crapholes where the govt does not uphold property rights.
But since the subject has been brought up, why do libertarians tolerate taxes for "the common defense" but not "the general welfare"?
When something benefits the general population, like national defense, the populace should pay for that benefit they're receiving. The "common defense" is an excellent example of something in the 'welfare of the general population". There is, however, a very big difference between national defense, which benefits everyone in our country and should likewise be paid for by everyone, and a govt dole which benefits one group at the expense of another.
The difference is in degree, not in general principle.
how would you prevent the millions of poor from starving to death?
Mirco, how much time have you spent in the US? I'd really like to see these starving millions we have here, cause I dont see that, in fact the biggest problem that the poor here have is obesity.
If you want to help the poor why dont you remove the govt created barriers to creating wealth? In the relatively free-market in America you can go into the Chinese buffet in almost every town and for $6 get a meal of greater quantity and nutritional diversity than even many higher-ups in the USSR had, but you see plenty of starvation in 3rd world socialist crapholes where the govt does not uphold property rights.
But since the subject has been brought up, why do libertarians tolerate taxes for "the common defense" but not "the general welfare"?
When something benefits the general population, like national defense, the populace should pay for that benefit they're receiving. The "common defense" is an excellent example of something in the 'welfare of the general population". There is, however, a very big difference between national defense, which benefits everyone in our country and should likewise be paid for by everyone, and a govt dole which benefits one group at the expense of another.
spartacus2002
Member
Here's another reason why everyone should be a libertarian. The explosion of laws and regulations is killing business in this country, like thatch that makes the grass in your yard wither and die. The regulatory barriers to entry and the huge number of taxes make too many people either throw in the towel or say never mind.
All those regulations in the name of do-gooder-ism are frustrating regular Americans. We can't even drive down the road without wondering what BS pretense a cop will use to pull us over and demand to search our cars.
All those regulations in the name of do-gooder-ism are frustrating regular Americans. We can't even drive down the road without wondering what BS pretense a cop will use to pull us over and demand to search our cars.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Haha! How do I "benefit" when the United States military makes up lies to invade and kill people in countries not a threat to me? I have more enemies now than before. The current military is a liability to me - not a benefit.
MR
romulus
Member
I disagree. There is a difference in degree, but also in principle. I have no problem with the resources of the state being used to safeguard the most needy. e.g. abandoned children who cannot work, the infirm, the elderly who've incurred disastrous medical bills, and the like. And that situation is vastly different, i.e. different in principle or in kind, from the situation that sees the taking of money from working Americans to support other Americans who are able-bodied but nonetheless refuse to work. Eliminate the latter reality, and take care of the former.
To say "if they won't work let them starve" regardless of circumstances is well, socially darwinistic and plain uncivilized.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Is this not a personal decision? Can a person give freely of what he has to help others? Can a person decide what type of help he will give? Can charities provide better service than the government?
It is not my duty to help the needy. I may choose to help. But it should be my choice to whom I help and in what manner.
The government takes from me at the point of a gun to give to others.
Common defense is authorized.
General welfare has a completely different meaning now than it did in 1789.
It is not my duty to help the needy. I may choose to help. But it should be my choice to whom I help and in what manner.
The government takes from me at the point of a gun to give to others.
Common defense is authorized.
General welfare has a completely different meaning now than it did in 1789.
Chris Rhines
Member
When you say, "...the resources of the state," what exactly do you mean? You see, the state has no resources of its own. It can only usurp the resources of others, through taxes, monetary inflation, or short, victorious wars.
No one has a problem with you donating your own time, money, and effort to "safeguard the most needy." But you aren't just volunteering your own resources; you're volunteering mine as well. And my time and money are not yours to give away.
- Chris
romulus
Member
Right. I didn't think it necessary to express what should be axiomatic among adults, i.e. the knowledge that the resources of the state are the taxes you and I pay.
Like you, I don't want my income redistributed to those who could have income on their own. I have no objection to see my income, your income, anyone elses income being redistributed to the truly needy for a bowl of soup or medical care to keep them alive. Sorry that upsets you.
Like you, I don't want my income redistributed to those who could have income on their own. I have no objection to see my income, your income, anyone elses income being redistributed to the truly needy for a bowl of soup or medical care to keep them alive. Sorry that upsets you.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
In short, it is OK to take resources from someone by threat of force if it is done for a good cause?
My take is that is a society in which govt. isn't in the dole business, indigents have certain options. Let's say a person is unable to provide for themselves. They can rely on:
-past savings, disability insurance
-parents, friends, spouses
If they are orphans and have no friends or prior resources, then they can reply on charity. Not only would those who favor taxes for welfare could contribute to those, but so would many who would object to mandatory taxation would support voluntary charities.
If no one is willing to help a person, not friends, not relatives, not good samaritans, then maybe this person does get to starve. If the thought of that bothers you, then you ought to prevent that occurrence...but helping directly or by soliciting voluntary contributions, not but threatening third parties with harm if they fail to cough up money.
Those of you who know me personally, also know where my time, efforts and money go. I choose the people who receive my help. If forced to do anything, I would do my best to sabotage whatever "they" wish me to do.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Then, admit that you are a socialist.
"General welfare" means that something benefits all. Robbing Peter to pay Paul benefits Paul but harms Peter. It's not "general".
MR
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
There's two problems with re-distribution of income;
One is that a person is denied control over his own resources by threat of force. The money taken from me won't be used to benefit me or my family.
Two is that whoever takes those resources is now free to use them for mischief. That control of other people's resources translates into political power.
One is that a person is denied control over his own resources by threat of force. The money taken from me won't be used to benefit me or my family.
Two is that whoever takes those resources is now free to use them for mischief. That control of other people's resources translates into political power.
romulus
Member
Being to the right of Attila the hun on just about everything, I couldn't help but laugh out giant bellowing guffaws. The problem I encounter with libertarians is they see no raison d'etre for government, so when anyone suggests that it's legitimate to use public money (yes I know where it comes from) to help with basics those who cannot help themselves (I gave examples), they call you a welfare-supporting, entitlement-pushing socialist.
I am a socialist because I can distinguish between confiscatory taxation and the concept of taxation? Oooookaaay...
Brother
- Status