Anyone else here a left-leaning libertarian?

[murrayrothbard]

there are so many different schools of libertarianism that it's dizzying to try and take it all in at once. I still don't know WHAT the Heck I am!

That's exactly why the word "libertarianism" is meaningless. same as "capitalism", "socialism", "fascism", etc. Everyone has a different definition which defeats the purporse of language.

For example, if Neal Boortz and Lew Rockwell are both "libertarians", how can anyone say the word has any useful meaning whatsoever??

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

I always thought of myself as somewhere between green and democrat, but left leaning libertarian sounds good.

 

[werdd]

most test's i take make me a right leaning libertarian, prolly because of my immigration views.

 

[alicegardener]

Ill say this then duck my head: I don't have a lot of faith that unfettered capitalism, which is driven by short term profit, will not harm workers (and other people) and the environment. Private charity will help some. I don't know if state governments will have the money to counter the worst abusers among the multi-national corporations and their high powered lawyers. If that makes me a liberal, then yes.

 

[xao]

Or am I a lone wolf among the hardcores?

I'm an independent and Patriot and I've always liked the Classical REPUBLICcan ideas that the founders pushed.

No I don't like federalists/democrats(big central/federal govt) at all and neither did the original republicans.

 

[anotherone]

federal level:

illegal immigration left to states

I agree with you on all points except the one above. I believe we are a sovereign nation and should not have unchecked national borders.

But I see this as a minor topic, and think as a whole, Ron Paul supporters are quite unified in their beliefs.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Ill say this then duck my head: I don't have a lot of faith that unfettered capitalism, which is driven by short term profit, will not harm workers (and other people) and the environment. Private charity will help some. I don't know if state governments will have the money to counter the worst abusers among the multi-national corporations and their high powered lawyers. If that makes me a liberal, then yes.

lol, massive multinational corporations only exist because of the state. Why do you assert that a businessman is only interested in short term profit?

 

[jamesmadison]

The poor would still suffer under a universal health system.

How can you substantiate such a ridiculous statement?

 

[murrayrothbard]

How can you substantiate such a ridiculous statement?

why is that ridiculous? If health care becomes 'free' (as in YOU don't have to pay, but someone else does) it is true that you gain a short-term benefit at another's expense. However, due massive subsidized increase in demand of service coupled with artificially restricted supply the actual price of said service is GUARANTEED to soar. The only way to then keep it 'free' is to ration it out. The removal of all profit and loss signals from the health industry completely and utterly DESTROYS the ability to rationally calculate the proper allocation of capital goods and labor to best meet the consumers demands. Everyone suffers, even those that gained the initial short-term benefit.

Note: This is pretty much a description of how the CURRENT system harms consumers. However universal health care / national health care / whatever can only worsen things in the the long run.

 

[jamesmadison]

why is that ridiculous? If health care becomes 'free' (as in YOU don't have to pay, but someone else does) it is true that you gain a short-term benefit at another's expense. However, due massive subsidized increase in demand of service coupled with artificially restricted supply the actual price of said service is GUARANTEED to soar. The only way to then keep it 'free' is to ration it out. The removal of all profit and loss signals from the health industry completely and utterly DESTROYS the ability to rationally calculate the proper allocation of capital goods and labor to best meet the consumers demands. Everyone suffers, even those that gained the initial short-term benefit.

Uh.. you have government dollars that are come from wealthy and are redistributed for the healthcare of poor. You have companies compete over these government dollars and the one that affords the most care for the least amount of money you award them. No one suffers from universal healthcare.

People suffer from not having healthcare and dying.

 

[anotherone]

Uh.. you have government dollars that are come from wealthy and are redistributed for the healthcare of poor. You have companies compete over these government dollars and the one that affords the most care for the least amount of money you award them. No one suffers from universal healthcare.

People suffer from not having healthcare and dying.

