If you hated political threads before

I too am a committed libertarian and have been since college. In multiple threads over the past week, TripleThreat has done a marvelous job articulating many of the things I believe in most strongly, so I’ll be brief.

To summarize my viewpoints: All humans are created equal in the eyes of the Lord, and are endowed with inalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just governments are granted by their citizens the primary obligation to protect liberty from internal and external harm. They possess no more authority than that, for any other actions (regulation, wealth redistribution, social engineering) require the diminution of rights to achieve their ends. In other words, just governments do not have the authority to take away rights, either as an end or a means to an end. Democracy is not the same thing as liberty. In fact, a constitution and government balance of power are required to prevent the tyranny of the democratic majority (or non-democratic minority) from destroying the rights of minorities. A libertarian government is best not just due to morality (per above), but also promotes general welfare better than any other system. Argument goes as articulated by Adam Smith, i.e., individuals using their free will to optimize for themselves will, through societal mechanisms that reflect supply/demand/value, also optimize for society as a whole.

The foundation for these beliefs comes from the European Enlightenment philosophers John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, etc., and their American descendents Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. Our system of government was originally created by libertarians attempting to implement the philosophy of the European Enlightenment, and I believe in what they did. They are my heroes.

For me, nearly all issues of government domestic policy have a clear libertarian answer, i.e. the one that protects inalienable rights and one that doesn’t. The biggest violation of those rights in contemporary America is taxation. Remember that before WWI, total taxation and government expenditures were well below 10%. Today, as a resident of California, I pay close to 45% on marginal income. As a result, roughly 25 of the 55 hours I work every week are done at my expense in the equivalence of involuntary servitude. I detest current levels of taxation and will simply stop working here if they get much higher. All other libertarian issues today pale in comparison since none involve such a major portion of my waking life.

IMO, drugs are an unfortunate lightening rod for libertarian critics. Yes, I believe they should be legalized. No, I’m not certain that society would be “better off” from a welfare perspective if they were. I’ve never taken drugs and never will, but I do believe others should have the right to make a different choice than I do. That said, this is such a small issue relative to others, like taxation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of commerce, etc. I wish that most debates about libertarianism would focus on these bigger issues.

I’m saddened by how little of the political dialogue these days is grounded in a discussion of liberty and our system’s original reason for existence: to protect it. Our country is fortunately anchored by the best Constitution ever written, but it seems at times as if someone cut the rope, and we drift rudderless in a storm. I think the Republican party does far more to protect liberty than the Democractic, but neither will pay much lip service to what matters most in the upcoming political year.

All I ask of government is to protect my freedom, and I’ll take of the rest.

I agree about the taxes. Many of my ideas were shaped by the body of work linked below:

The Law by Frederick Bastiat: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Quoting the website … **"Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before - and immediately following – the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. **

The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are – word for word – equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing."

Sadly some will not look at this because he is French. My last name is Bemont, with derivitives being Beamont, Beaumont, so it’s not hard to decipher where my ancestors came from. This article is where I learned of the term plunder and had it explained in government/economic terms. Aardvark’s comments of 25/55 hours of the week will apply here.

So, when someone ask what do Libertarians want changed? The answe is “quite a bit actually”.

I am a Republican, but identify more with the Goldwater type Republican than the Bush (41 or 43) type. The problem is, the Goldwater Republican party was doomed to be right, but out of power. The Bush Republican party is more right than the Democrats, but in power. Which is better? Hmm, a conundrum. I too long for a return to the ideals of our founding fathers. But, casting my lot in with the whopping 1 percent that votes Libertarian? I dunno.

“I’ve talked to quite a few people who have been to Amsterdam/Holland.”

I’ll admit it’s been a few years since I was last there, and there’s a few parts of town to avoid, but it certainly seemed safer than any American city at night that I’ve been to. Ever driven up the wrong street in Detroit?

“identify more with the Goldwater type Republican”

So Barry was you kind of guy huh? Didn’t he also once state that black people were closer to monkeys than humans in order to justify segregation in the south?

