The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: SomeRandomDude on September 27, 2008, 05:50:19 AM
-
Those of you who know me know that I'm extremely Libertarian in my thinking. That is to say, I ascribe to the classical libertarian theory of the night watchman. What is the role of government? The protection of property. The social contract is critical to libertarian ideology. In essence, we, the people, can do anything we want. However, for the protection of liberty, we make a social contract that establishes government for the purpose of preventing us from interfering in someone else's natural rights. Thus, government has only one job, protecting the individual from other people infringing their rights, ie, government is essentially law enforcement, and precious little else.
Under a utopian world. We are too dependent on the government to go back to that area now, but still, libertarian principles of de-regulation are crucial to restoring government to its original intent.
Sound conservative? Eh...no. Conservatives have some libertarian ideals, but let me go over a few that are NOT.
1. Foreign Policy- Iraq. Our military, for the protection of the right to life of American citizens, disarmed a nation that was a threat to us. We have no right to interfere with the operations of another country after that. Get in, protect America's citizens, get out.
2. Foreign Policy- Humanitarian Crisis. None of our business. Does not affect America's citizenry. The military is there for the protection of its own citizens. Thus, Libertarianism is isolationist.
3. Immigration. Why stop them? If they want to be part of America, let them. Why do we need arbitrary government quotas saying who can come in? Sure, we need to make sure they don't pose a threat to the natural rights of the American Citizenry, but last I checked, all people had natural rights. Open Immigration.
4.Taxes. Tax is a necessary evil. Duh, but ideally, there should be no tax. Definitely not income tax. Nor property tax. Nobody should be taxed for making money or owning property. However, sales tax is the fairest of all tax alternatives, as it is in part consensual, you can choose not to buy stuff.
Positive Liberty Practices- Affirmative Action, Welfare, other stuff that "gives the disadvantaged a chance." Um...no. Sorry that you started out there. Other people, like charities, churches, etc, its their purpose. At least part of humanity has compassion on the unfortunate, but government getting involved means, you guessed it, promoting certain people at the expense of others.
There's a libertarian manifesto. Got a question for me? I'll take it.
BTW, my ideas are also not necessarily Libertarian PARTY line, but fit in with the Libertarian school of thought.
-
Those of you who know me know that I'm extremely Libertarian in my thinking. That is to say, I ascribe to the classical libertarian theory of the night watchman. What is the role of government? The protection of property. The social contract is critical to libertarian ideology. In essence, we, the people, can do anything we want. However, for the protection of liberty, we make a social contract that establishes government for the purpose of preventing us from interfering in someone else's natural rights. Thus, government has only one job, protecting the individual from other people infringing their rights, ie, government is essentially law enforcement, and precious little else.
Under a utopian world. We are too dependent on the government to go back to that area now, but still, libertarian principles of de-regulation are crucial to restoring government to its original intent.
Sound conservative? Eh...no. Conservatives have some libertarian ideals, but let me go over a few that are NOT.
1. Foreign Policy- Iraq. Our military, for the protection of the right to life of American citizens, disarmed a nation that was a threat to us. We have no right to interfere with the operations of another country after that. Get in, protect America's citizens, get out.
Yes, but I also think we should finish what we start, and while I honestly think we shouldn't interfere much when we do, we should get the job done.
2. Foreign Policy- Humanitarian Crisis. None of our business. Does not affect America's citizenry. The military is there for the protection of its own citizens. Thus, Libertarianism is isolationist.
I think it is our duty to save lives. Instead of looking the other way and saying "well, it isn't our problem" we should help in natural disasters and give aid to other countries. BTW, what problem do you have with the military helping other nationalities save lives?
3. Immigration. Why stop them? If they want to be part of America, let them. Why do we need arbitrary government quotas saying who can come in? Sure, we need to make sure they don't pose a threat to the natural rights of the American Citizenry, but last I checked, all people had natural rights. Open Immigration.
Yes, I have absolutely no problem with legal immigration. What I have a problem with is illegal immigration. I would also limit the immigration from Mexico.
