Libertarian...

[cashmcall]

The story....http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028319.php

 

[PLC1]

Reagan raised income and business taxes–the largest tax increase in state history at the time. So many conveniently forget several facts. First, the total tax burden in California at that time was less than 6 percent of personal income, and the economy was booming. Today the total tax burden in California is close to 12 percent of personal income (a reflection of the runaway growth of government), and the economy is in the tank.

Oh, yes, I'm aware that taxes have continued to climb since that time, that the growth of government has paced that of the federal bureaucracy, and that the economy is much worse than it used to be. I live here, after all.

We just passed another tax increase, approved by the voters no less, but without my help. Now, the governor says that the budget is balanced. We'll see.

 

[Dr.Who]

or, could it be that Republicans are complicit, rather than dupes, in the ever increasing power of government?

a bit of both

 

[TheJPRD]

In accepting a fully-libertarian philosophy, these are a few of the obstacles you'd face:

All government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others would have to be eliminated.

All remnants of "political correctness" would have to be eliminated, including many civil-rights' regulations.

Much of the case-law and many of the Supreme Court decisions to-date would have to be negated, and the Constitution would necessarily have to be adhered-to in the context of "original intent".

Communities would have to be empowered to conduct their local cultures as they see fit.

I'm not saying that libertarianism is a bad idea. I've said before here that such a philosophy would have been supported by many of our founders. I point out the dangers in accepting that philosophy without recognizing the obstacles that would be faced in doing so.

 

[PLC1]

In accepting a fully-libertarian philosophy, these are a few of the obstacles you'd face:

All government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others would have to be eliminated.

All remnants of "political correctness" would have to be eliminated, including many civil-rights' regulations.

Much of the case-law and many of the Supreme Court decisions to-date would have to be negated, and the Constitution would necessarily have to be adhered-to in the context of "original intent".

Communities would have to be empowered to conduct their local cultures as they see fit.

I'm not saying that libertarianism is a bad idea. I've said before here that such a philosophy would have been supported by many of our founders. I point out the dangers in accepting that philosophy without recognizing the obstacles that would be faced in doing so.

Any philosophy carried to extremes has serious flaws.

If you accept the philosophy that the government exists to protect our rights, then civil rights regulations would stand, as they protect the rights of minorities. Political correctness carried to extremes, however, would be a violation of free speech rights.

"government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others"? Is that a description of the welfare state?

The philosophy that one citizen's freedom ends only where someone else's nose begins, that I have a right to make my own decisions (and, of course, live with the results of those decisions) would mean an end to the war on drugs and the horrific expense of that failed government program.

 

[dogtowner]

Any philosophy carried to extremes has serious flaws.

If you accept the philosophy that the government exists to protect our rights, then civil rights regulations would stand, as they protect the rights of minorities. Political correctness carried to extremes, however, would be a violation of free speech rights.

"government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others"? Is that a description of the welfare state?

The philosophy that one citizen's freedom ends only where someone else's nose begins, that I have a right to make my own decisions (and, of course, live with the results of those decisions) would mean an end to the war on drugs and the horrific expense of that failed government program.

I think you are making a common mistake re rights.

The civil rights issue eas a) inequality in the law and b). unequal. protection.

Govt regulation, with the exception of rolling back unequal laws, only serve to increase unequal treatment via encided special treatment.

Its an infringement of rights to burn anything on anothrts property so whether its a cross or a flamingo is moot. all rights were put in law back when it was common. we dont need more.

all libertarian thinking does is return us to the simple basics that we had before influence peddling ovrrtook politics.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think you are making a common mistake re rights.

The civil rights issue eas a) inequality in the law and b). unequal. protection.

Govt regulation, with the exception of rolling back unequal laws, only serve to increase unequal treatment via encided special treatment.

Its an infringement of rights to burn anything on anothrts property so whether its a cross or a flamingo is moot. all rights were put in law back when it was common. we dont need more.

all libertarian thinking does is return us to the simple basics that we had before influence peddling ovrrtook politics.

and Libertarians are also dumb enough to know that burning a cross on a black family's yard, or a Plastic flamingo...are not actually the same in any way.

