Libertarianism? Lets play devils advocate...

[Nic4Truth]

How many here consider themselves libertarians? I have done a bit of research lately on libertarianism, Ron really does sound like he falls into this category/philosophy to a large degree. (wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). I like and agree with many philosophies of libertarianism, but, there are of course, arguments and criticisms against libertarianism, some of which i think make sense as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_libertarianism). Im trying to figure out where I stand on this (big government, small government) and was wondering if you think Ron should not of leaned quite so hard toward libertarian ideaology and mabye he would have convinced more main streamers? Just a thought. How many of you here have researched the pros and cons of this type of government? In a way, I do wonder if it would better our country or not.

Would you say that Ron sways more toward fusionism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)) Also, he does agree with laissez-faire capitalism- NO? How would this prevent monopolies from taking over?

Next question- I am in Real Estate. I have been wanting to ask this for a while. My husband is also, he has good arguments for this... but im curious as to what you all have to say. Would Ron kill the Real Estate market? Would he kill Real Estate jobs? And how would that be a good thing for the economy?

I love Dr. Paul, and a hard core supporter, but I suppose I just am curious about these issues still. I want to feel more comfortable with them, even at this point i guess.

 

[Knut Schreiber]

I cannot comment on everything you brought up, but I want to say a few things to some issues.

Im trying to figure out where I stand on this (big government, small government) and was wondering if you think Ron should not of leaned quite so hard toward libertarian ideaology and mabye he would have convinced more main streamers?

That's what your usual politician does. He looks at the polls and tells the people what he thinks THEY want to hear. Ron Paul doesn't do that. He tells them what HE thinks and tries to convince them. He is not adjusting his views to please the voters. And I like that. This makes winning elections more difficult. But Ron Paul is not about winning elections. He is about principles. Elections are just a vehicle for them. Without those principles the vehicle is useless for him.

Also, he does agree with laissez-faire capitalism- NO? How would this prevent monopolies from taking over?

That's a common argument. There is no guarantee that there won't be monopolies at some time and at some place. But what is the answer to this? Most people who use this argument want to establish the fact that government and state are necessary. But, ironically, there is no bigger monopoly than the state. The state itself is a huge monopoly.

In my opinion most monopolies are organisations of the state, directly related to the state or result of state intervention (for example Intellectual Property Rights).

 

[Fox McCloud]

Ron Pauls statements and things he's said tend to make him not just a Libertarian, but an extremist Libertarian--on par with Minarchism, as he thinks the government shouldn't provide many services, except defense, courts, etc--this is at the Federal level.

at the State level, it appears he has the same views, but leans a little more towards paleoLibertarianism, which means you lean slightly towards social conservatism (no to gay marriage, no to abortion, etc) at the State and only State level.

So, I'd say that at the Federal level, Ron's a minarchist...and at the State level--PaleoLibertarian.....so, overall, yeah, I'd say he's solidly in the Libertarian bracket *shrug* he may be, overall a Anarcho-Capitalist (Murray Rothbard is apparently someone he admires...and he was an advocate for such an ideology), but realizes it's impractical to implement at this time....still I doubt this, and stick with my former statements.

Ron shouldn't change his principals just to win votes--I would be very skeptical of him if he were changing his positions.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I like and agree with many philosophies of libertarianism, but, there are of course, arguments and criticisms against libertarianism, some of which i think make sense as well.

The issue is - is it logical? If 2 + 2 = 4, then you can argue against it and criticize it all you like, but it's still a logical truth.

Libertarianism purports that every adult individual has the right to engage in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities. Government only steps in if someone or some group initiates force, fraud or coercion.

Every one of us is a self-owner, and we have the right to engage in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities. That is a logical truth.

 

[Kade]

How many here consider themselves libertarians? I have done a bit of research lately on libertarianism, Ron really does sound like he falls into this category/philosophy to a large degree. (wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). I like and agree with many philosophies of libertarianism, but, there are of course, arguments and criticisms against libertarianism, some of which i think make sense as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_libertarianism). Im trying to figure out where I stand on this (big government, small government) and was wondering if you think Ron should not of leaned quite so hard toward libertarian ideaology and mabye he would have convinced more main streamers? Just a thought. How many of you here have researched the pros and cons of this type of government? In a way, I do wonder if it would better our country or not.

