Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Conscentia]

'A communist endeavour'? Seriously?

In one of the Marxist Ten Planks:
“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.“
A communist endeavor.

I highly doubt the US government was inspired by the Communist Manifesto. The Communist Party was not the only organisation arguing for a central bank. Next you'll be saying that public education and progressive income taxation are "communist endeavours".

[USS Monitor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A720jtR-l10

Dude, that was awesome.

I mean, he's not the best rapper I've ever heard, but he's not the worst either. It reminds me of something some black rapper said about why the Beastie Boys were cool and Vanilla Ice was an annoying appropriation of black culture, even though both were white people making rap -- because the Beastie Boys were using it to express themselves and Vanilla Ice was pretending to be something he wasn't. Even though Feldman's kind of awkward, he still is saying something and means it. Last time I tried using isidewith.com, he's actually the only Libertarian candidate that ranked above Hillary for agreeing with me the most. (Hillary and all the Libertarians came out pretty close around 80%.)

Now I want to see Killer Mike run for office and do his opening statements at the debates in rhyme. He is one of the most politically smart people in the music business, sort of like a hip hop version of Bruce Springsteen.

[USS Monitor]

How do you guys think a Johnson-Weld presidency would fare? What sort of actions do we think a Johnson presidency would take?

Assuming that Johnson gets his way:

-Steps to actually balance the budget and hopefully stall the runaway debt and inflation,
-Decrease of US military involvement in the Middle East, refocus on domestic affairs (I think this would also happen in a Trump presidency, but not to the extent here)
-Likewise, an end to the neoconservative policy of nation building and redirecting monies that could be better spent at home
-Possible end of the "war of the drugs" enacted by the Reagan administration, if not, then at least stopping Federal involvement.
-Tax Reform. I doubt we'll see Johnson's FairTax implemented, but I do think that reforming the tax code will be an issue that will pop up
-Lowering, if not eliminating the corporate income tax would pave the way for millions of new jobs and make America competitive again with giants like China
-Immigration will no doubt come up as a problem. If Johnson goes too hard, he may alienate his current support. I'd suggest copying Canada on this one

It'd fuck up the US economy and quite possibly put us on the path to another great depression.

But no war crimes!

[The Liberated Territories]

What are socialist endeavors? If I understand, the creation of the FED was one of the hallmarks of progressive and socialist thought, no?

No. The creation of the Federal Reserve System has nothing to do with socialism or 'socialist thought'. If anything, it was intended to strengthen capitalism. (Whether you believe it succeeded in doing so is irrelevant.)

How not? Much regulations do nothing but protect the rich and corporations from competition. Licensing requirements, for example, increase barriers to entry in the market.

Economic regulations =/= socialism. To assert that regulations are necessarily socialist endeavours is absurd, and demonstrates a complete ignorance of socialism.

In fact, Marxists argue that the state exists to maintain the conditions under which the ruling class rule. It would make sense, from a Marxist socialist perspective, that economic regulations intended to the protect the rich and corporations would be created by the state. (Whether you agree with the Marxist perspective is irrelevant - the point was that regulations that maintain the upper class aren't socialist endeavours and would be considered by some socialists to be symptoms of capitalism.)

Here's several ways:
http://www.alternet.org/story/152284/4_ ... of_us_poor

Fair enough, abolishing those policies would reduce income inequality. However, the right-libertarians wouldn't stop there. I don't doubt that other policies of right-libertarians would have the opposite effect.

Socialist, capitalist, whatever. Early socialists supported this bit of "capitalism." Just look at the planks. It's a socialist endeavor, because socialists supported it. Whether they continue to support it is irrelevant. Same with regulations. Socialists do nothing to combat certain regulations giving the rich certain benefits over the poor. But when someone else comes along and threatens to remove them, suddenly the socialists turn in defense of all these regulations that subsidize the rich and harm the poor.

