"What is a Libertarian?" - John Stossel Show

[Coronado]

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding anonymity. What is your point there? Is this suppose to be some sort of duel in the streets of Laredo in your mind?



But you are upset and you do continue to get upset. If I entertained your ideas by asking for details and going back and forth about your ideology and the 18th century wits behind them, you would absolutely be in your element. You would love every minute of it. If I was willing to debate Austrian economics with you and go back and forth on that you would be nearly orgasmic. You folks are never as happy as when somebody indulges you. You actually then begin drooling like a Jehovah's Witness who has been let into the house and given a seat on the couch. You see a possible conquest in sight and even if that fails to materialize at least you had the chance to preach the Word and for some of you, thats better than sex.

But you do so want to be taken seriously and when you are not - you act just the way you have in the last few posts of yours --- you get petty and insulting and angry and strike out against the heretics who refuse to kneel at your altar.

I see. So you aren't here to debate issues. Thanks for the admission.

I don't know why you think I'm angry. If I got angry every time I run across some clown hiding behind his computer and tilting at windmills, I'd have had a heart attack by now. If you think I'm insulting, feel free to report me. Otherwise, get lost. You're picking a juvenile pissing contest and failing. If you want to make it personal, there's a place for that, and it isn't here.

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[haymarket]

Issues? You really want to talk issue Coronado? Okay - here is one for you.

Can you explain why the Libertarian party on whose behalf you have worked so hard and for so long for does so miserably in presidential election after presidential election? In fact, you seem to have hit your high water mark in many years past and now are firmly climbing down the ladder of success. If you folks have the right ideas, then why do the American people so loudly reject them?

 

[Andalublue]

Sure.
Yesterday, I was a bit tired when I got on and was spending time with that family mostly.
So I didn't put a whole lot of work into it.



Part of it is the conflict of interest.
I don't believe people to be good or bad, mostly self interested but not necessarily selfish.
I do think people will vote for what they think is the best policy for the U.S. but when they have done little research, that could be anything.
From realistic to pie in the sky.

Though some people do vote, solely to protect their specific monetary interests.
From the net taxpayer perspective, I believe it is a tool to help remove the conflict.
Not because I want screw people over but because I want more research decision making.
If my policy were implemented and all hard left socialists were elected, I would accept it.



They should respect the legitimacy.
We already now have less than 50% of the potential voter base, not voting.
It happens as it is.

I do believe in strong Constitutional protections, like due process, freedom of speech, religion, association, etc.
I don't believe that being changeable through a vote of the people, whether limited or universal.



That is a possibility.
I've offered other potential scenarios, instead of the net taxpayer.
Such as requiring people to freely volunteer on a monthly basis, in order to vote.
That may be more fair and better self selection would be involved.

Historically, we had a limited voter base.
As suffrage has expanded so has the growth in government.
I used to have a link to a study that showed that, when women were given voting privileges, that growth in government went up by a huge amount.
Can't find it anymore though. :?



Making sure Medicare is funded adequately wouldn't be a problem, if it were a sustainable program.
What if it's not?
Should we continue to fund it to the amount the voter wants?
That presents a conflict on interest, especially if the person wants what they want, no matter the consequences to everyone else.
There is no fairness, if they are in the majority.



I really want people to act and think more rationally.
My ultimate belief and want is to push people towards thinking more logically.

I don't want all social welfare abolished, just the things that make no practical sense.

Great! Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it. I've got a few follow-ups bubbling, but I'm just back from work after a 12-hour day and I'm shattered. I will continue the debate. It's interesting. Yours is not a mindset I've come across often.

 

[Coronado]

Issues? You really want to talk issue Coronado? Okay - here is one for you.

Can you explain why the Libertarian party on whose behalf you have worked so hard and for so long for does so miserably in presidential election after presidential election? In fact, you seem to have hit your high water mark in many years past and now are firmly climbing down the ladder of success. If you folks have the right ideas, then why do the American people so loudly reject them?

Argumentum ad populum, as I stated before.

Other than that, people seem to like their government entitlements more than they like having a small government.

As to success, I believe the membership of the LP to be at an all-time high. How that translates at the polls remains to be seen.

 

[haymarket]

Except that in a representative democracy where elections have to actually be won by a vote of the people, what is popular among those people who do vote in elections is indeed vitally important and central to the topic of discussion. If this were a college logic club, maybe your cute Latin term would wow them in the aisles and bring down the house as the freshmen checked their dictionaries to find out what you meant. In this context - its just silly since an absence of popularity indicates lack of success in our system. And that is the central topic.

Membership in a party is nice especially if it comes with dues. But the best indicator of the future is the past. And even in the most recent past as November of 2008 indicates, your party failed and failed miserably.

By the way, what is that thing you refer to..... "small government"? I am not aware of what that means. Could you please define it for me?

 

[Coronado]

Except that in a representative democracy where elections have to actually be won by a vote of the people, what is popular among those people who do vote in elections is indeed vitally important and central to the topic of discussion. If this were a college logic club, maybe your cute Latin term would wow them in the aisles and bring down the house as the freshmen checked their dictionaries to find out what you meant. In this context - its just silly since an absence of popularity indicates lack of success in our system. And that is the central topic.