Would you say that Ron sways more toward fusionism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)) Also, he does agree with laissez-faire capitalism- NO? How would this prevent monopolies from taking over?

Next question- I am in Real Estate. I have been wanting to ask this for a while. My husband is also, he has good arguments for this... but im curious as to what you all have to say. Would Ron kill the Real Estate market? Would he kill Real Estate jobs? And how would that be a good thing for the economy?

I love Dr. Paul, and a hard core supporter, but I suppose I just am curious about these issues still. I want to feel more comfortable with them, even at this point i guess.

Libertarianism is not good for state levels and local levels of government. I believe in a Federal Government that protects civil liberties first and foremost, with a collective state effort towards National Security... I think there is far too much big government influence in things that should be left to the states....

 

[Bruno]

I think there is far too much big government influence in things that should be left to the states....

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, whether it is on an individual or organizational level.

 

[Liberté]

How many here consider themselves libertarians? I have done a bit of research lately on libertarianism, Ron really does sound like he falls into this category/philosophy to a large degree. (wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). I like and agree with many philosophies of libertarianism, but, there are of course, arguments and criticisms against libertarianism, some of which i think make sense as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_libertarianism). Im trying to figure out where I stand on this (big government, small government) and was wondering if you think Ron should not of leaned quite so hard toward libertarian ideaology and mabye he would have convinced more main streamers? Just a thought. How many of you here have researched the pros and cons of this type of government? In a way, I do wonder if it would better our country or not.

Would you say that Ron sways more toward fusionism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)) Also, he does agree with laissez-faire capitalism- NO? How would this prevent monopolies from taking over?

Next question- I am in Real Estate. I have been wanting to ask this for a while. My husband is also, he has good arguments for this... but im curious as to what you all have to say. Would Ron kill the Real Estate market? Would he kill Real Estate jobs? And how would that be a good thing for the economy?

I love Dr. Paul, and a hard core supporter, but I suppose I just am curious about these issues still. I want to feel more comfortable with them, even at this point i guess.

I disagree, I think Paul falls into the Constitution Party, even the Republican Party... not much of a connection with the LP. Not really sure why he ran for President under their party in 88'. It really hurt his run, once a candidate associates themselves with the LP they pretty much give up all creditability.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I disagree, I think Paul falls into the Constitution Party, even the Republican Party... not much of a connection with the LP. Not really sure why he ran for President under their party in 88'. It really hurt his run, once a candidate associates themselves with the LP they pretty much give up all creditability.

I agree...though I think he's a little more Libertarian than most Constitution Party candidates.

I have a feeling the reason why he never ran as a Libertarian again is because of the way the LP has gone....it's not consistent, and if you balk at ANY of their ideas, then you must not be Libertarian....Ron balks at a few (gay marriage, abortion [though there are "pro-life Libertarians"], illegal immigration, etc)....so this is probably why he didn't run again.

Oh well, really, I'm glad.

 

[ErikBlack]

Libertarianism sounds good in theory. It has never been tried in practice on a large scale for an extended period of time. No-one knows what the result of libertarian style government would be. It would be a grand experiment. My guess is that, once established, it would quickly begin trending back toward socialism and large government. Government grows, that is what it does, like a virus or a cancer. You can set it back a notch but all it does is start growing again.

 

[misterbig]

Leave me the fuck alone to do my thing, and I won't put a bullet up your ass.

 

[nayjevin]

Would Ron kill the Real Estate market? Would he kill Real Estate jobs? And how would that be a good thing for the economy?

in all industries, the jobs that would go away under a ron paul presidency are only those that exist as a result of government intervention in the free market. government intervention in the free market is always immoral, as it first steals money to implement, and then benefits some more than others.

as i understand it, status quo gov't creates money out of thin air to prop up loans that were not given based on the borrower's actual ability to pay. it isn't moral for gov't to do so - as this devaluates the dollars already in circulation -- therefore ron paul would work to end the practice. the result will be detrimental only to those who previously profited (by employment or business ownership in the industry, or by getting a too-good-to-be-true loan) on the existing, immoral practice.

fractional reserve banking results in much suffering while it exists -- focusing on the people who suffer when it ends is missing the big picture, methinks.

