Are you a libertarian if...

I have to say that this thread became very interesting once a certain individual stopped posting in it. Once Goshin and Kevin Kohler started posting, it made for interesting reading. And it's been civil for the most part.

KevinKohler said:

I suppose I'll have to break this down for you. But just this once, cuz I gots to get to bed soon. This is what you said...

"Except that isn't calling for freedom, is it? No, it holding that rights are violated by those actions and restricting freedom in the process because of it. Lets not humor the idea you can do both at the same time. "

I made one word bold, because it's dead wrong. By giving up a certain level of liberty, we grant ourselves as a WHOLE, a greater level of liberty. You see, to me, guarding myself and my stuff all the time is NOT freedom. It sounds like a crappy life, constantly being on guard, on edge, etc. Having police frees me up from a LOT of that. Your counter is likely that we should self police. Well, we already do. Last time I looked, cops are US citizens. That we pay them from a collective fund only serves my second point...the greatest level of liberty for the whole, and not just for some. So, yes, you CAN do both at the same time. And once again...that's called compromise. We trade a little, to get a lot. You can quote Franklin all day long, but you'd be wasting your time.

Click to expand...

Its great you had a point of your own to make, but my point was that freedom restricted by laws is a given. It doesn't matter if its to protect rights or if it is provide people services. I'm not interested in quoting Franklin or dealing with this debate you desire to have. The fact is you can't restrict freedom and at the same time promote it. The idea doesn't fly. When you punish people for a right violation you don't promote freedom, but restrict it and that is it. When you take measures to keep people safe from these right violations you don't promote or create anything, but just violate the rights of people for the benefit of safety. I'm not really saying anything here that has anything to do with libertarianism, so you can drop that too.

If it's income earned, why is it optional for me to offer it?

Click to expand...

It being optional doesn't change the fact they worked for the income by providing you a lap dance. By all accounts you should pay them for the service, but yes, tips are optional as it stands.

Duly noted that you did not address the last portion of my post.

Click to expand...

Besides the first sentence it is just a repeat of the first part. Would you like me to take on the first sentence?

lizzie said:

It depends on the product, and the employee base. If someone has a great idea, and that idea generates a product which is in demand, but the product is easy to produce from menial labor, the labor of others is pretty cheap. Any old Joe can do the job. If the employee has nothing special to offer, he can be easily replaced. If Any old Joe wants to compete in the marketplace, then he has the option of coming up with a competing product and hiring his own laborers.

Click to expand...

This type of economic system was tried extensively in the late 1800's to the early 1900's. The results were less than satisfactory. We have had far better results with a more restrictive tax and regulation agenda. The postwar years saw the greatest growth the world has ever seen. It was because that growth happened equally in all wage classes that it was so strong for so long. Why would we want to go back to the financial panics and Robber Barons of the 19th century? We already have a better way and the further we have strayed from it the worse the damage to our country. You forget totally what Henry Ford knew way back when. If you pay your workers fairly they will be able to afford buy your cars.

iguanaman said:

This type of economic system was tried extensively in the late 1800's to the early 1900's. The results were less than satisfactory. We have had far better results with a more restrictive tax and regulation agenda. The postwar years saw the greatest growth the world has ever seen.

Click to expand...

I was interested up to this point. At that point on a fail at understanding history took place. The growth after WWII occurred as a result of the war and its effects on Europe. It boosted us right up the ladder and made us essentially a monopoly. The irony of liberals pointing to this time as the golden age is just too much. The changes you think were great in terms of taxes did nothing but limit the potential this monopoly gave us. Lets remember, when you tax something you get LESS of it. You don't just magically get more growth when you are causing less growth to occur. Liberals need to understand how taxes work it seems.

Henrin said:

I was interested up to this point. At that point on a fail at understanding history took place. The growth after WWII occurred as a result of the war and its effects on Europe. It boosted us right up the ladder and made us essentially a monopoly on the world market. The irony of liberals pointing to this time as the golden age is just too much. The changes you think were great in terms of taxes did nothing but limit the potential this monopoly gave us. Lets remember, when you tax something you get LESS of it. You don't just magically get more growth when you are causing less growth to occur. Liberals need to understand how taxes work it seems.

Click to expand...

