Why Aren't you a Libertarian?

[Valjean]

Here's the reasoning.....
If the poor were taxed less, they'd keep more
money, & need less from government.

Point taken, but wouldn't they also have to pay more for the same privatized, for-profit service?

 

[Revoltingest]

Point taken, but wouldn't they also have to pay more for the same privatized, for-profit service?

Who says they'd necessarily have to pay more?
Who says it would necessarily be privatized or for-profit?

Does it not make sense that if the poor are taxed less,
that they'd be less dependent on government social services?

 

[Valjean]

If the service is neither privatized nor socialized (government), what is it? how would it work?

 

[tytlyf]

No point. Ask yourselves why the Koch Brothers are die hard Libertarians? That's enough to stay away.

Libertarian/Republican, same thing w/ a goofy twist

 

[sun rise]

Here's the reasoning.....
If the poor were taxed less, they'd keep more
earned money, & need less from government.

They pay some unreasonably high rates.
On top of that, benefits are reduced as they
earn more money, at discouraging rates.
This keeps them on the dole, which is not
just expensive, but horridly immoral.

I'm all in favor of reducing the tax burden on the poor and shifting it to the upper class.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the service is neither privatized nor socialized (government), what is it? how would it work?

I don't know what such a hybrid would look like.
Perhaps something private but funded & monitored by gov?
I'm not wedded to any particular approach.
I just want the best for each application.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all in favor of reducing the tax burden on the poor and shifting it to the upper class.

There you go again....sharing one brain with me.
Now I've an urge to lick....uh.....never mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

No point. Ask yourselves why the Koch Brothers are die hard Libertarians? That's enough to stay away.

Libertarian/Republican, same thing w/ a goofy twist

I can always count on you for insightful commentary.

 

[Father Heathen]

There's no such thing.
It's the left's love of powerful government which makes "left libertarian" an oxymoron.

Caution:
This is intended to provoke discussion.

Because I'm lazy it only provoked a link: Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Because I'm lazy it only provoked a link: Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia

I've read it before.
And I break wind in its general direction.
Fundamentally, no country can have Marxism or
socialism without a very authoritarian government.
It's necessary to prevent free economic association.

 

[Nakosis]

Why would it lead to more oligarchy?

When it was partly implemented in chili, what specifically did they do or not do that caused the poor and middle class to suffer?

Good question. This from Quroa, a Libertarian response to this question denies that Chile was ever libertarian.

Throughout his reign, Pinochet operated on principles entirely antithetical to libertarianism, which values individual liberty and legal equality, and thus advocates tight restrictions on state power in order to secure the rights of every person. Pinochet's government recognized no limits on its power.

The reason Pinochet is sometimes tied to “libertarianism” is because of the association with a group of University of Chicago economists who went to speak at Chilean universities on economic reforms, and with Milton Friedman, who wrote letters to Pinochet advocating that he relinquish his government's control over the economic activity of the people, reinstate private property rights (which had previously been destroyed by the Marxist government of Allende), and stop attempting to centrally plan Chile's economy. Friedman argued, correctly, that Pinochet's repressive control over the economy had severely impoverished the Chilean people.

https://www.quora.com/Was-Pinochets...o-libertarians-see-Augusto-Pinochet-as-a-hero

 

[tytlyf]

I can always count on you for insightful commentary.

I agree. The comment was pretty insightful. Hmm, Kochroaches aren't on America's side. They're robbing tax payers blind.

 

[icehorse]

I'm just curious what specifically folks dislike about the libertarian platform that would cause people to vote against a Libertarian.

I like a lot of their platform, but I've never understood what the Libertarian stance is on engineering standards, building codes, safety standards, standardized weights and measures and such... ?

E.g., it doesn't seem like a good idea to let the market decide which contractors to use based on whether their bridges fall down or not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like a lot of their platform, but I've never understood what the Libertarian stance is on engineering standards, building codes, safety standards, standardized weights and measures and such... ?

E.g., it doesn't seem like a good idea to let the market decide which contractors to use based on whether their bridges fall down or not.

That might be to micro to appear in a platform.
I'm a big fan of standards....& of doing something different when justified.
Note that many standards are voluntary, eg, threads, gear teeth.

 

[Stevicus]

Here is a link to the Libertarian platform.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Sorry to those who don't like to go to links but it's a bit much to post the entire platform here.

I'm just curious what specifically folks dislike about the libertarian platform that would cause people to vote against a Libertarian.

I suppose the main concern would be a lack of political power of the party but wouldn't that mean you are more concerned about political power than principle?

My main problem with libertarianism is that they seem to view government as some sort of adversary or enemy, while forgetting some of the basics of politics as to why governments were formed in the first place. It seems rather primitive, something that would work in simpler, less advanced times when most people were farmers and communities were quite small. Society is too complex and interdependent to go back to an "every man for himself" philosophy. Like religion, individualism and freedom are opiates of the masses. They never really existed except in people's imaginations.

If true freedom and human rights aren't really feasible in this day and age, then the only real solution for the practical advancement of society is a political system which ensures the equitable distribution of resources to meet the material needs of the people. All of humanity should be considered part of the same family and equally important and deserving of fair consideration. Anyone who opposes that (which includes but are not limited to libertarians) are deliberately gumming up the works for their own selfish reasons, and they are the source of all misery which exists in the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I suppose the main concern would be a lack of political power of the party but wouldn't that mean you are more concerned about political power than principle?

I do like to think of myself as principled, so I'd reject that assertion...lol

I don't see unfettered free trading as something that has shown itself to be 'the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights', and indeed see this belief as incorrect.

I guess I'd start there, given how important a philosophical point that is.

 

[Revoltingest]

My main problem with libertarianism is that they seem to view government as some sort of adversary or enemy, while forgetting some of the basics of politics as to why governments were formed in the first place.

You're confusing 3 things....
- Anarchism
- Small "l" libertarianism
- Capital "L" as used in the Libertarian Party <--- The subject of the OP
The above descend in decreasing extremism.
The Party has antipathy towards & distrust of government, which I like.
But it also is all about having a government, with police powers, courts,
military, & social services. The difference with us is how those are used.

What you should be objecting to isn't our forgetting of something we've not forgotten.
Instead you should be against our ending foreign aggression, reducing taxes, reducing
the size of government, curbing the nanny state, boosting civil liberties, & boosting
economic liberty. Those are all things involve minarchy, & are worthy of opposition if
one is a Dem or a Pub.

 

[Milton Platt]

Here is a link to the Libertarian platform.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Sorry to those who don't like to go to links but it's a bit much to post the entire platform here.

I'm just curious what specifically folks dislike about the libertarian platform that would cause people to vote against a Libertarian.

I suppose the main concern would be a lack of political power of the party but wouldn't that mean you are more concerned about political power than principle?

Personally speaking, thanks for the link. I do not fully understand libertarianism (is it an “ism”?)
I suspect that there are elements I would be on board with and elements that would give me pause. Like most, I have not sufficiently educated myself on the topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally speaking, thanks for the link. I do not fully understand libertarianism (is it an “ism”?)
I suspect that there are elements I would be on board with and elements that would give me pause. Like most, I have not sufficiently educated myself on the topic.

If you've discovered that you like some things, & dislike others,
then this means you're considering things. Very good!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But, the capitalist system has worked the best so far? Or what economic system do you think would work better?

I said laissez faire capitalism. The economy should, at the very least, be regulated so we don't have the outrageous hoarding of much of the wealth in the hands of a tiny few that aren't actually producing anything and economic crisises like the last recession.