"The heir to an Arizona department store fortune, Goldwater was first elected to the US Senate in 1952. In his campaign he denounced outgoing President Truman as “that architect of socialism” who was pursuing a “no-win policy” in the Korean War.

Ignorant anti-communism was Goldwater’s political axis, along with the demand that the social reforms enacted under the New Deal of the 1930s be dismantled. He was one of 22 senators who voted against the censure of Joseph McCarthy in 1954 after the redbaiting demagogue sought to extend his witch-hunt to the Pentagon. He later played a significant role passing the antiunion Landrum-Griffin Act and advocated the privatization of Social Security."

As for legalizing drugs, someone stated Holland legalized marijuana, and Amsterdam has one of the lowest drug abuse rates in the world. You are not quite correct. Amsterdam has the fewest charges for drug offense. That is because, very little is illegal in Holland. I’ve talked to quite a few people who have been to Amsterdam/Holland. Believe me when I tell you they are in no hurry to return. Visiting Amsterdam is fine as long as you stick to the few tourist areas, leave those… and well… it was nice knowing you buddy.

Let me correct the common misconception that drugs are legal in the Netherlands. They are not. The Dutch do however make the distinction between “soft drugs” (marijuana, weed), and "hard drugs (xtc, heroin, cocaine, etc). Soft drugs are condoned and “coffee shops” are allowed to sell personal use quantities. These coffee shops are not allowed to sell alcohol. No sale of hard drugs is condoned in the Netherlands. Trafficking of either soft or hard drugs will still land you in jail (if there is availiblity).

The Netherlands is a safe country as a whole, and Amsterdam is not more dangerous than any small American city. The violent crime rate is fairly low (the murder rate is 1.8 per 100.000 compare to US 7.4 per 100.000), but make sure to lock your bicycle. It is not uncommon for people who buy a $10 bicycle from a passing heroin addict, to spend $200 on locks( I know I have).

Jumping back in here with a couple thoughts…

triplethreat, aardvark,

I agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to personal liberty and limited government. However, your argument with respect to drugs simply does not hold water. I don’t begrudge someone sticking a needle in their arm in the privacy of their home, BUT, unless they grow/manufacture it at home, use it at home, and never leave home, they will negatively impact the lives of others (whether directly or indirectly).

jmorrisey is absolutely right in that the drug trade is the last group of people who want drugs legalized.

I don’t want to bash Libertarians and beat the drug issue to death, but Libertarians have made it their cause du jour…

I don’t begrudge someone sticking a needle in their arm in the privacy of their home, BUT, unless they grow/manufacture it at home, use it at home, and never leave home, they will negatively impact the lives of others (whether directly or indirectly).

This is where I could see the same arguement being made for alcohol and cigarettes (and a variety of other acts).

If they do impact the lives of others, or more specifically violate another’s rights, then the government does what it is designed to do … punish them.

One could also argue that what people say will affect others’ lives, possibly in a very negative way, but the solution is not to remove the vocal chords from their bodies (i.e. no choice).

I don’t want to bash Libertarians and beat the drug issue to death, but Libertarians have made it their cause du jour…

I don’t want to speak for all Libertarians, and frankly I know very few. But, to me at least the tax issue is much more present on my mind since it is something that directly affects me. Hard drugs could be legalized tomorrow and I still won’t use them. Tomorrow I will be taxed. Money that I earned will be removed from my possession and given to someone else without my consent. I don’t agree with that.

Most people I know are for the government providing benefits and programs for its people. At one time I were among them. It seemed like a good idea, “personal sacrifice for the greater good”. That was a trait instilled in me from little league throughout college. The problem is that it is not a choice, but a mandate. From what I can see, Libertarians are not oppossed to helping other people. They just want it to be a choice.

“The history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it” – Woodrow Wilson.

That quote is my overall feeling that Libertarians share.


The drug issue is only the one that sparks the most emotion, since many are scared to death that legalized drugs will lead to harm towards themselves someday. They likely have visions of drug-riddled zombies wandering the streets committing crimes to afford drugs … I know I used to.