As for why these moves would be beneficial to reducing inequality:

Corporations per legal definition wouldn't exist, and have the massive legal privileges they do today. Interest rates would be determined by the market instead of artificially raised as they are, making loans cheaper for the common person and capital more accessible. Intellectual property wouldn't exist to protect the profit of corporations from viable competition. (Huge one there, it's why Tesla never became rich.) A less progressive, less complex tax would ensure that the rich wouldn't use lobbying power to pay less than the required amount, or be abused as much as it is. Lifting bans on say, incandescent lightbulbs would no longer protect corporations from competition. Public housing - public housing as it stands kicks people out if they make too much money. The minimum wage serves to block competition from domestic workers from the unemployed at home and overseas. (Marx's "reserve army of the unemployed" comes to mind...) As I said, licensing requirements would no longer protect the rich from the poor. Inflation wouldn't be so strong to eat away at the poor's money faster than the rich's. And so on.

[USS Monitor]

I have no fucking clue who I'd vote for if the Libertarian Party decides to commit seppuku by nominating someone other than Johnson.

Not Trump, Petersen, or McAfee.

The part of me that just wants to elect the guy closest to my beliefs that I can trust Really wants Feldman, The part of me that's just like F*** the fed wants McAfee and the part of me that actually makes since wants Johnson. I do hate Trump and Petersen, that's for sure.

I might vote for Feldman if they gave the nomination to him. I would have to learn more about him and think it over. Or maybe I'd vote for Jill Stein. I don't know.

[USS Monitor]

What do libertarians think about the self determination of nations?

Generally in favor of it.

[The Liberated Territories]

What do libertarians think about the self determination of nations?

Ultimately libertarians are concerned more with achieving the maximum self-determination of individuals. "Self-determination" of nations is only promoted as a means to this end - the closer your government is to you, the more say you have in it (and therefore your own affairs). So self-determination is not promoted due to some ideal of nationalism at all. Libertarians oppose the EU because the EU has fundamentally moved towards federalism and away from it's original goal of promoting free-trade. In this case, nationalism is preferable to supranationalism.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[The Liberated Territories]

Speaking of which, the Australian isidewith added more parties and candidates. Here is what I got.

[Conscentia]

Socialist, capitalist, whatever. Early socialists supported this bit of "capitalism." Just look at the planks. It's a socialist endeavor, because socialists supported it. Whether they continue to support it is irrelevant.

The concept of central banks did not originate with socialists, advocacy of them is not limited to socialists, and the reasons socialists and non-socialists advocated them differ - they have different motives for advocating similar policies. Just because there are or were socialist advocates of a particular policy does not mean that a policy is itself necessarily a socialist endeavour.

Same with regulations. Socialists do nothing to combat certain regulations giving the rich certain benefits over the poor. But when someone else comes along and threatens to remove them, suddenly the socialists turn in defense of all these regulations that subsidize the rich and harm the poor.

I have not noticed such a tendency.

As for why these moves would be beneficial to reducing inequality: [...]

That was unnecessary. I didn't deny that there are right-libertarian policies would favour income equality in that post. Again, there are entries in your list that would reduce income inequality. However, there are a couple on that list that I think would have the opposite effect, but I'm not particularly interested in arguing those specifics - that's not why I responded. I asked "How would they lower income inequality?" and you gave a satisfactory answer. I now understand why you would think the right-libertarian way would reduce income inequality.

[USS Monitor]

Dude, that was awesome.

I mean, he's not the best rapper I've ever heard, but he's not the worst either. It reminds me of something some black rapper said about why the Beastie Boys were cool and Vanilla Ice was an annoying appropriation of black culture, even though both were white people making rap -- because the Beastie Boys were using it to express themselves and Vanilla Ice was pretending to be something he wasn't. Even though Feldman's kind of awkward, he still is saying something and means it. Last time I tried using isidewith.com, he's actually the only Libertarian candidate that ranked above Hillary for agreeing with me the most. (Hillary and all the Libertarians came out pretty close around 80%.)

Now I want to see Killer Mike run for office and do his opening statements at the debates in rhyme. He is one of the most politically smart people in the music business, sort of like a hip hop version of Bruce Springsteen.

I keep meaning to do a isidewith, but yah he is basically as close as anyone will probably ever get to my dream candidate, you should go watch some of his youtu.be videos.

Isidewith is a decent tool, but there are some things it can't take into account, like Trump's dangerously erratic and aggressive personality.

And you can have candidates that are very different from each other, but they still come up with the same percentage, and then you have to decide which issues you feel like compromising on -- like what happened for me with Hillary and the Libertarians.

Actual political rap battles... that would be epic! I could actually see that happening eventually.

