• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do far right Conservatives/Libertarians lack empathy?

Do those on the far right lack empathy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 26.2%
  • No

    Votes: 62 73.8%

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
That's an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that we see taxes as a necessary evil, and that we should minimize the evil. Anarchists believe that taxes are an unnecessary evil.

You think that's an exaggeration? Can you cite any libertarians scholar who doesn't think it is wrong to take money owned by other people in order to distribute it to the less fortunate?
 
That's an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that we see taxes as a necessary evil, and that we should minimize the evil. Anarchists believe that taxes are an unnecessary evil.

As long as compulsory taxation lasts--in other words giving power to some men to use other men against their beliefs and their interests--liberty will be but a mocking phrase. Between liberty and compulsory taxation there is no possible reconciliation. - Auberon Herbert
 

Not exactly the best example. You just linked to a man that supported welfare, supported income taxes, supported the federal reserve, supported stagnant inflation of around 3%, and was the brains behind the withholding system we have today. Tell me though, do think the withholding system increases or decreases taxation potential?


"One of Friedman's most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax. Before World War II, when income tax rates were far lower than now, there was no withholding system; everyone paid his annual bill in one lump sum, on March 15. It is obvious that under this system, the Internal Revenue Service could never hope to extract the entire annual sum, at current confiscatory rates, from the mass of the working population. The whole ghastly system would have happily broken down long before this. Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America." - Murray Rothbard
 
Last edited:
Yep, and furthermore, he was for the negative income tax. If that is not redistribution, I don't know what is.

I totally forgot about that monster of a **** up by Friedman.
 
econ 9.jpg
 
While I don't entirely agree, some people say that a libertarian is a liberal who understands economics.
 
While I don't entirely agree, some people say that a libertarian is a liberal who understands economics.

Interesting enough, Friedman's economic policies are globally referred to as neoliberalism. Basically, that means opening up the markets and letting money flow freely.
 

Friedman? Okay whatever. It's my fault for saying, "Libertarians think..." I would never in a million years included Friedman to be a libertarian. I'll have to be more careful to remember that libertarian means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Next time, "Many libertarians think..."
 
Friedman? Okay whatever. It's my fault for saying, "Libertarians think..." I would never in a million years included Friedman to be a libertarian. I'll have to be more careful to remember that libertarian means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Next time, "Many libertarians think..."

Yeah, I find it pretty odd that a libertarian would think Friedman was one. Sure, he said he was, but his views surely didn't reflect it.
 
Personally, I'm not big on many of his policies but I'm curious as to why you call him a monster?

I called the negative income tax a monster, not Friedman. Friedman was just an idiot that enabled and helped put in place big government policies while claiming to be fighting against them.
 
While I don't entirely agree, some people say that a libertarian is a liberal who understands economics.

No, I don't agree with that at all. Modern liberals and libertarians don't have much in common really.
 
Yeah, I find it pretty odd that a libertarian would think Friedman was one. Sure, he said he was, but his views surely didn't reflect it.

I guess it just goes to show you that libertarianism means different things to different people.
 
I called the negative income tax a monster, not Friedman. Friedman was just an idiot that enabled and helped put in place big government policies while claiming to be fighting against them.

I think he would disagree with you. He wanted to cut government down to bare bones which he and the Chicago Boys did in Chile during their experiment. It help to plummet half the population into poverty but to be fair I don't the dictator that implemented his policies started to redistribute some of the wealth of the country until it hit obscene poverty levels. Once he did implement specific safety nets, poverty started to lift slowly.
 
I guess it just goes to show you that libertarianism means different things to different people.

Friedman claimed to be a libertarian following the classical liberal tradition. Classical liberals however support separating the government from almost everything and would never support the federal reserve, income taxes, welfare, the withholding system, the federal reserve, the negative income tax, all of which Friedman supported and helped become what it is today. He apparently didn't know what classical liberals support. :/

We are talking about people that find their origins in the idea of government that would do nothing except protect the rights of people. Under their system there would be no standing army, no central bank, the government would have no control over currency, there would be no such thing as economic polices whatsoever. There is really no argument to be made that he was a classical liberal.
 