 

[TheJPRD]

If you accept the philosophy that the government exists to protect our rights, then civil rights regulations would stand, as they protect the rights of minorities.

I was thinking of those civil-rights' laws that allow for special protections/rights to one or another group that are not equally applied to other groups. Additionally, I was thinking of one of the earliest complaints lodged at civil-rights' laws because they stripped business owners and clubs of their historical option of serving only those customers they wished to serve. Again, there could easily be modifications to what would typically be a strictly libertarian government, and the examples in this paragraph are simply considerations that may need to be addressed in one way or another.

"government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others"? Is that a description of the welfare state?

Exactly! For instance, if drug use was legalized, libertarianism would dictate that those whose health or ability to work were negatively effected by the use could not depend on the rest of the citizenry to pay for their healthcare and welfare. In a strictly libertarian culture, welfare paid to individuals by the general population should not exist.

The philosophy that one citizen's freedom ends only where someone else's nose begins, that I have a right to make my own decisions (and, of course, live with the results of those decisions) would mean an end to the war on drugs and the horrific expense of that failed government program.

With the qualification I made in my second comment above, your statement is correct.

 

[dogtowner]

and Libertarians are also dumb enough to know that burning a cross on a black family's yard, or a Plastic flamingo...are not actually the same in any way.

destruction/defacement of private property as well as the threat of a larger fire that could result in dramatic damages or even death. in short violence. throw in white robes and the message is he same.

to make any more of it is to fabricate unequal rights for a particular group.

you libs are so hung up on dividing and pigeonholing you can no longer comprehend rights.

 

[cashmcall]

Ther are a few problems with Libertarian Christians...A lot of Christian can’t support Ron Paul because of his statements on homosexuality, Abortion, and Gay marage. I’m not too far from that myself. But much of the rest of this stuff is nonsense. I’d say his candidacy is dangerous (though not all of his positions, statements, or actions are dangerous, of course — some are quite good, in fact!) because he doesn’t have a biblical understanding of the role of civil government, the authority of God’s Law, and the Kingship of Christ. I agree with some of his policies but in the the context of Ron Paul’s statements about his religious beliefs, which has to be seen as problematic by any honest standard of evaluation....
I openly acknowledge that RP has said and done some great things, and he’s more honest than your typical politician. I hope it doesn’t sound like I think his political opponents are any more acceptable.

IMO without the moral foundation of Christianity, individualism can easily and dialectically turn into its very opposite... We can be protected from moral relativism, political tyranny and anarchy, and we can provide moral justification for civil punishment and provide the concept of unchanging universal justice and provide a guarantee of individual liberty only by finding the source of civil law in God’s revelation of moral principles that reflect His own holy, unchanging character.

The liberty ideal must be supplemented with a specific and discriminating moral framework. If you do not have a moral framework within which the liberty ideal is propagated, it doesn’t mean anything at all. It ends up being the very opposite of liberty. The liberty ideal must be clarified. What counts as injury or harm or the violation of freedom and a person’s rights? It must be made consistent because every system of social justice eventually advocates at some point the restriction... … The fact is that there are values beyond liberty which are prized by moral men. And there are values for which men will to some degree forfeit their liberty — values like justice, or security, or life, or human dignity, or interpersonal integrity. … Men are going to curtail liberty for such concepts as these. … How can the liberty ideal make an exception to freedom of action, that is, you can do what you want except where your actions harm another or jeopardize his freedom, how can it do that without justifying the exception by reference to some moral system? Libertarianism always presupposes some framework of morality, and that’s why the liberty ideal taken outside the Christian framework can be a tool for depriving us of liberty, either in the form of a totalitarian strong state … or in the form of a voluntary state which creates a warlord society. … Where freedom should be granted and where freedom should be curtailed can be determined, IMO, only by brining to bear the principles of an underlying moral system. And I think Christianity alone provides that. … The fact of the matter is that no social theory can get by without a higher law. If we do not have a higher law by which our society is governed, we are left with despotism because laws become whatever the political sovereign imposes upon us.

