It’s satire, but that way I understand it is something like this; libertarians define government within a small sphere, but it is a clear one. mostly with infrastructure, national defense and as a mode for public discourse on issues. Libertarians have set rules for what government can do, it can only do those things, but only it alone can do them. That’s the general view anyways. There are some who tend to blur the lines
@FoDaddy, Having recently researched the Libertarian case for slavery for a paper on ethics, I think I can fill in some of the blanks of Libertarian principles. Here are some of them, and I will do my best not to editorialize.
The Libertarian party claims to be the party of small government. Their “minimum government, maximum freedom” motto reflects their consistent belief that freedom and government size are inversely related.
They believe in unregulated free markets. They think the invisible hand of the free market will take care of all problems, like violations of personal safety, financial and environmental malfeasance. Their case is that if a corporation poisons or kills people, they don’t need to be regulated by the government because people will stop buying their products and services, driving them out of business.
They believe in slavery, but not in the context of American historical slavery. In the Libertarian version of slavery, people would be allowed to sell their labor for a lifetime for a sump sum. The fact that it would be voluntary would make it ethical in their view. They claim the word “slavery” has too many negative connotations, so David Ellerman, in his essay The Libertarian Case for Slavery insists on calling it “warranteeism.” In his 1974 book entitled Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick stated that he believes “a free system will allow (an individual) to sell himself into slavery.”
They compare taxation to forced slavery. Robert Nozick reasoned, “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor” because taxes are always coerced. He claims proponents of redistribution of wealth base their theories on “recipient justice” ignoring the rights of those taxed at higher rates, not considering “any right a person might have to give something to someone.” David Ellerman, in his essay The Libertarian Case for Slavery, took Nozick’s arguments a step further, referring to Nozick’s “forced labor” as outright slavery. Ellerman also contended the racist nature of American slavery “would have no place in a libertarian society where the freedom contractually to alienate one’s labor for any time period would extend to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex.”
They don’t believe the U.S. should have fought the Civil War. Ron Paul claims President Abraham Lincoln should not have fought the Civil War on the basis that “six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War” and because he believes slavery was already in decline when the Civil War was fought. As an alternative, Paul suggests a more favorable, and less costly, solution would have been for the federal government to propose “a massive bailout of slaveowners” by purchasing their slaves from them.
Sounds like indentured service. There are lots of ways to abuse an indentured servant. But how does one get out of it if they are abused? They can’t buy their way out. It reminds me of prostitution where a pimp or a madam lords over their brood. A very tough life, and not necessarily voluntary.
Man talk about being polarized! You either have to love Rush or follow Pelosi into the sea? What happened to a little reality and common fiscal and social sense? There’s a reason why Obama was given the title of the best gun salesman of the year. Ever hear of the Weather Underground in the 60’s and their plan to overthrow the govenment lead by Bill Ayers who unquestionably was close to Obama in Chicago? Look at the foreign policies with Iran, Israel, Syria, and now Russia. If you take the rose colored glasses off it is clear that this administration is certainly not a pillar of democracy and capitalism. I thought Nixon and Carter were bad but at least they were patriots. His politicising and polarizing every issue has caused divides about as bad as before the civil war. Some hero to look up to indeed. Blame republicans, blame libertarians, blame whites, blame hunters, blame blame blame. You can’t question the viability of a program without being called a radical conservative?
amen brother
@dagosa, Libertarianism as I (and others) see it is generally you should be able to do what you wish as long as you don’t infringe the rights of others. If you want to take dangerous drugs, OK, as long as you don’t force anyone else to take them. The government telling you that you can’t take drugs is the government acting as your Daddy. Reasonable men and women don’t need that. Those with disabilities are another matter and deserve protection. Selling dangerous products does indeed infringe on the rights of others and should be regulated within the government legal system. We created corporations as a legal entity to limit risk to each individual shareholder by making the corporation responsible to the consumer. Fits in reasonably well with Social Liberals and Progressives
The flip side is the government should intervene as little as possible in every element of your life. That doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities incumbent on a citizen to contribute to the common good. Taxes are necessary to fund the government’s creation of the common good but in smaller amounts. As we all know, the government is into things that go way beyond the common good. The Constitution gives the responsibility to protect the borders to the government and would be an example of a common good supported by Libertarians. Sending missiles to Eqypt would not. Spending money we don’t have on things most don’t want to go deeper in debt every year. Libertarians are fiscally conservative.
The slavery issue is a bit of a red herring, so to speak, but the freedom to sell your services for an upfront sum or an hourly rate should be yours and yours alone. This would appear to something Liberals, Capitalists and Libertarians should all agree on for different ideological reasons but won’t. This side fits well with Capitalists and Conservatives.
Both parties want to demonize Libertarians as crackpot Ayn Randies because neither will admit how many Americans, especially the young, believe in Libertarian principles but don’t know it or cannot label it. The proof is there, Ron and Rand Paul always win the CPAC straw pole, Ross Perot spoiled Bush 41’s re-election, over 30% of the country identities as independent. I hope this helped the understanding.
I still think the article was funny, I love to see one from the other 2 parties points of view written by a Libertarian! Maybe I’ll try.
The wealthiest Americans pay 15% tax on their income. I paid 42% on my income as an auto mechanic and I never made 6 figures. Something is wrong there.
The wealthy call themselves “job creators” and their supporters would have us worship at their feet. The job creators and their supporters are full of it. The wealthy are following a course that will lead to third world status for this country and most of those who vehemently support them will find themselves on the outside looking in soon.