So being a monopoly is what caused the rise of the great middle class? You are the one failing history. It was not the growth alone that made us the envy of the world it was the fact that it encompassed all wage classes. We exported that to all the nations of Europe via their new Constitutions along with the Social Contracts that you now try to destroy. Taxes are a means to an end. They pay the bills but thru progessive taxes we can also control the economy to favor growth over stagnation. Why has it been so hard to get any real growth in the economy in the last 35 years. Because median wages have been stagnant that long and consumers aren't spending, unless it is money they don't have.

I personally believe that there is a place for unions, however, they are a great impediment to financial progress and, at least in the later years, have asked for unreasonable changes that simply cannot be given to them. That is why China is so far ahead of us. Which is also the reason why China has a ridiculously poor and unhealthy working class

iguanaman said:

So being a monopoly is what caused the rise of the great middle class? You are the one failing history. It was not the growth alone that made us the envy of the world it was the fact that it encompassed all wage classes.

Click to expand...

Yes, when a boat goes up everyones boat goes up. You should check your history of capitalism a bit more.

We exported that to all the nations of Europe via their new Constitutions along with the Social Contracts that you now try to destroy.

Click to expand...

What social contract do I want to destroy? I remember the idea well, but I don't see how liberal policies have anything to do with it. Explain how your ideas somehow have anything to do with the original concept?

Taxes are a means to an end. They pay the bills but thru progessive taxes we can also control the economy to favor growth over stagnation.

Click to expand...

As I said, when you tax something you get LESS of it. That is how they function. Now, you could later get that money back into the economy, but then you are just lowering wages and raising prices. It doesn't serve any function that is desirable except create demand which could create some jobs. Considering the jobs will be lower paid in the long run that serves no real purpose either. Your entire system is built entirely on ****ty economics.

Why has it been so hard to get any real growth in the economy in the last 35 years. Because median wages have been stagnant that long and consumers aren't spending, unless it is money they don't have.

Click to expand...

Lets say that is true, how do you think the two are related?

I'm going to give a short answer.

Anyone remember the terms "company store" and "company town"? Where people were forced to live in a specific town owned by the company and buy from a company-owned shop, often on credit?

If the government told you that you can only buy from Target and you had to live in a specific town, you would be up in arms about it!

How is it different if a corporation tells you to do the same? Obviously, this is an extreme example, but an infringement on personal rights is just that, regardless of whether the government or a corporate entity impressed it upon you.

Henrin said:

Yes, when a boat goes up everyones boat goes up. You should check your history of capitalism a bit more.



What social contract do I want to destroy? I remember the idea well, but I don't see how liberal policies have anything to do with it. Explain how your ideas somehow have anything to do with the original concept?



As I said, when you tax something you get LESS of it. That is how they function. Now, you could later get that money back into the economy, but then you are just lowering wages and raising prices. It doesn't serve any function that is desirable except create demand which could create some jobs. Considering the jobs will be lower paid in the long run that serves no real purpose either. Your entire system is built entirely on ****ty economics.



Lets say that is true, how do you think the two are related?

Click to expand...

Except that the middle class boat has become more like a submarine lately while the 95th percentile keeps rising. It is unsustainable and anyone can see that.
Income maldistributon is higher now that at any time since before the Great Depression. The top 5% have quitupled thei net worths in those 35 years to a unbelievable $40 Trillion. That is also unsustainable.
Taxing income not spent actually gets you more growth because the Govt spends that extra income in the economy instead of it just adding to the hedge funds bidding up commodities we all need and use.

iguanaman said:

Except that the middle class boat has become more like a submarine lately while the 95th percentile keeps rising. It is unsustainable and anyone can see that.

Click to expand...

Yes, because government has put itself in the middle of the relationship between worker and owner, as I said.

Income maldistributon is higher now that at any time since before the Great Depression. The top 5% have quitupled thei net worths in those 35 years to a unbelievable $40 Trillion. That is also unsustainable.

Click to expand...

Yes, they have.

Taxing income not spent actually gets you more growth because the Govt spends that extra income in the economy instead of it just adding to the hedge funds bidding up commodities we all need and use.

Click to expand...

If what comes out is more of what you are trying to fight against then clearly the plan in motion is complete tripe. That is what you got, so tell me, how can you claim its working? You really can't so you have to fight against people that are not using money and claim it's better used in the economy. That is of course not only a jealousy argument at its heart, but a stupid one to boot. Creating economic activity doesn't mean you will get what you desire. You will get demand and you will get growth, but don't think for a moment either of them are working to the common mans favor.

waas said:

If you'd like to believe, that calling my arguments crap and liquidating the private sector of responsibility addressed any single point, that's your choice.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/149440-you-libertarian-if-6.html#post1061376008

Click to expand...