4.Taxes. Tax is a necessary evil. Duh, but ideally, there should be no tax. Definitely not income tax. Nor property tax. Nobody should be taxed for making money or owning property. However, sales tax is the fairest of all tax alternatives, as it is in part consensual, you can choose not to buy stuff.
Yeah, sales tax is definitely the best. Income tax has always reeked of socialism as it tries to balance out the classes.
Positive Liberty Practices- Affirmative Action, Welfare, other stuff that "gives the disadvantaged a chance." Um...no. Sorry that you started out there. Other people, like charities, churches, etc, its their purpose. At least part of humanity has compassion on the unfortunate, but government getting involved means, you guessed it, promoting certain people at the expense of others.
Voluntary welfare is great. Enforced welfare is socialism. I agree there.
There's a libertarian manifesto. Got a question for me? I'll take it.
What are your views on gun rights and the second amendment?
BTW, my ideas are also not necessarily Libertarian PARTY line, but fit in with the Libertarian school of thought.
-
Well I agree with about half of that. Your point on welfare works when enough is being done by the churches and charities but unfortunately too many christians are interested in the so called 'prosperity gospel' rather than following Jesus's command to give to the poor. Welfare exists because the people failed to do this enough so the government stepped in. I find your point number 2 extremely harsh. Where is the compassion in that? It was an isolationist attitude which delayed America's involvement in both world wars, causing millions of deaths. Your supposed to be a christin so the lack of compassion for people less fortunate than you is quite shocking. I agree with you on taxes and immigration though.
-
I think you already start at an individualism ponit of view and this just doesn´t fit with prevent of unharmonic relations.
I respect your way of seeing things but don´t you think that could be better if the role of a governament is to make the lives of people better (even knowing that "better" is a relative term there is something that are almost universal like have acess to food, health, formal education and many others)?
if you country can help others without cause warm to their population isn´t that a good evolutive option? Maybe you can be helped out to be helped in the future...
It´s good to think and debate about this issues.
-
To protect the american citizens, we need to stay in Iraq until it gets a stable government, so it doesn't collapse into a terrorist-run country.
-
US should concentrate on their internal affairs only. Even though I'm not a US citizen, I know US economy is in poor shape. War on terrorism is a utopic war, cause you cannot fight an idea, it's like a ghost and the last Ghostbusters movie was made a while back so I guess they retired. But like more debates, we will never see the end of it.
I think the role of the government should be one of helping the people. Creating the best of circumstances since they are our representatives. They are not in charge, they are just our employees...sadly not the ones from the month, most of the times.
Together we have to make the best of it, some are more capable then others, and so we all have other responsibilities within the system. When you don't help eachother, how can you be 1 nation?.....
-
Okay...not sure you're getting this. Its called "Ask The Libertarian." Meaning...ask me a question. Cross-examination style, not making a speech style. :D
-
You still haven't answered my question.
-
Ok I'lla question. I would like you to clarify your second point. Are you saying that if their was a large natural disaster in another country you would not want the US government and armed forces to provide financial aid or the help of the US military? As a continuation of that point,you state that you are an isolationist. Does that mean therefore that if you had been in charge of the country during World War 2 you would not have joined in the War in Europe?
-
Ok I'lla question. I would like you to clarify your second point. Are you saying that if their was a large natural disaster in another country you would not want the US government and armed forces to provide financial aid or the help of the US military? As a continuation of that point,you state that you are an isolationist. Does that mean therefore that if you had been in charge of the country during World War 2 you would not have joined in the War in Europe?
I was wondering the same thing...
-
What are your views on gun rights and the second amendment?
Any weapon up to and including fully auto, assault and/or military weapons should be allowed, unless under circumstances of a prior felony conviction, in which case, depriving the right is necessary for the protection of the natural rights of men, as a convicted felon with a weapon is likely to use it again.
Ok I'lla question. I would like you to clarify your second point. Are you saying that if their was a large natural disaster in another country you would not want the US government and armed forces to provide financial aid or the help of the US military? As a continuation of that point,you state that you are an isolationist. Does that mean therefore that if you had been in charge of the country during World War 2 you would not have joined in the War in Europe?