To echo Ron Paul's ideas, we have a personal obligation to help the needy. But the government does not have the right to steal from those who work hard. Therefore, the solution is not forced wealth redistribution, which takes away from personal freedom. When individuals have more of their own money to spend and the healthcare system is free from government control, prices will become more realistic. And charities will receive more money from concerned individuals.

 

[jamesmadison]

To echo Ron Paul's ideas, we have a personal obligation to help the needy. But the government does not have the right to steal from those who work hard. Therefore, the solution is not forced wealth redistribution, which takes away from personal freedom. When individuals have more of their own money to spend and the healthcare system is free from government control, prices will become more realistic. And charities will receive more money from concerned individuals.

Any form of tax is wealth distribution - a tax on the wealthy is not an intrusion on liberties, it's actually ensuring their liberties are protected. A free society cannot exist if members of that society do not have the basic necessities, and the more disparity between the rich and the poor the more liberty is put in peril. A government exists to ensure that individual liberty is not violated and this is one measures that ensures this.

 

[anotherone]

Any form of tax is wealth distribution - a tax on the wealthy is not an intrusion on liberties, it's actually ensuring their liberties are protected. A free society cannot exist if members of that society do not have the basic necessities, and the more disparity between the rich and the poor the more liberty is in peril. A government exists to ensure that individual liberty is not violated and this is one measures that ensures this.

The more government forces wealth equality, the more freedom is lost until we are a communistic society.

Edit: the same arguments could be made by socialists for housing, transportation, etc. We must resist all government meddling in personal liberty.

 

[jamesmadison]

The more government forces wealth equality, the more freedom is lost until we are a communistic society.

I, actually, would say just the opposite. When the disparity between the rich and poor increases, freedom is lost. This is just a fact that the rich profit off the poor(all money is created from labor) and the more they profit the more the poor are exploited. Wealth is a measure of purchasing power and a function of what exists to purchase - thus it is always a relative quantity.

The richest man in the world believes so.

These arguments are proposterous, to say the least. I'm suprised people actually believe this.

 

[xao]

Both of you are correct and have valid points.

 

[murrayrothbard]

No one suffers from universal healthcare.

People suffer from not having healthcare and dying.

Um, don't you suffer if you get robbed?? People die with "healthcare" too. Everybody dies...

 

[anotherone]

I, actually, would say just the opposite. When the disparity between the rich and poor becomes increases, freedom is lost. This is just a fact that the rich profit off the poor(all money is created from labor) and the more they profit the more the poor are exploited. Wealth is a measure of purchasing power and a function of what exists to purchase - thus it is always a relative quality.

The richest man in the world believes so.

These arguments are proposterous, to say the least. I'm suprised people actually believe this.

I see no reason why freedom equates to wealth equality. It is the nature of the people that there is wealth inequality. Some may resent this, but it does not give the government the right to alter this.

The poor may form unions or other collectives to ensure their own well being. There is freedom of association in a free society. Those with enterprising ideas profit from those who freely help enact their ideas. We should not punish those who invent to always create artificial equality.

Question: Who are you voting for in the primary?

 

[murrayrothbard]

I, actually, would say just the opposite. When the disparity between the rich and poor increases, freedom is lost. This is just a fact that the rich profit off the poor(all money is created from labor) and the more they profit the more the poor are exploited. Wealth is a measure of purchasing power and a function of what exists to purchase - thus it is always a relative quantity.

The richest man in the world believes so.

These arguments are proposterous, to say the least. I'm suprised people actually believe this.

Whose freedom is lost? The rich profit off the poor? OMG, read much Marx? Labor Theory of Value? Are you actually serious? Wealth is ENTIRELY subjective.

 

[jamesmadison]

Um, don't you suffer if you get robbed?? People die with "healthcare" too. Everybody dies...

Well, either choose a government or anarchy. You can't have a government and cry that you're getting robbed - it's your own choice.

 

[jamesmadison]

Whose freedom is lost? The rich profit off the poor? OMG, read much Marx? Labor Theory of Value? Are you actually serious? Wealth is ENTIRELY subjective.

That's your refutation?