Jumping back in here with a couple thoughts…

triplethreat, aardvark,

I agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to personal liberty and limited government. However, your argument with respect to drugs simply does not hold water. I don’t begrudge someone sticking a needle in their arm in the privacy of their home, BUT, unless they grow/manufacture it at home, use it at home, and never leave home, they will negatively impact the lives of others (whether directly or indirectly).

jmorrisey is absolutely right in that the drug trade is the last group of people who want drugs legalized.

I don’t want to bash Libertarians and beat the drug issue to death, but Libertarians have made it their cause du jour… **** Sorry, I had written a long reply to this that I hoped was thoughtful. It was lost because of the way the quote functionality works. Oh well. It’s late, I’m tired, and I’m getting up at 6AM again for 2 hours of early morning fun. In brief, I agree that drug use may “negatively impact the lives of others (whether directly or indirectly)”. But terms like “negatively impact” are vague and more useful to social welfarists who govern based on notions of utilitarianism. From a rights perspective, it’s pretty straightforward: drug use by one person does not take away rights from someone else. Crimes subsequent to drug use may harm someone else, but it’s the crimes that should be punished, not the drug use. So I side with legalization. In terms of may “negatively impact the lives of others (whether directly or indirectly)”, well, so can almost everything. Should we also then outlaw everything that can sometimes negatively impact others, like sports competition, bad hair days, and boy bands? Or more seriously, what institution owns the calculator that converts every issue into a social utility for determination of the optimal level of regulation? I don’t put my trust in government to figure these things out. Nor do I believe that our founding fathers gave it the authority to, knowing that restrictions on freedom would be the outcome.

From a rights perspective, it’s pretty straightforward: drug use by one person does not take away rights from someone else. Crimes subsequent to drug use may harm someone else, but it’s the crimes that should be punished, not the drug use.

Basically that’s all that needs said. To have something illegal, it must be proven that it violates the rights of another individual. To have something legal, you have to prove that it doesn’t violate the rights of another person.

I don’t think the concern of Libertarians is to allow everyone to be high all the time, but to rather keep teh government within its power. In other words it’s more of a question of “hard drugs today, what’s next?”

Again, even if the majority of the people want hard drugs illegal, they cannot be. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutionally limited republic. There are certain rights that simply cannot be taken away. It is the view of Libertarians that some of these rights have been taken away. Now, we just sit and wait for which rights are next on the “No Can Do” list.

“I don’t want to bash Libertarians and beat the drug issue to death, but Libertarians have made it their cause du jour…”

Yup, you’re right. And that’s a big part of the reason they don’t get elected. Well, that and having no money to advertise. Okay, that, having no money to advertise and no other distinguishable platform.

I was very excited last year when we actually had a few Libertarian candidates on the ballot in MA, including one for Governor. Unfortunately, the woman running for Governor had no coherent platform beyond “Small Government is beautiful”. Another was running for a local office on the “Legalize Marijuana” platform. Dude, I don’t care what the Town Treasurer thinks about pot. I just care if he can add.

The political world is pretty messed up when a state like MA, which is supposed to be almost as liberal as CA(and keeps re-electing Teddy despite his growing resemblance to Jabba the Hutt) keeps electing Republican governors because the Dems can’t figure out what lies to tell their majority constituency.

I am a libertarian and a Libertarian. The others have done a tremendous job explaining the philosophy

I voted for Bush in '00 and probably will again in '04 unless the Libs come up with a candidate that supports the aggressive pursuit of the war on terror. I voted Libertarian in every other election where a candidate ran, including governor, Senate and PSC. After reading Harry Browne’s (Libertarian presidential candidate in '00) stances on the 9/11 attacks, I am very happy that I didn’t vote for him.

As can be inferred, my biggest issue in the next election is the war on terror. After that come taxes, gun control, and judicial nominations, in that order. No, I won’t be discussing any of these contentious issues here :).