No, the question you asked is why is the party not popular if it claims to be right. The answer is that there is no correlation.

Membership in a party is nice especially if it comes with dues. But the best indicator of the future is the past. And even in the most recent past as November of 2008 indicates, your party failed and failed miserably.

... and? Attempting to rub my nose in it only makes you seem petty, and will fail.

By the way, what is that thing you refer to..... "small government"? I am not aware of what that means. Could you please define it for me?

Small government is a government that does nothing but the bare minimum, which is only the things individuals or private coalitions of individuals cannot accomplish.

 

[haymarket]

1- in a democratic republic where the people vote, there is indeed a direct and very real correlation between the popularity of a political party and its claims. Obviously, a party which election after election garners less than one half of one percent of the vote for President does NOT have the support of but a miniscule and tiny fraction of the American people. In a democratic republic such as the USA that is a significant matter.

2- if you see the historical facts as "rubbing your nose in it" so be it. But that is on you.

3- your definition of small government is so vague that it is meaningless. Can you cite a real life exampleof which you think is a nation with a functioning and working small government?

 

[Andalublue]

1- in a democratic republic where the people vote, there is indeed a direct and very real correlation between the popularity of a political party and its claims. Obviously, a party which election after election garners less than one half of one percent of the vote for President does NOT have the support of but a miniscule and tiny fraction of the American people. In a democratic republic such as the USA that is a significant matter.

Just because a party doesn't currently garner the popular vote does not mean that what it proposes has no value. Let's not forget that the ruling parties of dozens of democracies didn't even exist 30 years ago - try France, Italy, Turkey, Chile, Poland. A political party can rise from 0.5% to 50% in months, not years. I have no great knowledge of the LPA. I'm not keen on their programme and think that they represent a very conservative, anti-egalitarian strand of libertarianism/anarchism that I've no interest in, but to dismiss them simply because they haven't broken through in the US's ossified electoral system is to assume a degree of political inertia that is not inevitable. Things can change, even in an ossified and subborned system like the US. (Now, please don't misunderstand me, the US isn't the only subborned and stagnant system around, but it would be disingenuous not to call a spade a shovel.)

 

[haymarket]

Andalublue

I think the American experience of political parties is that it is very hard to find one example of a political party which languished at one percent or under for many election cycles and then suddenly makes a big splash. The Republicans went from nothing to the White House in six years time. The third parties that made the biggest splash (1912, 1968, 1992) rose fast around one charismatic figure rather than any issue or ideology, died relatively quick and were no real threat after one big push. The idea that the Lib party could hang around for a few decades getting miniscule results and then suddenly be thrust as a major player has no modern precedent in this nation.

 

[Andalublue]

Andalublue

I think the American experience of political parties is that it is very hard to find one example of a political party which languished at one percent or under for many election cycles and then suddenly makes a big splash. The Republicans went from nothing to the White House in six years time. The third parties that made the biggest splash (1912, 1968, 1992) rose fast around one charismatic figure rather than any issue or ideology, died relatively quick and were no real threat after one big push. The idea that the Lib party could hang around for a few decades getting miniscule results and then suddenly be thrust as a major player has no modern precedent in this nation.

My point is that precedents are there to be broken and different kinds of precedents are broken all the time. Precedent told us that a black man would never be elected as POTUS, no? Things change and sometimes for the strangest reasons and in the wildest circumstances.

 

[Psychoclown]

I've often thought that something along the lines of HG is talking about would be a good idea. Like, HG, I think most folks are self interested. And it is very easy for self interested people to support the latest government expansion or entitlement program when they don't have to worry about paying for it. If you're not paying into the system, then programs like Medicare drug prescription coverage, or universal health care, or free cheese platters sound wonderful. And yes, there are a lot of folks paying little to no federal taxes. According to this story posted on CNN, 47% of households pay nothing in federal income tax. Some of them even come out ahead thanks to tax credits. When you include payroll taxes like FICA, the percentage drops, but its still a hefty 24% of households who have a net tax liability of zero or less.

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

Too many Americans are becoming the obnoxious lout who never picks up the tab, but always suggests eating at the most expensive places.

Another possibility I've mulled over is having a system where everyone, regardless of income level, pays something. It doesn't have to be a lot, but then everyone has to worry about how their tax dollars are spent. Furthermore, tax brackets would have set ratios in relation to each other and any tax cuts or increases would be applied across the board. Want to double tax rates? Fine, everyone's tax gets doubled. Same goes for cuts. If you want to cut taxes by 25%, everyone gets their tax bill reduced by 25%.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Great! Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it. I've got a few follow-ups bubbling, but I'm just back from work after a 12-hour day and I'm shattered. I will continue the debate. It's interesting. Yours is not a mindset I've come across often.

No problem.
Remember though, that I'm not wanting elitism but instead want competency with the voter base.