IF…IF… IF 49% of Americans were not paying taxes, and that is a lie, then there is a problem. Despite that being true there remains a problem.The truth of entitlements is a moving target. Taxes, benefits and entitlements are all part of a massive shell game that leaves politicians and political commentators a great deal of fudge factor to press their agenda regardless of the truth.
@Mustangman
A libertarian friend of mine touts that everyone needs a photo ID to vote, which just appears to be a political strategy to me and an infringment on voting rights. No one has ever validated the need in practice. Then, I kind of doubt him being a true libertarian. Wearing an R on your shirt and watching both parties spend money they don’t have, make wars where they shouldn’t and completely denigrate the rights of others abroad and at home, right to choose, gay marriage and you name it. I really struggle with wearing a party name that probably violates most of your tenants except “saying” they are fiscally conservative. We all know neither party has ever been that. When I didn’t like what the party I belonged to was doing, it made sense to just bail. I have three friends who all profess to be libertarians and all proudly wear the R brand…as if there is no conflict.
I don’t demonize Ran Paul because he is a libertarian, I shake my head because he is a hypocrite. It is one thing to believe in libertarian ( or any set) principles, but another to espose and practice them in your daily life. I feel a lot of people feel that way about Ron / Rand Paul.
I like to pay user fees ,not taxes-there could be a fair reasonable tax for things like defense,the “Framers” never set this country up with a huge central government,that could go police the world with abandon ask Teddy R " does might make right"?-Kevin
At a general level of popular interest, of course people like the sound of libertarianism - for the same reasons they like motherhood and warm apple pie. Who is it, exactly, that is against maximizing personal liberties to the extent possible? I love motherhood…and warm apple pie…and personal liberty.
Of course, I’d rather see Ron Paul run on a platform that is literally about bringing everyone motherhood and warm apple pie (M&WAP). The reasons are simple. One is that the M&WAP platform doesn’t immediately degenerate into a crude form of Social Darwinism. The second is that the history of people actually living with M&WAP is quite consistent with much of the historical record (but don’t get literal about the apple pie part - comfort food). The libertarian ideal is a weird, concocted, and unworkable fiction. It bears no relation at all to any way that humans have ever occupied the planet whether in the US or elsewhere. Proposals that explain exactly why it would all be wonderful and beautiful are in the same category of utopian theorizing that spawned Marx’s argument that the state would wither away and die for lack of function once the means of production were in public hands. Libertarian dreamers, meet the Marxian dreamers.
Dont know about that people in the Wild West used to get along pretty well, Before the advent of the hired “bully”(sheriff)it doesnt degenerate any farther without the power of law then it does legally at least without laws people cant legally take what belongs to you see “railroading” and “eminent domain” see what happened to people that lived along the “Skyline Drive” there were warnings in the Bible about what happens when people appoint a King.I think Gods Ten Laws were enough-Kevin
First, regarding Bill Ayers, I can’t believe you believed any of the propaganda about that. You’re too smart to fall for that kind of fiction. The two men served on the same committee. Are you going to hold me accountable for the actions of everyone with whom I have served on a committee?
Regarding foreign policy, this is one area with which I agree with Libertarians. Republicans like you would have us start another war against Iran, Syria, or Russia, but contrary to the belief of RINOs, the U.S. government has no business interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Enough American blood and money have been spent on unnecessary wars, and I am glad to have a man in the White House who values the lives of American soldiers more than you and George W. Bush.
On democracy, I agree with you. Obama is clearly not doing what he should to protect our civil liberties. He is too much like his Republican predecessor in that respect.
On capitalism, keep in mind that the majority of the stimulus package was passed before Obama took office, and the bailouts Obama passed were exactly what Wall Street wanted. A real socialist would never have bailed out the private banks.
As for Obama being polarizing, I present the following fact: Top Republicans held a meeting before Obama took office where they agreed to do everything in their power to keep him from being successful. This agreement was made because these Republicans put partisanship before country in the hope of limiting Obama to a single term. This was before they even had a chance to see how Obama would govern, so if you are going to blame anyone for polarizing our nation’s capital, I think you’re misplacing your blame.
Lastly, it’s incredibly ironic that you accuse other people of engaging in the blame game as you do the exact same thing. In my circles, we call that hypocrisy.
You apparently don’t know the difference between impassioned debate and an attack. Nothing I have written in that post attacks anyone personally. My post addresses the issues, not the person.
EDIT: That was in response to wesw’s post which has either disappeared or been edited.
when I was young, I thought I knew it all too, mow I know better
If I offended Bing or Mustangman, I trust that they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
EDIT: That was in response to one of wesw’s posts which has apparently been edited or deleted.
when I was a young man, I thought the only thing worse than a democrat was a republican, as I aged, and learned, I thought the only thing worse than a republican was a democrat. now I believe both parties are without much merit and fast becoming obsolete
I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread and left it because it wasn’t degenerating into ad hominems, but @wesw, no one actually attacked you…yet you’re reacting like they did. Keep your eye on the ball, or the discussion is going to get closed. For wesw’s interlocutors, don’t bite!
IMHO. You might as well close it. It’s got nothing to do with cars and I think that anyone who really wanted to say anything has probably said it.
I second that ^^^^, although you might want to wait a day so someone else has a chance to get in the last word.
We’re having a lot of fun with political bickering, but it occurred to me that a Garrison Keilleresque “Badge 714” reading of that bit of bit would be entertaining.