Just an observation...

[Vodon]

I do have a "moral compass", but it's unique to me.

[...]

[. . .] or quote anyone other than myself because I think for myself.

When it come to economics, I desire a good economy [. . .] as long as you guys do nothing that harms me.

What is Libertarianism?

[ . . .] Philosophical principle that suggests that a government's involvement in civil economical and social matters should be limited, and that the issues should be settled amongst civilians.

The way you have your "unique" moral compass, want to think for yourself, and your wanting of a harm-free society, indicates that you absolutely are a libertarian and you should analyse, carefully, your other positions based on the sections I've focused on in your quote above. Especially the "as long as you guys do nothing that harms me." quote. I don't see how you jump from this quote to wealth distribution, as this contradicts your principles laid out above.

And thanks for the meaningful questions.

Absolutely. I'm all for civil discussion, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.

 

[imagep]

:lamo

So did Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc… Anyone who says they have a unique moral compass should be watched closely.

Sure. I can't disagree with that. Anyone who lets others do their thinking for them should ALSO be closely watched - especially those who let the pundants on Fox News or MSNBC do their thinking for them.

I'm just hoping you don't work for the IRS.

 

[imagep]

The way you have your "unique" moral compass, want to think for yourself, and your wanting of a harm-free society, indicates that you absolutely are a libertarian and you should analyse, carefully, your other positions based on the sections I've focused on in your quote above. Especially the "as long as you guys do nothing that harms me." quote. I don't see how you jump from this quote to wealth distribution, as this contradicts your principles laid out above.




Absolutely. I'm all for civil discussion, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.

I do closely align with libertarian values in philosophy, but not in practical matters. Libertarianism is a "utopian" concept, just as much as socialism is. But it's not really viable in the extreme.

 

[Vodon]

Continued from business dictionary: "Libertarianism seeks to provide free-will participants the ability to make decisive decisions without the government determining or influencing the outcome, as long as it does not harm other individuals."

I don't see that as utopian. In fact, I find the notion that humans cannot make decisions in absence of an intrusive government repugnant, to be frank. There's nothing utopian about tapping into a fundamental human trait: the instinctual co-operation, team work and hard work that is realizable when humans are void of any coercive blockades.

 

[Morton]

I've seen to it that the NSA watches you especially close.

Sure. I can't disagree with that. Anyone who lets others do their thinking for them should ALSO be closely watched - especially those who let the pundants on Fox News or MSNBC do their thinking for them.

I'm just hoping you don't work for the IRS.

 

[US Conservative]

I do closely align with libertarian values in philosophy, but not in practical matters. Libertarianism is a "utopian" concept, just as much as socialism is. But it's not really viable in the extreme.

You closely align with "libertarianism" while advocating the stealing from one (under the threat of a gun courtesy of the govt) to give to others as you see fit, depending on your mood that day.

I think more likely you are a statist who wishes to think of him self as libertarian so as to diminish any feelings of guilt.

 

[US Conservative]

But those wouldn't be possible in the extremist left wing world of yoru socialist utopia because you care more about what someone else makes then what you make.

Ive never heard it stated this say, but this is spot on.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I do closely align with libertarian values in philosophy, but not in practical matters. Libertarianism is a "utopian" concept, just as much as socialism is. But it's not really viable in the extreme.

You closely align with "libertarianism" while advocating the stealing from one (under the threat of a gun courtesy of the govt) to give to others as you see fit, depending on your mood that day.

I think more likely you are a statist who wishes to think of him self as libertarian so as to diminish any feelings of guilt.

I think he's a libertarian for himself, but a not for others.

 

[US Conservative]

I think he's a libertarian for himself, but a not for others.

Autolibertarianism. How benevolent.

 

[imagep]

... In fact, I find the notion that humans cannot make decisions in absence of an intrusive government repugnant...

I wish it did work like that. But can you name any country that has a standard of living that is comparable to that of the US that doesn't have a significant size government?

Somolia is the closest example of the libertarian dream world. I guess it would be great - if you were a pirate or a war lord.

 

[imagep]

Autolibertarianism. How benevolent.

Thats the American Dream. Total freedom for yourself, and tyranny for everyone else.

I'm actually somewhere between those extremes.

 

[grip]

I wish it did work like that. But can you name any country that has a standard of living that is comparable to that of the US that doesn't have a significant size government?