The problem I see with the national Libertarian party is the linkage in the public’s mind that we’re all about the War on Drugs. We’re also getting linked with the anti-Iraq war movement. Both stances will do nothing but hurt our chances of gaining elected office. I would prefer a concentration on personal property rights, like eliminating eminent domain abuse, abuse of government permitting and inspections, unwarranted searches of private businesses by OSHA, etc. and a concentration on privatization of entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and the school system. Politically, these issues are more popular than given credit for, and could at least build support among the populace for them.

Rich

This is something that I definitely agree with. I gave a speech in college in favor of legalizing marijuana. I went to one of the more conservative schools in the nation (Texas A&M), but people were/are quite open-minded to it. I just feel that personal choices should be allowed. If you get high and break the law, then you should be punished. However, I don’t have much any problem with folks smoking weed or eating green brownies.

I am for the legalization of drugs. But with that there also I think has to be an increase in the severity of DUI type laws. Driving while under the influence of anything is unexusable.

I’m also in theory for people to be allowed to own guns, specifically pistols. But in practice I think they cause much more harm then good. My brothers best friend was just accidentially shot and killed by a coworker who had a legal pistol for protection. The guy had taken his safety off as he was worried someone was going to rob their Pizza Shop. How is $50 in cash worth any ones life - robber or clerk. The kid was 22 and had just graduated from College.

So I would call myself a libertarian but probably not a Libertarian. But I’ve voted for more Libertarian candidates then other parties and when in High School and College campaigned for some.

Matt

I am strongly in favor of fewer laws and harsher penalties. I believe in the “punishment must fit the crime”. Unfortunately people only seem to believe this when it favors them.

If you murder someone, you die. It really is that simple. That is the punishment fitting the crime. How is a 15-20 year prison sentence equal to someone else not living? It’s not.

I think a lot of folks laugh at the current DUI stuff. I live in a town where there’s a bar (and a church) on every corner (Yeah … we’re an Irish town). Last year we had 6 DUI’s total. My brother in Law drove drunk 6 times … the last two weeks.

You give people more choices, but the ramifications of those choices are more severe.

There is a lot of stuff that needs to be cleaned up.

CG–My reply in bold.

BC

“identify more with the Goldwater type Republican”

So Barry was you kind of guy huh? Didn’t he also once state that black people were closer to monkeys than humans in order to justify segregation in the south? I don’t think there was ever a politician I agreed 100% with. I don’t know if “AuH2O” truly said this or not, but if he did, I don’t agree with it.

"The heir to an Arizona department store fortune, Goldwater was first elected to the US Senate in 1952. In his campaign he denounced outgoing President Truman as “that architect of socialism” who was pursuing a “no-win policy” in the Korean War. I would generally agree that any Democrat president from the early 1900’s on , esp. FDR and LBJ, were “Architects of Socialism” to a large degree, and most Republican presidents were/are “Architects of Socialism” to a somewhat lesser degree. As far as Korea, the facts stand for themselves, it was a no-win strategy. We still have a divided Korea, with the capitalist South being one of the wealthiest countries in Asia, and the communist North being one of, if not the, poorest.

Ignorant anti-communism was Goldwater’s political axis, along with the demand that the social reforms enacted under the New Deal of the 1930s be dismantled. He was one of 22 senators who voted against the censure of Joseph McCarthy in 1954 after the redbaiting demagogue sought to extend his witch-hunt to the Pentagon. He later played a significant role passing the antiunion Landrum-Griffin Act and advocated the privatization of Social Security." No form of anti-communism can be considered “ignorant” in view of the overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work, enslaves workers to the state, crushes liberty, and seeks hegemony over others, which is the only way it can survive. McCarthy’s place in history is being relooked at in a favorable light by those who don’t get their history lessons from Hollywood. As far as being anti-union and for privatization of Social Security, I’m with him. Unions are a form of collectivism (read communism) where the least is rewarded the same as the best. They are one of the main causes US jobs have been “lost” to overseas competition. It is no wonder union membership is declining. People who work hard and keep their noses clean are sick and tired of seeing shirkers get rewarded, and their membership funds confiscated to support political causes they do not believe in and have nothing to do with their jobs while their leaders hobnob with movie stars and politicos in Las Vegas. Social Security is an out and out fraudulent pyramid scheme, that does nothing but transfer wealth from the neediest sector of our society in terms of disposable income (working people trying to raise families) to the wealthiest (the "55-and over set). If someone told you that you would have 7.5% of your income confiscated, put into a Ponzi scheme-type “investment”, and in 40 years, you would get an annuity worth 1/10 of what you could have gotten if you had invested the money yourself, would you think that was a good idea?