I'm not liquidating them of any responsibility, I'm just placing the majority of the blame where it's due, with the government. Big business and government are in bed with each other, and I'd like to destroy that relationship. You'd like to give one of them more power.

waas said:

In my mind, the problem lies in the power we've centralized within the private sector. While you see fit to hand them more, I find that with the appropriate tweaks, the government can reign them in.

And it's the lesser of two evils. The government at least partially accountable, consisting of elected officials.

Click to expand...

In what world are your politicians actually accountable for their actions? Not in the US of A, that's for sure. Most politicians run on promises, then never even attempt to make any of them happen. The government has a monopoly on violence and force, businesses do not. Their only way to get violence and force is through the government, which our politicians readily give them for the right price.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how Kinkos is exerting power over Joe Bob by coming to an agreement on labor and payment. Have you ever even been to a job interview? I recently decided to go back to work, and have been in a series of interviews. Do you know what happens there? After we interview each other to decide if they want me, and I want them, we begin negotiations for payment for my labor. They suggest a price, I may suggest a higher price. We can't go forward until we agree on this, and at any point I can walk away. If my kids are starving, I can take the job for a ****tier amount, then use the job as leverage to get a better one. Only socialists sit in their jobs and cry that they're being manipulated.

waas said:

If history agrees with me, I can't help but feel that way. It is not reality I bend to my ideas, but my ideas that bend to reality.

Click to expand...

The history of an all-powerful government, especially a socialist one, most certainly does not agree with you.

iguanaman said:

Because hunger is not voluntary and neither is homelessness. FDR put it this way.....

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Obama touched on it in his inauguration speech today too....

"The commitments we make to each other -- through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security -- these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us," Obama said. "They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."

Click to expand...

I realize that man is motivated to provide for one's family, clearly, as I do it myself. What I don't understand is how you can say that Kinkos is responsible for our economic situation, or how they are exerting force over workers. (Which is the premise of this thread) Without the government force to back them up, the company's do not have the power of coercion. I'd rather destroy this business-politics bond instead of empowering it like so many of you seem to be suggesting. Why would we give our corrupt government MORE power, when they've shown themselves to be irresponsible with the power they have?

KevinKohler said:

If food is located at the bottom of a cliff, and I am starving to death, is it a voluntary act to climb down to the food?


I would argue no. I would argue that someone TRULY starving to death, has that choice made for them, biologically.

That is the essence of what is being debated here.

So, question to the OP...

Are the average workers in the US starving to death, or dieing of thirst...or even in any DANGER of doing so, sans a job?

And my answer to that is a resounding no. There are very very very few people in this country in danger of dying as a result of unemployment. You could call them the .001%, even.

Click to expand...

Buts that's only because of those Commie socialist safety nets. Without them, yes, people would starve from unemployment just like they did in the 30's.

KevinKohler said:

And my right to not drink mercury poisoned water is defended and enforced by that very government, which impedes and eliminates a private companies' "right" to pollute the well.

Waiting till AFTER I've been poisoned to do something about it is a tad late for me.

Click to expand...

That's the exact problem with the common libertarian stance. *thumbs up*

MoSurveyor said:

That's the exact problem with the common libertarian stance. *thumbs up*

Click to expand...

I don't know any libertarians that say a company should be able to poison wells.

Henrin said:

Am I wrong? You are standing there unharmed next to a water hole that is poisoned. Your rights were violated how?

Click to expand...

If nothing else you have decreased the value of the well. In essence you have stolen from another unless it's your well. If you're passing it off as safe then you're misrepresenting it to your gain and another's detriment. If it's a community well then you've harmed the community. There's a reason poisoning the well was once considered an act of war - and probably still is in many places. I sure wouldn't try it in Mali. I'm sure they'd teach you all about harm if they caught you at it ...

Henrin said:

It depends on the person in question. There are however general rules and usually speaking gifts do not motivate people.

Click to expand...

Of course gifts motivate people. or are you saying bribery doesn't work?!?!? :lamo

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't know any libertarians that say a company should be able to poison wells.

Click to expand...

I have, should I find the posts? (In addition to those by Henrin right here?) According to "them" it's none of <your/our> business what others do until someone is actually harmed. You can pollute all you want and as long as the guy downstream or downwind can't prove in a court of law that your pollution caused him harm then you're good to go!