Somolia is the closest example of the libertarian dream world. I guess it would be great - if you were a pirate or a war lord.

Norway is doing pretty good with a small government.

Norway Has More Money Than It Knows What To Do With - Business Insider

Most countries don't have to spend much on their defense budgets because we're the police of the world.

 

[Henrin]

Thats the American Dream. Total freedom for yourself, and tyranny for everyone else.

I'm actually somewhere between those extremes.

Of course the only ones that win with such a mindset are those in power.

 

[imagep]

You closely align with "libertarianism" while advocating the stealing from one (under the threat of a gun courtesy of the govt) to give to others as you see fit, depending on your mood that day.

I think more likely you are a statist who wishes to think of him self as libertarian so as to diminish any feelings of guilt.

Since when did conservatives become pacifists? Isn't that a little intellectually dishonest?

And I don't actually advocate "giving to others", I'm totally against means tested welfare. However I do recognize that as long as we have a government, we do have a need to fund it. so yes, there has to be taxes. My suggesting is to shift more of the tax burden onto the people who financially benefit the most from our society. it is what it is, I have no guilt feelings about it. You can call it stealing if you want to, I call it "paying services rendered".

 

[Henrin]

Since when did conservatives become pacifists? Isn't that a little intellectually dishonest?

And I don't actually advocate "giving to others", I'm totally against means tested welfare. However I do recognize that as long as we have a government, we do have a need to fund it. so yes, there has to be taxes. My suggesting is to shift more of the tax burden onto the people who financially benefit the most from our society. it is what it is, I have no guilt feelings about it. You can call it stealing if you want to, I call it "paying services rendered".

If you provide someone services without their agreement they have no obligation to pay you. Still, the argument that taxes pay for services rendered doesn't really work since much of what you pay for in taxes doesn't even go towards services provided to you.

 

[imagep]

If you provide someone services without their agreement they have no obligation to pay you. Still, the argument that taxes pay for services rendered doesn't really work since much of what you pay for in taxes doesn't even go towards services provided to you.

We all consent to the laws of our country. If you dont like them, you are welcome to work within the system to change them, or to leave. If I were made king, we would have no welfare, our largest government service would be military and protection of person and property. Those who don't have much don't benefit greatly from any of those things, one can be poor in any country. but those who have a great deal mostly have a great deal because of our system, so I don't have any issues with them paying for the bulk of the cost of maintaining our system.

I actually believe that the rich would grow richer if we could reduce the tax burden on those in the worker/consumer class. And I don't suggest that our rich pay more than they currently do, as I believe that our government spending should be much lower.

 

[Ockham]

I think the same thing about Hollywood actors so what are we going to do about it.

Just as an aside, who do you think does more work? A CEO of a successful company or a Hollywood actor? They seem to get the same amount of pay.

Probably a hollywood actor. They have to be on sets and locations for long periods of time, sometimes harsh climates, sometimes dangerous stunts. They also have a very iffy job - they can fall out of favor as quickly as they came into it. CEO's usually stay CEO's and if they move from company to company they have very lucrative contracts.

 

[imagep]

Norway is doing pretty good with a small government.

Norway Has More Money Than It Knows What To Do With - Business Insider

Most countries don't have to spend much on their defense budgets because we're the police of the world.

The article attributes their success not to small government, but to socialism involving their oil resources. It also points out that their economy is slowing and their schools are "decreped".

According to wikipedia,Norway's tax revenue is 41% of their GDP, making it one of the most highly taxed countries in the world, and most of the money is spent on social services, including socialized medicine.

 

[grip]

The article attributes their success not to small government, but to socialism involving their oil resources. It also points out that their economy is slowing and their schools are "decreped".

According to wikipedia,Norway's tax revenue is 41% of their GDP, making it one of the most highly taxed countries in the world, and most of the money is spent on social services, including socialized medicine.

You actually read the article. That's rare here. Norway is one big mountain and a little backwards but the gov has huge cash revenues. They should share some of the wealth with the citizens besides just social services. Too many governments want to over build their infrastructure before thinking about their citizens.

 

[US Conservative]

I wish it did work like that. But can you name any country that has a standard of living that is comparable to that of the US that doesn't have a significant size government?

Somolia is the closest example of the libertarian dream world. I guess it would be great - if you were a pirate or a war lord.

Because libertarianism=anarchy, etc. Brilliant.

 

[US Conservative]

Thats the American Dream. Total freedom for yourself, and tyranny for everyone else.