I think if people have rights, they should also have responsibilities.
Whether it's paying taxes, volunteering, something, to contribute.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I've often thought that something along the lines of HG is talking about would be a good idea. Like, HG, I think most folks are self interested. And it is very easy for self interested people to support the latest government expansion or entitlement program when they don't have to worry about paying for it. If you're not paying into the system, then programs like Medicare drug prescription coverage, or universal health care, or free cheese platters sound wonderful. And yes, there are a lot of folks paying little to no federal taxes. According to this story posted on CNN, 47% of households pay nothing in federal income tax. Some of them even come out ahead thanks to tax credits. When you include payroll taxes like FICA, the percentage drops, but its still a hefty 24% of households who have a net tax liability of zero or less.

47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

Too many Americans are becoming the obnoxious lout who never picks up the tab, but always suggests eating at the most expensive places.

Another possibility I've mulled over is having a system where everyone, regardless of income level, pays something. It doesn't have to be a lot, but then everyone has to worry about how their tax dollars are spent. Furthermore, tax brackets would have set ratios in relation to each other and any tax cuts or increases would be applied across the board. Want to double tax rates? Fine, everyone's tax gets doubled. Same goes for cuts. If you want to cut taxes by 25%, everyone gets their tax bill reduced by 25%.

Universal suffrage can mimic some of the abuses that people received under feudalism.
I don't condone either system of abuse.

 

[Xerographica]

Pragmatarianism

Skimmed over the discussion but didn't notice that anybody raised the fundamental problem...

Libertarianism = small, efficient safety net
Liberalism = large, inefficient safety net

The size of the net is determined by funding and we can all agree that a larger net is more effective than a smaller net. Voters are willing to sacrifice efficiency for effectiveness. But attacking Democracy is not advisable because it's what prevents revolutions. It allows for the the legitimized redistribution of wealth that in essence bribes the poor not to revolt. Tocqueville provided the foundation for this fact in his book Democracy in America...

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the sole power of making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal suffrage has been established the majority of the community unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure an easy subsistence. Universal suffrage does therefore, in point of fact, invest the poor with the government of society.
​

The solution is simple. We concede the necessity of coercion but ask that we be allowed to choose which public goods our taxes support. Congress deciding the most efficient allocation of public goods is a command economy while allowing individuals to decide the most efficient allocation of public goods is a market economy.

Individuals are better than congress when it comes to picking winners and losers. We agree that private welfare organizations are more efficient than public welfare organizations. The key difference is that, because of coercion, public welfare organizations receive more funding. As more and more people donate to private welfare organizations then less and less people would allocate their taxes to public welfare organizations. This would gradually narrow the scope of government and lower the tax rate...without ever compromising the coverage of the social safety net.

This approach, known as pragmatarianism, would facilitate Pareto improvements.

 

[Mensch]

Could someone please explain why for many years now, in presidential election after presidential election the Libertarian Party and its selected candidate fall so terribly upon their face and fail to get even a full one-half of one percent of the popular vote? And after you rationalize or even justify their abysmal performance will you even have the strength of character to close the door, look into the mirror and reflect as to why the American voters so utterly and completely reject those ideas and candidates?

As another poster noted:

What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right.

If the bandwagon is all you care about, then you fit right in with the mainstream, status-quo parties. Just keep sticking your head in the sand and you'll be fine.

 

[Mensch]

There have been variations of the general Libertarian theme throughout history. Late 18th and early 19th century America are analogous, although not perfect representations of it. The late 19th century was a quasi-Libertarian system insofar as it was rabidly anti government involvement in everythig but helping bgf businesses. But then again, Libertarians today are all aobut helping big businesses, too. So not much different. Not that good.

Actually, I believe the republicans and the democrats are the major helpers of big business. People refuse to accept the fact that subsidies help big business. Regulation helps big business. Guaranteed loans from the government, tariffs, tax laws, etc. HELP big business. Libertarians want a fair playing field, WITH NO HELP from the government.

Then you have Somalia, which is a great example of what would happen with extreme Libertarianism, which is a codeword for "anarchy-lite."

This is nonsense. Somalia is still run by local dictators. The worst thing you could say about libertarianism is that it is too close to anarchy. And if there is anarchy, there is NO government, NO dictators, NO leaders, etc. A warlord is a dictator.

But libertarians strongly believe in the Rule of Law, which doesn't exist in Somalia.

Edit: do businesses force you to use their products? Not directly, and not always. Sometimes, you are forced to use their crap products because you need them, thus have no alternative. Or, they use clever psychological attacks on you to brainwash you into buying crap. Or, they take over government and generate policy that way, taking advantage of customers a new, better way.

Please read Econosphere by Craig Thomas:

ProQuest Tech Books: The Econosphere: What Makes the Economy Really Work, How to Protect It, and Maximize Your Opportunity for Financial Prosperity

I'm tired of repeating myself.

There is a good reason why no one but a fringe minority vote Libertarian: the party system is designed to marginalize third parties, and most people are not as extreme as the Libertarian party. No one really wants to live in Libertarianstan.

Would you like to add anything intelligent to the conversation?