It would be so fucking cool.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[USS Monitor]

lel: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 2328669757

Apparently you agree with me 75% of the time. http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... 2294013165

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[Fanosolia]

Intellectual property wouldn't exist to protect the profit of corporations from viable competition. (Huge one there, it's why Tesla never became rich.)

So does that mean it wouldn't exist as we know it and restructured to benefit the creator, or the abolish position that some pirates and geogists take?

[The Helsen Free State]

Um. wut. how?

Massive de regulation and increase of income inequality if the libertarians have their way.

I still don't understand why income inequality is such a huge deal to people. As long as the individual is getting fairly treated in an open society, then whether he becomes rich or not is due soley to his efforts and abilities. I don't resent the rich until they start using government to solidify their hold on part of the economy.

The main effect (not purpose) of regulations is to shield incumbent businesses against fledgling competition in the market. Who do you think congress goes to to write all those new regulations? Aside from some environmental regulations, unfair treatment is better handled by the courts.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[The Helsen Free State]

I still don't understand why income inequality is such a huge deal to people. As long as the individual is getting fairly treated in an open society, then whether he becomes rich or not is due soley to his efforts and abilities. I don't resent the rich until they start using government to solidify their hold on part of the economy.

Their are multiple perspectives that support the same fight for wealth equality. Their's the idea that inequality limits the liberty of those without, while further promoting the freedom and power of those with the most. For many it stems from the idea that one can never repay their dept to society because that is what created them. However most simply believe that it is important because they have a utilitarian ethics and they believe limiting wealth inequality does the greatest good for the greatest number.

Another issues is that you assume the rich are accumulating their wealth based soley on their efforts. This equity based system however is impractical in a system that has an abundance of economic liberties. Money will always stay in families and their will always be kids who inherited everything they've got. Beyond this wealth accumulate so equity is always inaccurately measured across class levels.

Someone else can probably do a better job explaining this than I can right now, I'm pretty tired.

The only way to solve that inequity in the short term would be by forcefully taking money from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. Unfortunately when you set that precedent it heavily discourages people to create wealth, which harms society far more than it helps. The better long-term solution would be to simply let competition drive up quality and innovation to help everyone enjoy a higher level of prosperity. I'm a young and unskilled laborer with low wages, but I still live better than kings did just a few centuries ago. Before air conditioning was invented, not even the richest person could have it.

I also take huge issue with the second point. In addition to the profit motive, parents naturally want to work harder to leave something behind for their children. That extra work contributes to society. Sure you'll have spoiled brats, but if they can't survive the market, that money will be gone in a generation anyway. Destroying inheritance would undermine families. It also doesn't affect people at the bottom trying to work their way up-- it's not a fixed pie. If they go out and work or create something, they have just as much of a shot at prosperity.

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[The Helsen Free State]

I'm honestly not even sure if an accurate equity based system is possible, it seems like their would always be a way to exploit the power you've gained because of your contribution to dis-proportionally gain further power. Check the second thing for my argument on competition driving up innovation and quality.

The only way you could come close is by abolishing as much governmental power as you can (up to a limit). The market can't force you to buy anything. Sure, some exploitation and inequity will happen in the markets, but it's on a different order of magnitude compared to when the same problems are produced by government force.

First monetary gain isn't the only incentive to innovate in society. A great example of people innovating and contributing without monetary gain are things like FOSS which fundamentally own the server market ( linux is on 96% of them) or the artist who makes masterpieces not expecting enough to pay for their apartment. Secondly none of what you said changes the fact that it is fundamentally easier to invest capital than it is to create initial capital. This system will never properly measure individuals contribution.

I never said it was the only incentive-- that's exactly the reason I brought up the family and inheritance. It's not only money that parents want to leave their children, but also land, homes, and hopefully values and education. Investing and creating take different skill sets and involve varying degrees of risk. You'll be rich if you fund a successful startup, but you'll end up broke if they can't swim. On the other hand, being employed for your labor provides a measure of stable income, but is of course lower than if you accepted risks to try new things.

I don't think you're meaning to, but you're really oversimplifying a lot of these points. It's not black or white. You can't eliminate exploitation completely under any system that involves humans. Likewise, the only proper and moral system is one that allows individual people to pursue their own definition of success and happiness, whether that be by monetary success, discovery, art, invention, or anything else that we can dream up.