Henrin;1061377912]Its great you had a point of your own to make, but my point was that freedom restricted by laws is a given.

Click to expand...

Any and all laws are a restriction on freedom...and if you think it's a given, then I must point out that THIS comment does not jive with...

The fact is you can't restrict freedom and at the same time promote it.

Click to expand...

...this comment. You contend that freedom with legal restrictions is a given. I would ask why? WHY must freedom be limited, no, inhibited, by laws? Do we not do this, impose this restriction on freedom, in order to promote a greater level of freedom? Seems to me, the idea flies just fine...

The idea doesn't fly. When you punish people for a right violation you don't promote freedom, but restrict it and that is it.

Click to expand...

I restrict their freedom to violate other people's rights...those rights, by and by, being the enablers of THEIR freedom. Without rights, without those restrictions on freedom, very very very few people would ever actually be anything remotely resembling "free". See slavery.

When you take measures to keep people safe from these right violations you don't promote or create anything, but just violate the rights of people for the benefit of safety.

Click to expand...

Much more than safety. If you think our rights exist only to keep us safe, then I gotta say...I over estimated you.

I'm not really saying anything here that has anything to do with libertarianism, so you can drop that too.

Click to expand...

The core of what we are discussing has everything to do with libertarianism, and the primary difference between a minarchist, and an anarchist. Minarchists exist on the moral slippery slope of compromise, and some would call them (me) a small L libertarian, as in, not hardcore. The more hardcore libertarians adhere religiously to the NAP, which, when taken to the extremes that they (you?) often do, equals no government, since government is, and always will be, the single largest initiator of force/aggression against others. I put question marks after you, because I'm still not sure where you sit. Sorry if you're offended, I meant none.

It being optional doesn't change the fact they worked for the income by providing you a lap dance. By all accounts you should pay them for the service, but yes, tips are optional as it stands.

Click to expand...

Not paying someone for services rendered, IE, an income, is not optional, and is illegal. Ergo, tips, which are completely optional, is not income. It is a gift. I know...splitting hairs. To compromise, I believe you are correct...gifts are NOT the most motivational thing out there. What motivates people are possibilities. The greater the odds of those possibilities coming to fruition, the more motivated people will be to achieve them. A stripper who thinks I am more likely to lay a big tip on her is gonna do more to impress me.



Besides the first sentence it is just a repeat of the first part. Would you like me to take on the first sentence?[/QUOTE]To be honest, I don't even remember what the second bit was about now, and doesn't really matter. I'm pretty sure we've gone past it already.

Did the OP ever explain the point of this thread?

iguanaman;1061378001]So being a monopoly is what caused the rise of the great middle class?

Click to expand...

Yes. See current affairs. Over the past 20-30 years, other countries have more or less caught up, in terms of capabilities, and their workers are adding a key economic principle...COMPETITION. Enter the fall of the middle class union worker.

You are the one failing history.

Click to expand...

Not really.

It was not the growth alone that made us the envy of the world it was the fact that it encompassed all wage classes.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. It encompassed manufacturing. That this "success" spilled over into other markets...SLIGHTLY...is only to be expected...but hey, when you got a monopoly...it's easy money, so who cares, right?

We exported that to all the nations of Europe via their new Constitutions along with the Social Contracts that you now try to destroy.

Click to expand...

Because they didn't have the means to produce it for themselves. Hence the monopoly on our part.

Taxes are a means to an end. They pay the bills but thru progessive taxes we can also control the economy to favor growth over stagnation. Why has it been so hard to get any real growth in the economy in the last 35 years. Because median wages have been stagnant that long and consumers aren't spending, unless it is money they don't have.

Click to expand...

Taxes ARE a means to an end, but are they the BEST means to the BEST end? This is a serious question, not me prodding you. Fact is, our economy has flat line in the past couple decades for a WIDE variety of reasons, primary among them...COMPETITION. In other words, I am calling the 40s and 50s a BUBBLE, because that's exactly what it was. That bubble has been slowly deflating since about....say, 1974? Other nations have entered the scene. They rebuilt after the devestation, they have outfitted themselves, and are ready and willing to take on some of the manufacturing load. And as for us? Unions have priced american labor out of the market, to the extent that manufacturers would rather build ROBOTS to do the work. You don't deny that jobs are being outsourced, or handed over to robots, do you? So ask and answer the question...why now? Why in the last 20 years have jobs started really heading over seas? Did third world countries not exist prior to then? Did people in other countries not need jobs prior to then?