 

[PLC1]

I was thinking of those civil-rights' laws that allow for special protections/rights to one or another group that are not equally applied to other groups. Additionally, I was thinking of one of the earliest complaints lodged at civil-rights' laws because they stripped business owners and clubs of their historical option of serving only those customers they wished to serve. Again, there could easily be modifications to what would typically be a strictly libertarian government, and the examples in this paragraph are simply considerations that may need to be addressed in one way or another.



Exactly! For instance, if drug use was legalized, libertarianism would dictate that those whose health or ability to work were negatively effected by the use could not depend on the rest of the citizenry to pay for their healthcare and welfare. In a strictly libertarian culture, welfare paid to individuals by the general population should not exist.



With the qualification I made in my second comment above, your statement is correct.

When I say "civil rights laws", I'm speaking of the laws passed back in the late '60s outlawing discrimination based on gender or race. Before that time, you had to belong to the proper race and possess a penis in order to have the same rights as your neighbors. Before that time, it was quite legal to deny people their rights based on gender and race, or any other reason.

Those laws were carried too far when the affirmative action laws came into being, thus effectively discriminating against white males. The pendulum is swinging back to the center, to the point where it doesn't matter what a person's gender or race may be, he/she has the same rights as everyone else.

As for the rights of business owners to refuse service, that freedom impinges on the freedom of others. It is a clear case of one person's freedom ending where another's nose begins.

 

[TheJPRD]

When I say "civil rights laws", I'm speaking of the laws passed back in the late '60s outlawing discrimination based on gender or race. Before that time, you had to belong to the proper race and possess a penis in order to have the same rights as your neighbors. Before that time, it was quite legal to deny people their rights based on gender and race, or any other reason.

Those laws were carried too far when the affirmative action laws came into being, thus effectively discriminating against white males. The pendulum is swinging back to the center, to the point where it doesn't matter what a person's gender or race may be, he/she has the same rights as everyone else.

As for the rights of business owners to refuse service, that freedom impinges on the freedom of others. It is a clear case of one person's freedom ending where another's nose begins.

I agree with most all of what you're saying. Your last paragraph, however, presents one side of an interesting debate. The question that comes to mind is, "Is it an infringement on the rights of individual business owners when the federal government dictates who they must serve"? Particularly if an indpendant business owner owns the property in which his business is conducted, it somewhat implies that his place of business is much like his home. In some cases, the place of business is the owner's home. I've never come to a final conclusion on this issue, as it's one that holds some authority on both sides of the argument.

 

[cashmcall]

I wonder to what extent Democratic successes are related to libertarians not voting (or actually voting LP)?

There used to exist a much stronger libertarian/Republican coalition, but Republican failures to be fiscal conservatives and doubling down on being social conservatives have disgusted many libertarians (myself included) such that it's hard to vote Republican. I sure won't vote Democrat..... Would the Republicans experience a resurgence if they conceded the culture wars and focused on reducing the scope of government? I THINK SO..

 

[dogtowner]

I wonder to what extent Democratic successes are related to libertarians not voting (or actually voting LP)?

There used to exist a much stronger libertarian/Republican coalition, but Republican failures to be fiscal conservatives and doubling down on being social conservatives have disgusted many libertarians (myself included) such that it's hard to vote Republican. I sure won't vote Democrat..... Would the Republicans experience a resurgence if they conceded the culture wars and focused on reducing the scope of government? I THINK SO..

when the GOP veered to become Donkey Lite is a fruitless stab at putting a stake in the heart of the dem oarty they sowed the seeds of destroying the silent majority.

its not that they moved right but ran left.

 

[Zynni]

--scratches head--
IMO libertarian is the perfect ideology for Christians. Now I doubt society can handle libertarianism given how its let itself become a society of parasites. The safety net has gone from hammock right to pillowtop kingsized bed.

As a Christian, I agree that libertarianism feels right. It's all about free will, and I was taught that God is about free will as well. Of course, that's the simplistic version.

I think true conservatives and old school liberals would find a lot of common ground with each other and with libertarians. People are just too caught up in labels to see it, unfortunately.