I guess I’m a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. My core belief is that we have too much government involvement in this country. That usually puts me on the conservative side fiscally and the liberal side socially. Here are a few examples:

Taxes are too high, but “no taxes” is ridiculous. The federal government is charged wiht certain duties under our constitution which must be paid for. These include things like national defense.

Social Security, national parks, Medicare, federal funding for education and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional. Read the Constitution. It does not mention these, and specifically states that all powers not mentioned are reserved for the states. The “Interstate Commerce” clause is used and abused more than a crack whore.

Drug legalization is a state issue, not a federal one. This gets me into a gray area with the FDA, some version of which I think is necessary, but it’s something that could be worked out.

Abortion is not a debate over anyone’s rights. It is a debate over whether an unborn baby is a human. If so, abortion cannot be condoned in any fashion. If not, abortion cannot be regulated, except at the state level.

States’ rights is a big deal. It is such a big deal that it took a war to smash it whereas most of the others were accomplished with cash contributions.

Term limits are good. Frequent turnover brings new views but, more importantly, makes the government less efficient.

“He who governs least, governs best” - guess who.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Taxes are too high, but “no taxes” is ridiculous. The federal government is charged wiht certain duties under our constitution which must be paid for. These include things like national defense.

Social Security, national parks, Medicare, federal funding for education and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional. Read the Constitution. It does not mention these, and specifically states that all powers not mentioned are reserved for the states. The “Interstate Commerce” clause is used and abused more than a crack whore.

If there were no taxes would you give money to the government for national defense? Yeah, me too. But, it would be a choice. Would you donate money for national parks? I would also. Would you donate money for child illnesses? I would too.

Perhaps these organizations would have to learn to be more responsible with their money. But they would still exist and be strong.

I don’t get into social security and federal health care. It’s not my job to take care of someone else, furthermore it’s not their job to take my money and put it into their retirement and insurance. Perhaps instead of buying stuff they don’t need, they would put money into a retirement fund, etc. Perhaps instead of buying entertainment stuff people don’t need, they would buy health insurance. If people cannot afford these things then, maybe insurance rates go down, charities, churches, etc help people out. Regardless of which one it is, it is a choice, not a mandate. Being dependent on the government is what they are, and it’s the idea we desperately frowned upon … or at least we used to.

Believe it, if pepole were independent rather than dpendent on their government they would get “responsible” in a hurry. To continue to be irresponsible would be a threat to their survival (not that we would let them die or anything).

Do people really think without taxes that schools, defense, etc will not exist or function? we’ll all be just a bunch of poor, starving, uneducated group of people? Do people really believe that? Do we really believe we cannot get along without the government providing everything for us? How did folks get along before taxes?

Side Note: I find it strange that the country that was formed out of anger against imposed taxes (without representation) is now taxed to the teeth. Every thing I earn, everything I buy is taxed (it’s debatable whether I’m represented or not).

The more I hear from politicians, the more I realise we are a socialistic nation. We depend on the government to provide for us, and they are more than willing to become our parent. Socialism is not entirely bad, IMO … it’s just not what we are intended to be. If that’s how we want to live (through practice), we need to start rewriting the constitution and just make it official (not being sarcastic). I don’t want to see that happen.


Despite what politicians say, our country would be strong without taxes. Our major programs (defense, etc) would still continue. Maybe these folks would gasp take a pay cut, maybe over-spending wouldn’t be an option. Is there any private corporation as fiscally irresponsible as the military and government?

They could tax folks 80% and they’d still “need more funding”. Enough.