MoSurveyor said:

If nothing else you have decreased the value of the well.

Click to expand...

When the well is found to be poisoned then the value of the well will decrease. If however no one found it was poisioned in which you seem to be implying the assumed value will be unaffected. I could sell this poisioned well to anyone I desire assuming I have ownership and I could sell it as if it wasn't poisoned and the value is what it otherwise would be.

In essence you have stolen from another unless it's your well.

Click to expand...

How did I steal something from the community??

If you're passing it off as safe then you're misrepresenting it to your gain and another's detriment.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

If it's a community well then you've harmed the community.

Click to expand...

Assuming they drink of it, yes.

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't know any libertarians that say a company should be able to poison wells.

Click to expand...

"Am I wrong? You are standing there unharmed next to a water hole that is poisoned. Your rights were violated how?"

Henrin's post a couple pages back. In response to my comment that my right to drink water that isn't poisoned with mercury trumps a companies right to put mercury into the water.

I also noted that punishing a company AFTER they put mercury in the water ain't really a good call. Ask the Japs.

KevinKohler said:

"Am I wrong? You are standing there unharmed next to a water hole that is poisoned. Your rights were violated how?"

Henrin's post a couple pages back. In response to my comment that my right to drink water that isn't poisoned with mercury trumps a companies right to put mercury into the water.

I also noted that punishing a company AFTER they put mercury in the water ain't really a good call. Ask the Japs.

Click to expand...

I don't know the situation, but I find it hard to believe that he means what you think he means, but nevertheless, he doesn't speak for all libertarians. We can't all be lumped into a neat model. Most of us are pretty reasonable. A company obviously shouldn't be able to poison drinking wells.

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't know the situation, but I find it hard to believe that he means what you think he means, but nevertheless, he doesn't speak for all libertarians. We can't all be lumped into a neat model. Most of us are pretty reasonable. A company obviously shouldn't be able to poison drinking wells.

Click to expand...

That's why I TRY to tread lightly when debating about libertarianism. To some extent, I would be considered one, on the minarchist side. I, like you, want to destroy the relationship ( I call citizen ****ing) that our business and our government currently enjoy. What I'm not willing to do, however, is "throw the kids out with the bad bath water". I think it all comes down to campaign reform. SERIOUS campaign reform. Like...NO money in public campaigns. If one person gets a 5 minute spot on CNN, then they ALL get that same spot, if they want it. I would like to find some way to...I guess, SOCIALIZE our political process. I would like a career in politics to be NOT such a great prospect, in terms of money making and perks. I want politicians to go down that path because it's what they truly, really want to do, not because it's what daddy did, and it's a pretty sweet gig.

But I hold out absolutely no hope of stuff like that ever happening. I think the only way these things will change is through radical, violent action. And radical violent action won't occur until the majority of americans lose their since of contentment. Fact is, most folks know more about their favorite football teams, or american idol contestants, than they do about anyone, ANYONE, they have EVER voted for in their entire lives.

KevinKohler said:

That's why I TRY to tread lightly when debating about libertarianism. To some extent, I would be considered one, on the minarchist side. I, like you, want to destroy the relationship ( I call citizen ****ing) that our business and our government currently enjoy. What I'm not willing to do, however, is "throw the kids out with the bad bath water". I think it all comes down to campaign reform. SERIOUS campaign reform. Like...NO money in public campaigns. If one person gets a 5 minute spot on CNN, then they ALL get that same spot, if they want it. I would like to find some way to...I guess, SOCIALIZE our political process. I would like a career in politics to be NOT such a great prospect, in terms of money making and perks. I want politicians to go down that path because it's what they truly, really want to do, not because it's what daddy did, and it's a pretty sweet gig.

But I hold out absolutely no hope of stuff like that ever happening. I think the only way these things will change is through radical, violent action. And radical violent action won't occur until the majority of americans lose their since of contentment. Fact is, most folks know more about their favorite football teams, or american idol contestants, than they do about anyone, ANYONE, they have EVER voted for in their entire lives.

Click to expand...

My proposal was to outlaw all campaign contributions of every kind. Each candidate would be given a voucher with a set number of funds he can use for advertising and campaigning. To help finance this, certain uses for the funding could be tax deductible. For instance, say a candidate wanted to advertise on CNN, CNN could get a tax break from the government equal to the cost of the spot. This would force the candidates to run a tight budget and stretch their dollars to the fullest, which would be an amazingly important display to the people to see.