4 ms·

Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro s

by vacri 11y ago

Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). ... no welfare, no requirements for education; little regulation of industry - your only recourse is a post-hoc trip to the courts (hope you can afford that); maintaining network effects for the socially well-off; no attempts to give a hand up to the disadvantaged; wanting government services without having to pay for them; redefining words like 'violence' to mean almost anything; male-centric rhetoric; and should you suffer from an accident, libertarianism's response is: 'sucks to be you, hope you catch the attention of someone rich'... This is just a counterpoint to your incredibly romantic view of libertarianism. You don't have to be a libertarian to want civil liberties - and the lack of colour in the (almost always male) faces of libertarians is pretty telling that it's not an ideology that serves everyone well.

tracker1 11y ago
I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs. In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount. As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country. All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth. As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment. Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist. WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest. All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom. Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere. I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.
- vacri 11y ago
  I think you're misrepresenting yourself. You sound like a fairly standard centre-left (in the US, perhaps 'far left') person. You talk of a safety net and communal healthcare, and ramping taxes to pay for them - this is something I've never encountered a libertarian encouraging. The more frothy ones actually call that kind of idea 'violent'. And just like you don't have to be a libertarian to want improved civil liberties (I actually see libertarians functionally arguing against them, as their methods enforce network effects) you also don't have to be a libertarian to want the power of government reduced, or a reduction in crony-capitalism. In regards to regulation of industry, IP laws are a complete sideshow, complete with tinsel and fireworks. I'm talking about things like chemical dumping. IP is largely based around the entertainment and high-tech industries, which for the most part an individual can take or leave. But a company dumping chemicals that you can't easily detect? That can fuck you up for life, and once the damage is done to your health, no court order can recover it. Or similarly, mandating minimum safety requirements in vehicles - it reduces healthcare requirements, and strengthens societies by having fewer families with maimed or killed members, whereas an unregulated vehicle industry cuts a lot of corners that a consumer doesn't see, and therefore doesn't understand the value of. Honestly, if I was to read what you wrote here about what you wanted without any ideological labels being mentioned, I'd think you were a fairly standard leftie.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I'm talking about reducing the size and depth of central government by implementing a system of change that will likely not make things worse, by creating a position that allows for greater competition and a more free market. As to chemical dumping, this is precisely what the court system is for, punishing those that infringe on another's rights and/or lie, cheat, steal to do so. In the chemical dumping case, the appropriate action might be to liquidate said company and have all funds distributed to those affected. That might be an appropriate response to that type of action. Liberty should extend so far as not to infringe on another's rights. I already pay close to 50% of my income in taxes... 38% of my paycheck is gone (between payroll taxes, social security, mandated healthcare coverage, etc), a significant amount of the rest are tethered to utilities, and essential services... more still on sales taxes.. that doesn't even cover the taxes that go into tariffs and other fees along the way. No libertarian likes the loopholes that corporations are allotted in terms of liberty over individual citizens. Libertarians tend to be very left leaning on some issues, and very right leaning on others... the goal is for a minimal amount of government interference... my own pragmatic view is to come up with solutions that move us towards more freedom in ways that have a chance of being more broadly approved, working and not costing more overall.

by vacri 11y ago

tracker1 11y ago

I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs. In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount. As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country. All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth. As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment. Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist. WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest. All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom. Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere. I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.

vacri 11y ago
I think you're misrepresenting yourself. You sound like a fairly standard centre-left (in the US, perhaps 'far left') person. You talk of a safety net and communal healthcare, and ramping taxes to pay for them - this is something I've never encountered a libertarian encouraging. The more frothy ones actually call that kind of idea 'violent'. And just like you don't have to be a libertarian to want improved civil liberties (I actually see libertarians functionally arguing against them, as their methods enforce network effects) you also don't have to be a libertarian to want the power of government reduced, or a reduction in crony-capitalism. In regards to regulation of industry, IP laws are a complete sideshow, complete with tinsel and fireworks. I'm talking about things like chemical dumping. IP is largely based around the entertainment and high-tech industries, which for the most part an individual can take or leave. But a company dumping chemicals that you can't easily detect? That can fuck you up for life, and once the damage is done to your health, no court order can recover it. Or similarly, mandating minimum safety requirements in vehicles - it reduces healthcare requirements, and strengthens societies by having fewer families with maimed or killed members, whereas an unregulated vehicle industry cuts a lot of corners that a consumer doesn't see, and therefore doesn't understand the value of. Honestly, if I was to read what you wrote here about what you wanted without any ideological labels being mentioned, I'd think you were a fairly standard leftie.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I'm talking about reducing the size and depth of central government by implementing a system of change that will likely not make things worse, by creating a position that allows for greater competition and a more free market. As to chemical dumping, this is precisely what the court system is for, punishing those that infringe on another's rights and/or lie, cheat, steal to do so. In the chemical dumping case, the appropriate action might be to liquidate said company and have all funds distributed to those affected. That might be an appropriate response to that type of action. Liberty should extend so far as not to infringe on another's rights. I already pay close to 50% of my income in taxes... 38% of my paycheck is gone (between payroll taxes, social security, mandated healthcare coverage, etc), a significant amount of the rest are tethered to utilities, and essential services... more still on sales taxes.. that doesn't even cover the taxes that go into tariffs and other fees along the way. No libertarian likes the loopholes that corporations are allotted in terms of liberty over individual citizens. Libertarians tend to be very left leaning on some issues, and very right leaning on others... the goal is for a minimal amount of government interference... my own pragmatic view is to come up with solutions that move us towards more freedom in ways that have a chance of being more broadly approved, working and not costing more overall.