I'm actually somewhere between those extremes.

I question your notion of the American dream. Mine does not involve coercion, why does yours?

 

[US Conservative]

Since when did conservatives become pacifists? Isn't that a little intellectually dishonest?

And I don't actually advocate "giving to others", I'm totally against means tested welfare. However I do recognize that as long as we have a government, we do have a need to fund it. so yes, there has to be taxes. My suggesting is to shift more of the tax burden onto the people who financially benefit the most from our society. it is what it is, I have no guilt feelings about it. You can call it stealing if you want to, I call it "paying services rendered".

There has always been a paleoconservative/classical liberal view that military force while at times needed for defense should be minimized. Now, there are others (some neoconservatives, hillary clinton) who can be quite hawkish. And then there is the evangelical and capitalist groups that could go either way. This is just within the "conservative" spectrum.

More offensive to me than your forced giving to others-is your forced TAKING from some. I see the fruits of my labor as mine, I sacrificed time, health, and energy for it-and when someone like YOU comes along wanting it I take offense as you are stealing my time, health, and energy. Who the **** do you think you are? We already have the most progressive tax system in the world, nearly half of Americans pay NO income tax, and the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all income taxes. Is that not enough for you? Who are you to decide?

You are a parasite, and you dont do it for others-you do it to feel better about yourself. I think deep down you know this.

 

[Vodon]

I don't see that as utopian. In fact, I find the notion that humans cannot make decisions in absence of an intrusive government repugnant, to be frank. There's nothing utopian about tapping into a fundamental human trait: the instinctual co-operation, team work and hard work that is realizable when humans are void of any coercive blockades.

I wish it did work like that. But can you name any country that has a standard of living that is comparable to that of the US that doesn't have a significant size government?

Somolia is the closest example of the libertarian dream world. I guess it would be great - if you were a pirate or a war lord.

I don't see how the government is integral to our success and I don't see how libertarianism is the total absence of government. It clearly has a long, rich history of advocating for limited government, as opposed to a total absence. I'm not sitting here wanting to privatize the roads or the police force. I just think that an economy runs smoother when free of intervention, as well as maximizing liberty.

I believe the state has certain functions to play, namely:

• protection against foreign invaders, extended to include protection of overseas markets through armed intervention
• protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts
• building and maintaining public institutions (limited)
• public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services. (some of this can be privatized, like communications, some cannot, like a stable (hard) currency. I'd prefer if roads were not privatized, too, but I see that it is possible

Smith believed in this, as did the classical economists such as Maltuhus and Say, as did the utilitarians (Mill, Bentham), as did (more recently) Hayek, Friedman and Mises, to name a few. With the exception of the Austrian economists who I believe are wrong, there will always be a need for (limited) government.

(classical) Liberals have always supported natural law, utilitarianism, progress and individual liberty. These qualities made us the greatest nation on Earth.

When you posted this earlier:

When it come to economics, I desire a good economy [. . .] as long as you guys do nothing that harms me.

How do you reconcile the underlined with:

However I do recognize that as long as we have a government, we do have a need to fund it. so yes, there has to be taxes. My suggesting is to shift more of the tax burden onto the people who financially benefit the most from our society. it is what it is, I have no guilt feelings about it. You can call it stealing if you want to, I call it "paying services rendered".

Seems a bit contradictory?

I support a flat tax rate and a simplification of the tax code (as well as an elimination of loopholes) as a method of funding a limited government. I don't see how steep, progressive taxation, a heavily bloated government that is inefficient and corrupt, and a society where people come dependent on the state, something totally antithetical to everything the U.S has ever stoop for, is somehow justified.

 

[Henrin]

We all consent to the laws of our country. If you dont like them, you are welcome to work within the system to change them, or to leave.

When did this happen exactly?

 

[Mycroft]

Seems a bit contradictory?

I support a flat tax rate and a simplification of the tax code (as well as an elimination of loopholes) as a method of funding a limited government. I don't see how steep, progressive taxation, a heavily bloated government that is inefficient and corrupt, and a society where people come dependent on the state, something totally antithetical to everything the U.S has ever stoop for, is somehow justified.

Contradictory. Now that describes imagep perfectly.

He goes to great lengths insisting he's not a liberal...yet he betrays his fundamental underpinnings by advocating the liberal agenda and philosophy.

Go figure.