Quetion 1. Yes. Question 2. If you look back at history, Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on them. If a nation declares war on us, I have no qualms about declaring war on them.
Also, under certain circumstances in which our interests are endangered by our allies being attacked, conceivably this could disrupt the US economy or global economy and thus have significantly adverse effects ont he United States, and in which case the fundamental right of the pursuit of happiness could be endangered and could thus be acted upon. Here I differ from the vast majority of libertarians, who are of the mindset of self-defense as the only provocation for war, but I would contend that self-defense could include protecting our interests, and thus our allies.
-
But that's not really a christian view.
-
A few questions:
You are a christian. If you were to be the leader of the US, how would that effect your leadership?
What would happen to the lesser forunate people, less capable of making money of their own? Maybe due to a physical cause, maybe due to a mental cause? Still no government involvement?
When the central bank of the US pumps massive ammounts of money into the economy, do you aprove of that? Isn't it somekind of welfare?
So far so good, oh no, a last question. Decleration of Independence states that all man are equal and that all have the right to defend their selves vs government. I assume that you completely underwright the D of I. Isn't the D of I some sort of pact with other countries that have simulair declarations? I mean, shouldn't the US always support others in their battle vs government? Or are they less equal?
-
I've got to say its not very 'love they neighbour'. It seems incredibly selfish and self serving actually. I know its a cliche but I think you should seriously ask yourself 'What would Jesus Do'.
-
But that's not really a christian view.
See my response to turin below.
You are a christian. If you were to be the leader of the US, how would that effect your leadership?
I don't see how this applies, but it would drastically affect my leadership. For example. Abortion: A Christian views the child as human. Thus, it is entitled to the protection of its natural rights, thus, abortion should be illegal. A non-Christian libertarian? Don't interfere.
What would happen to the lesser forunate people, less capable of making money of their own? Maybe due to a physical cause, maybe due to a mental cause? Still no government involvement?
No. No government involvement. The role of the government is to preserve peace, not give everyone everything they need to make life work for them. How about those people who are LAZY. Government cannot discriminate, and thus, once it set precedence elsewhere, it needs to fund couch-potatoes. Again, I'll cover my perspective in my response to turin.
When the central bank of the US pumps massive ammounts of money into the economy, do you aprove of that? Isn't it somekind of welfare?
Ha. Now you hit on an issue I am not quite sure about myself. Hitherto, I've been in favor of the government creating currency, but now I'm thinking that privately backed currency may not be such a bad thing. As for gold-backed currency, I don't have a problem with gold certificates and such stuff, but the current unbacked dollar? :P I'd like to see the gold standard brought back, that's for sure, and its equally as sure that its not gonna happen.
So far so good, oh no, a last question. Decleration of Independence states that all man are equal and that all have the right to defend their selves vs government. I assume that you completely underwright the D of I. Isn't the D of I some sort of pact with other countries that have simulair declarations? I mean, shouldn't the US always support others in their battle vs government? Or are they less equal?
No, the Declaration of Independence is not at all a pact with other countries. Its a declaration of independence from England, and an assertion that all people have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (which was a broader way of replacing the original text: property). The government's responsibility is to preserve the peace and defend its citizenry, and it should stick to those roles.
I've got to say its not very 'love they neighbour'. It seems incredibly selfish and self serving actually. I know its a cliche but I think you should seriously ask yourself 'What would Jesus Do'.
Okay, massive mis-perception here. You believe that because I think the government should not be involved in the plight of the underclass, thus, we should turn a deaf ear. Not at all. I give to charities, and so does my family. But, it should be the individual or the private organization doing this, not the government.
I mean seriously. Wouldn't you rather give $1000 to a charity of your choice, or have the government reach into your pocket to snatch $1000 from you, filter it through a bureaucratic mess and finally get $10 to the people on the streets? I'll take the first option, thanks. And I believe its a more Christian belief than that of "give money to the government and hope that it goes to helping poor people instead of teaching sex ed to preschoolers."