Right now, we have rich folks paying more total tax money so that those that are not rich do not pay any [I am not rich nor do I side with rich, I’m just stating that in this country rich people pay for the poor’s benefits, without a choice). We take from the rich to feed the poor. some folks say “good!”. I say socialism. If that’s what we want, then lets change the constitution. I want to see it one way or the other officially. Don’t write me liberty and then give me socialism. Either we need to live by our documents or change the documents to reflect how we live.

I prefer we live by our documents.

The “helpless without taxes” stuff really bothers me, so I’m going to say more, possibly present some alternatives.

  1. Have a “Government Fund” for which you can donate to.

This imo, is better than having 9,321 funds that require individual funding (I don’t really want 254 phone calls a night asking me for donations). The govenment can delegate money to the funds that have the most need, serve the most people, or a combo of both (or you can check a box on a form, or click a circle on an e-donation or something like that).

  1. The government is less likely to piss away donations rather than taxes. Donations can be removed. Taxes cannot. IMO, they few tax money as monopoly money, with no real value and no limit on spending.

Donations = accountability, responsibility, or they vanish. Waste my money, you won’t get more from me.

  1. Have a “Low Income Fund” or whatever clever, non-labelling name we could come up with. Let people donate money for the underprivilaged.

  2. Donating money rather than having it lifted from you will create tremendous pride in our programs. It will be a sense of “I contribute to that”.

  3. You will see families being much closer together, sharing resources, helping each other. You will see communities helping each other, being closer together, etc. This will be unavoidable. But, it will be because of choice and necessity rather than force.

You might also see the American people and the government having an affection for one another. A source of mutual dependency, rather than the “How are they screwing me today?” feeling that i feel many Americans have. I don’t know very many Americans that trust politicians and feel the government is efficient. If people have a choice whether or not to send the gov’t money, you bet your ass, they’ll clean up their act. What other choice do they have?

To say that we can never not be dependent on taxes is almost to say that you can never move out of your parents house. I mean your parents supplied your with shelter, food, money, care, etc … how can you survive without them? Simple. You provide for yourself, or you share resources with someone else.

The answer to the problem is not to continue to live with your parents.

Some may argue that the result of taxes and donations is the same, so who cares if you give it … or they take it. My answer to that is “Anyone who believes in liberty and freedom cares”.

  1. Have a “Government Fund” for which you can donate to…

  2. Have a “Low Income Fund” or whatever clever, non-labelling name we could come up with. Let people donate money for the underprivilaged.

I have a problem with this because everyone in the country is protected by our military and I don’t think anyone should get this protection for free while “good citizens” voluntarily pay for it. Services which MUST be performed by the government should be paid for by all. Maybe we could have a “user fee” for these services in the form of a per-head tax.

If a service doesn’t fall within the “MUST be provided by the federal government” category I don’t want the government involved at all. There are many great organizations providing for the underpriviledged and I am able to choose those whose criteria I support. I don’t need the government setting the criteria for who receives assistance and who doesn’t. I would even support a private charity that helped poor people pay their “user fee” above.

I have a problem with this because everyone in the country is protected by our military and I don’t think anyone should get this protection for free while “good citizens” voluntarily pay for it. Services which MUST be performed by the government should be paid for by all. Maybe we could have a “user fee” for these services in the form of a per-head tax.

If a service doesn’t fall within the “MUST be provided by the federal government” category I don’t want the government involved at all. There are many great organizations providing for the underpriviledged and I am able to choose those whose criteria I support. I don’t need the government setting the criteria for who receives assistance and who doesn’t. I would even support a private charity that helped poor people pay their “user fee” above.

Bill … you are exactly right. The government is expected to provide defense fom attack and punishment for violation of laws, so I agree that a “fee” or “due” for military , law enforcement, is required. Good perspective. Call it “memebership dues” if you wish, or the “Patriot Fee”, or whatever.

Since it’s a mandatory government action, I could understand it being a “mandatory contribution”.

I don’t know that Liberalists would even dispute that idea.