[Grinstead]

How do you guys think a Johnson-Weld presidency would fare? What sort of actions do we think a Johnson presidency would take?

Assuming that Johnson gets his way:

-Steps to actually balance the budget and hopefully stall the runaway debt and inflation,
-Decrease of US military involvement in the Middle East, refocus on domestic affairs (I think this would also happen in a Trump presidency, but not to the extent here)
-Likewise, an end to the neoconservative policy of nation building and redirecting monies that could be better spent at home
-Possible end of the "war of the drugs" enacted by the Reagan administration, if not, then at least stopping Federal involvement.
-Tax Reform. I doubt we'll see Johnson's FairTax implemented, but I do think that reforming the tax code will be an issue that will pop up
-Lowering, if not eliminating the corporate income tax would pave the way for millions of new jobs and make America competitive again with giants like China
-Immigration will no doubt come up as a problem. If Johnson goes too hard, he may alienate his current support. I'd suggest copying Canada on this one

A lot of pissed off Jews, including myself. Thankfully, I don't live in USA.

[Trotskylvania]

'A communist endeavour'? Seriously?

In one of the Marxist Ten Planks:

“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.“

A communist endeavor.

National banks were a demand put forth by the liberal revolutionaries of the 1848 revolutions, which the Communist League incidentally echoed. You have to remember that in 1848, the ancien regime still held sway on the Continent, and nationalism was widely seen as a progressive force against feudal reaction. For most, state banking was an engine to kickstart capital development.

The Manifesto's Ten Point program really have no relevance to the history of the communist movement. By 1849, it was an anachronism, and was not referenced again, as the events of 1848 made it abundantly clear that the bourgeoisie had triumphed, the aristocracy was receding and the era of capitalism was truly begining. European states with strong state banking systems pushed capitalist development forward.

Calling it a communist endeavor is a serious stretch. Capitalists have wanted central banks since before Marx himself was born.

[Conigsberg]

In one of the Marxist Ten Planks:

“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.“

A communist endeavor.

National banks were a demand put forth by the liberal revolutionaries of the 1848 revolutions, which the Communist League incidentally echoed. You have to remember that in 1848, the ancien regime still held sway on the Continent, and nationalism was widely seen as a progressive force against feudal reaction. For most, state banking was an engine to kickstart capital development.

The Manifesto's Ten Point program really have no relevance to the history of the communist movement. By 1849, it was an anachronism, and was not referenced again, as the events of 1848 made it abundantly clear that the bourgeoisie had triumphed, the aristocracy was receding and the era of capitalism was truly begining. European states with strong state banking systems pushed capitalist development forward.

Calling it a communist endeavor is a serious stretch. Capitalists have wanted central banks since before Marx himself was born.

That was interesting I never knew that, always good to learn interesting and relevant information, despite different political positions

[West Verrica]

post removed.

[The Liberated Territories]

In one of the Marxist Ten Planks:

“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.“

A communist endeavor.

National banks were a demand put forth by the liberal revolutionaries of the 1848 revolutions, which the Communist League incidentally echoed. You have to remember that in 1848, the ancien regime still held sway on the Continent, and nationalism was widely seen as a progressive force against feudal reaction. For most, state banking was an engine to kickstart capital development.

The Manifesto's Ten Point program really have no relevance to the history of the communist movement. By 1849, it was an anachronism, and was not referenced again, as the events of 1848 made it abundantly clear that the bourgeoisie had triumphed, the aristocracy was receding and the era of capitalism was truly begining. European states with strong state banking systems pushed capitalist development forward.

Calling it a communist endeavor is a serious stretch. Capitalists have wanted central banks since before Marx himself was born.

Certainly then, these "revolutionaries" were not liberals by the stretch, they were nationalists - and liberalism and nationalism (ultra-statism) are opposed to each other. The authentic liberal demands less government involvement, the nationalist more. The national bank therefore an anti-capitalist endeavor, because it destroys the very foundation of capitalism by making capital more costly and centralizing it into the hands of the few. This is why liberal capitalists, like Mises, oppose it. On the other hand I can make the argument that it is a form of socialism because it shares/redistributes wealth and profit within a small in-group.

The liberal Misean position on the central bank, for your convenience.