-
I was actually talking about your policies towards humanitarian involvement and isolationism and such. The problem is with your stance is that it shows absolutely no compassion towards the people of other countries. I mean according to your stance America would have cared nothing about the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda or the suffering of millions of people in the Sudan. It's just quite heartless and selfish. As for your point about welfare its nice as an ideal, ironically like socialism, but in practice it hasn't worked and thats why we need welfare. The truth is charities have too little money and don't have the organisation needed to reach everyone. People fall through the net when its the governement but more would fall through if it were just up to the charities.
-
I was actually talking about your policies towards humanitarian involvement and isolationism and such. The problem is with your stance is that it shows absolutely no compassion towards the people of other countries. I mean according to your stance America would have cared nothing about the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda or the suffering of millions of people in the Sudan. It's just quite heartless and selfish. As for your point about welfare its nice as an ideal, ironically like socialism, but in practice it hasn't worked and thats why we need welfare. The truth is charities have too little money and don't have the organisation needed to reach everyone. People fall through the net when its the governement but more would fall through if it were just up to the charities.
So we go in on humanitarian reasons, reorganize the country into a "democracy," watch it fall into civil war and get stuck occupying it. Very compassionate. :roll:
So government has this vast amount of money? Take the money we're giving to the government for teaching pre-schoolers sex ed, and let the people give it to charity. Now the charities have money.
But the point I'm making is that you cannot force people to be generous, which is what government welfare is attempting to do. The fundamental right to property is more important than redistributing wealth so that everyone can live comfortably. Taxation for the purpose of welfare is a redistribution of property, and is thus a violation of individual sovereignty and the right of the individual to decide for himself and his family was is best for them. No, instead big brother has to make sure that you're doing "the right thing."
-
Do you honestly believe that if the government didn't tax the money they use for welfare the people would give that money to charity? If so you are deluded. They would keep it for themselves because, as you are so quick to point out in other threads, all humans are naturally greedy. You seem to think that it would be different in your country because you are supposedly a christian nation. But you are forgetting that America has a god it follows before Jesus, the great god Profit. After all you hold the 'fundamental right to property' up like its the holy of holies but even that is a totally unbiblical sentiment. The Bible teaches that none of actually have any property. All we have is God's and when we give we are merely giving back to him what is his. If you were in charge you would stop welfare and millions would suffer as a result.
-
Do you honestly believe that if the government didn't tax the money they use for welfare the people would give that money to charity? If so you are deluded. They would keep it for themselves because, as you are so quick to point out in other threads, all humans are naturally greedy. You seem to think that it would be different in your country because you are supposedly a christian nation. But you are forgetting that America has a god it follows before Jesus, the great god Profit. After all you hold the 'fundamental right to property' up like its the holy of holies but even that is a totally unbiblical sentiment. The Bible teaches that none of actually have any property. All we have is God's and when we give we are merely giving back to him what is his. If you were in charge you would stop welfare and millions would suffer as a result.
[begin spiel] Ah, but it isn't our problem. The government isn't responsible for being a crutch for every poor person in existence. The government can't make us give our money to poor people. The government is responsible for governing and taxing people for welfare is ridiculous. We shouldn't be forced to support our poor neighbors. That is not its job. Please don't think with your emotions, think with your brain. [/end spiel]
I feel like this: [-X ](*,)
I'm the person and I'm banging your head against the wall called 'reason'.
-
And again we come back to this ridiculous idea that poor=lazy. And you say that you use reason.
-
But do poor people deserve our hard-earned money?
-
And again we come back to this ridiculous idea that poor=lazy. And you say that you use reason.
Modified. Poor person.
-
see here we go...he's right...we tend to think that poor=lazy. thats not always the case.
do poor people deserve our hard earned money? no. do we deserve Gods hardearned grace? no.
something to think about.
also I see what your saying, the government shouldn't use out taxes to pay for welfare...so it should use them to buy fun new toys and weapons and not to help the poor and needy (legitimately poor)?
just throwing stuff out there.