Last edited:
Friedman claimed to be a libertarian following the classical liberal tradition. Classical liberals however support separating the government from almost everything and would never support the federal reserve, income taxes, welfare, the withholding system, the federal reserve, the negative income tax, all of which Friedman supported and helped become what it is today. He apparently didn't know what classical liberals support. :/

We are talking about people that find their origins in the idea of government that would do nothing except protect the rights of people. Under their system there would be no standing army, no central bank, the government would have no control over currency, there would be no such thing as economic polices whatsoever. There is really no argument to be made that he was a classical liberal.

Correct, under your system there would be no standing army. Try to eliminate our military. That should be interesting.
 
Correct, under your system there would be no standing army. Try to eliminate our military. That should be interesting.

It would be a good idea no doubt. Almost all war only occurs because the state has the power to send off their men and now their women to die for the states causes. Remove that power and you eliminate a great deal of suffering and death.
 
It would be a good idea no doubt. Almost all war only occurs because the state has the power to send off their men and now their women to die for the states causes. Remove that power and you eliminate a great deal of suffering and death.

Hey, I don't entirely disagree with you, but isn't it a little bit too late? In reality we have caused a lot of wars and made a lot of enemies so now if we took our military away, wouldn't we be sitting ducks?
 
It would be a good idea no doubt. Almost all war only occurs because the state has the power to send off their men and now their women to die for the states causes. Remove that power and you eliminate a great deal of suffering and death.

War is the health of the state.
 
I didn't bother to read this thread, but I suspect that many are drawn to the conservative point of view because it is macho.

It simply feels strong and manly.
 
Hey, I don't entirely disagree with you, but isn't it a little bit too late? In reality we have caused a lot of wars and made a lot of enemies so now if we took our military away, wouldn't we be sitting ducks?

There is also the fact that once you make allies you will naturally make enemies. It's folly to believe you can create allegiances and not make enemies of those parties your allies are at odds with. Interventionism might be a great way for the state to spread it's influence if you are into that kind of thing(not saying you are), but it's also a great way to increase tensions and cause more death. For some reason of all the actions the state makes people think making allies is a way to make the world a peaceful place, and in reality, the state uses it as a way to get more firepower against their enemies. Look at Iraq and what happened there and you will see that my argument has a good amount of merit. How many countries joined us in our act of aggression against Iraq?

The first thing we need to do is step away from the world stage and eliminate the draft, but conservatives won't have it, and liberals are too scared to really consider it as a choice, but if that ever happens we are a step closer to the goal of eliminating the military complex. Stepping away from the world stage will allow tensions to cool off, while eliminating the draft will cut off the life line of the military complex if voluntary agreement to sign up lags behind the states need. The next thing we need to do is start cutting back the military complex in both funding and amount of personal and supplies. You will never eliminate the danger of militaries from around the world, but in my opinion at least we don't need to have one of them of our own.
 
There is also the fact that once you make allies you will naturally make enemies. It's folly to believe you can create allegiances and not make enemies of those parties your allies are at odds with. Interventionism might be a great way for the state to spread it's influence if you are into that kind of thing(not saying you are), but it's also a great way to increase tensions and cause more death. For some reason of all the actions the state makes people think making allies is a way to make the world a peaceful place, and in reality, the state uses it as a way to get more firepower against their enemies. Look at Iraq and what happened there and you will see that my argument has a good amount of merit. How many countries joined us in our act of aggression against Iraq?

The first thing we need to do is step away from the world stage and eliminate the draft, but conservatives won't have it, and liberals are too scared to really consider it as a choice, but if that ever happens we are a step closer to the goal of eliminating the military complex. Stepping away from the world stage will allow tensions to cool off, while eliminating the draft will cut off the life line of the military complex if voluntary agreement to sign up lags behind the states need. The next thing we need to do is start cutting back the military complex in both funding and amount of personal and supplies. You will never eliminate the danger of militaries from around the world, but in my opinion at least we don't need to have one of them of our own.

I understand what you are saying here, however, the reality is private corporations make a lot of their wealth by invading countries and privatizing their resources specifically for their ownership. The state is their means. They give money to elect our officials yada yada......this is a problem. How do we change it?
 
Back
Top Bottom