-
see here we go...he's right...we tend to think that poor=lazy. thats not always the case.
do poor people deserve our hard earned money? no. do we deserve Gods hardearned grace? no.
something to think about.
also I see what your saying, the government shouldn't use out taxes to pay for welfare...so it should use them to buy fun new toys and weapons and not to help the poor and needy (legitimately poor)?
just throwing stuff out there.
Not toys and weapons but just cutting the tax that goes toward welfare and letting charity count toward the taxes you would have to pay anyway. Also I believe the legitimately poor such as the crippled, the blind, the deaf, those incapacitated mentality etc... should be supported, once again by some of the money you would have to pay anyway. I argue against giving money to lazy people. Not people who actually need it survive day-to-day.
-
But the government didn't force God to give us all his grace...
-
no...just saying we shouldn't complain when people want to use our money to help the poor. And I believe it was turin, who had a valid point. Would we really use that money for charity? when it came down to it, would we? or would we spend it on something else.
again gate troll, you are implying that poor people are disabled or lazy. not always the case.
-
But you see, it is not the government's place to decide how much of my money that I work for, should go to people that have less than me. It is not their business.
-
Well, we could help fix up the multiple billions of dollars we have in national debt.
Not like anyone would do that.
Thing is - the government either can't or doesn't care enough to differentiate between people who really need help and people who take advantage of the system.
If the average American could dip into his or her own pocket a little bit more to help the needy, then the government shouldn't have to. That's the point, really - if people were more charitable, we wouldn't have to rely on the government for charity, because that's not really what it's there for.
-
But do poor people deserve our hard-earned money?
Well lets see, what does the Bible say about this.
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33
Notice that it is not "Sell your possessions and give to the poor (if you think they deserve it. If in your infinite wisdom you belive that they're not quite working hard enough, you might as well keep that money for yourself.)
If you were looking at this with a Biblical perspective then you wouldn't be so hung up about YOUR MONEY because its not YOUR MONEY its God's, as is everything you own. If you were really living in the full truth of the gospel you would want to give away your money freely to all who need it more than you do.
-
But do poor people deserve our hard-earned money?
Well lets see, what does the Bible say about this.
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33
Notice that it is not "Sell your possessions and give to the poor (if you think they deserve it. If in your infinite wisdom you belive that they're not quite working hard enough, you might as well keep that money for yourself.)
If you were looking at this with a Biblical perspective then you wouldn't be so hung up about YOUR MONEY because its not YOUR MONEY its God's, as is everything you own. If you were really living in the full truth of the gospel you would want to give away your money freely to all who need it more than you do.
So why haven't you given all your money away? And your computer? You obviously don't live by what you teach if you haven't sold your computer and by the very fact you posted I know you didn't. :cop:
One thing that all Christians can agree on is treating others politely...please try to keep that in mind.
~NB
-
wow gate troll your being an idiot...who knows if he hasn't sold a lot and given it away? we have a bible book of hard questions and says that it means you give freely, and your mindset shouldn't be on the poor.
I've gotta a personal question for you, whens the last time you willingly gave to the poor ( of money that WASNT your tithe money.)
again its as elf lvr said, if we were more charitable, the government wouldn't have to be. but we aren't, so the government needs to be.
let me rephrase that....do you know ANYONE who is living with the principles of what he said, FULLY drawn out...probably not. but do you know anyone who is living with those principles. I've known of some...people who gave money away and relied on god...
-
wow gate troll your being an idiot...who knows if he hasn't sold a lot and given it away? we have a bible book of hard questions and says that it means you give freely, and your mindset shouldn't be on the poor.
I've gotta a personal question for you, whens the last time you willingly gave to the poor ( of money that WASNT your tithe money.)
again its as elf lvr said, if we were more charitable, the government wouldn't have to be. but we aren't, so the government needs to be.
let me rephrase that....do you know ANYONE who is living with the principles of what he said, FULLY drawn out...probably not. but do you know anyone who is living with those principles. I've known of some...people who gave money away and relied on god...
Sorry, it just seemed like a really hypocritical thing to hit me with. It basically said: "If you haven't given your money away you aren't a Christian. Secondly, as I am still in high school and the summer is over, I have no job and I am unable to give what I do not have. To your third point, it is not the government's place to support people whether they be legitimately poor, disabled, widowed, or otherwise.
-
If we, or for that matter any of us are christians, there is no need to raise our voices....
It is not to us to judge what someone should give. The bible says, if your righthand gives something, don't let your lefthand know. Each of us should share what they could. Some can give more than others. I don't think Jesus wanted us to sell everything we have and become poor people. In the chapter that he is talking to the rich young man, he saw that this young man was relying more on gold than God..even when he really wanted to live according to the bible.
Don't be eager to judge other people, lay low, take your own actions, your own words in consideration. Everyone is trusted with certain qualities, capacities, take responsibility for those, for that is what you are asked to do. And if there is something that needs to be said about another, do it mildly, for we need to construct eachother....
-
Actually, I agree with Gate Troll. But what my main issue is that the government is deciding how much of my money goes to other people. It really is not their place to do that kind of thig. You guys need to calm down. Seriously.
-
Actually, I agree with Gate Troll. But what my main issue is that the government is deciding how much of my money goes to other people. It really is not their place to do that kind of thig. You guys need to calm down. Seriously.
I feel like this: [-X ](*,)
I'm the person and I'm banging your head against the wall called 'reason'.
So why haven't you given all your money away? And your computer? You obviously don't live by what you teach if you haven't sold your computer and by the very fact you posted I know you didn't. :cop:
and I'm the one not being calm here?
-
See, SoP, whether you're right or not (and I haven't read the whole thread, so I dunno) about who needs to calm down, that little comment is entirely unnecessary. Just let it go.
Or do I need to separate you guys? :P
-
-Comments removed-
-
Preceding two posts were complete spam...thus, deleted.
Anyways, the points being made are very valid. Let me clarify what exactly is being debated here.
Government Should Provide Welfare:
Private organizations aren't capable of caring for everyone.
Government Shouldn't Provide Welfare:
Government oversteps its bounds by "forcing generosity" on the people.
And then a bunch of irrelevant ad hominem attacks on both sides.
So pretty much, it comes down to these fundamental disagreements.
-
Wow this really got out of hand didn't it. Debating always brings out the overly sarcastic and nasty side of me and I apologise.
-
And NB, to continue: I have an other question:
You say that government should only provide protection for their citizens. And that they should not interfere with other things.
With the current crisis, it shows that the only thing that drives people is greed. Bizar products were constructed to gain even more profit. Should there not be more involvement from the government? Because now people, who aren't even involved are victims of other peoples greed. And thus one might say that we need protection. And we might say that the liberal idea that the market will regulate it self, isn't true.......or don't you agree?
-
And NB, to continue: I have an other question:
You say that government should only provide protection for their citizens. And that they should not interfere with other things.
With the current crisis, it shows that the only thing that drives people is greed. Bizar products were constructed to gain even more profit. Should there not be more involvement from the government?
No. Negative claim is the default, unless you can prove government should be involved, it is assumed that it shouldn't. I'll address your objection.
Because now people, who aren't even involved are victims of other peoples greed. And thus one might say that we need protection. And we might say that the liberal idea that the market will regulate it self, isn't true.......or don't you agree?
Okay. First of all, who got us into the mess? Government! A self-regulating market was going along fine, the greed was being counterbalanced and creating a stable market. Along comes government.
Government: "You must give loans to people who can't afford it."
Banks: "Uh-oh, now these people have loans they can't afford and we're stuck with crummy mortgages, let's turn it over to someone else."
Someone Else: "Well...since this did happen, we gotta turn some money on this (Greed in play here), so let's create some investments out of it, contingent upon these mortgages being paid back."
Gullible Investment People: "Let's invest in THAT!"
People Holding Mortgages: "We can't pay, that's why the government shouldn't have made you give us a loan in the first place."
End result? Well...I bet you know where that led.
So the number one problem IS government involvement. The government, trying to give everyone housing, welfare style, created the problem and crashed the economy. So, if free market practices truly WERE adhered to, none of this would have happened.