 

[Nic4Truth]

Thanks for all the good responses. I dont have a ton of time right now, but...

Regarding the most recent comment, about the Real estate market- my husband said that it would suffer temporarily, but under RP Banks would compete, so naturally, the market would work out competitive rates and things would not get out of hand... and if anything, would be more fair. I dont know how I feel about that. I mean, whos to stop one bank from charging 30% interest for a mortgage if people are suckered into getting it? My conclusion was- federal loans would go away, but loans and mortgages wouldn't cease, since banks would be forced to actually compete. So things would get worse before they got better, but eventually, the banks compete and in the long run things are much better.

thats all i can say for now... thanks again!

 

[Cal for Paul]

Libertarianism sounds good in theory. It has never been tried in practice on a large scale for an extended period of time. No-one knows what the result of libertarian style government would be.

Ron Paul himself has said that the best example of Libertarianism was USA (pre-1913). America 1776-1913 has to be seen as the most successful social experiment in human history. The only problem with that era was that the right to be free wasn't respected enough, and by that I mean that the people had no right to own slaves and government did have a responsibility to stop that and protect EVERYONE's freedom.

Hong Kong in the 80's and 90's was very free market friendly and it prospered as well.

Libertarianism works, and especially on the federal level there really is no other way to have a successful government.

I feel pretty good about the free market solving every problem better without government. The only thing where I think the free market might be slow to react is with the environment. Now I am into the environmental hysteria, I don't support Kyoto. However I know in theory it is possible to pollute and usually the market might not provide the incentive to stop polluting. Unfortunately government (the left) uses the environment as a political tool to scare people in the same way that the right uses terrorism as a scare tactic.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

However I know in theory it is possible to pollute and usually the market might not provide the incentive to stop polluting.

Extending private property rights however, would provide incentive to stop polluting.

 

[Kludge]

Leave me the fuck alone to do my thing, and I won't put a bullet up your ass.

That's the most American statement I've ever heard. Run for office, please.

Hong Kong in the 80's and 90's was very free market friendly and it prospered as well.

I'm not an expert (or even very knowledgeable) regarding global economics, but doesn't Hong Kong have one of the most free economies in the world?

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[josephadel_3]

Most of those criticisms are garbage. The ony good one, in my opinion, is the one regarding the environment. I was always dissappointed with Ron Paul's stance on the environment, although it is decent. Like another poster said, it is unfortunate the left uses global warming as an excuse to increase the size of government. But I do think it is necessary for Governors and state legislatures to impose regulations on emissions and waste. Say all of a sudden, New York puts regulations on emmissions and it works really well and growth isn't stifled. Other states could use that as an example.

"Libertarianism is short-sighted?" How so? It worked great over a hundred years in this country. The only reason it doesn't work long term is because government continues to increase its size during the libertarian period.

The argument and criticism from the right that morals need to be the government's responsibility is garbage. If government wasn't so involved in morals, maybe people might be free to develop their own. And since people are inherently good, most morality would be good by nature.

The argument from the left that wealth will be concentrated and create a wealthy elite is also garbage. The government we have now is close to authoritarian, social fascism. There is already a wealthy elite in this country and other socialist countries. One that allowed free trade and property rights would encourage free redistrubution of wealth through an elevated job market as we can see evident in pre-1913 America.

The argument that only rich wealthy snobs are libertarians is also garbage. I'm a starving student. I don't expect handouts. I take financial aid and grants because the system is designed so that I have to. We can barely afford to heat our home this winter and we consider ourselves libertarian. Yes, please government take from someone else because I'm uncomfortable. The solution to greed is not to make it difficult to save. The solution to greed is to foster savings, as a true capitalist government does. Because when people are allowed to save, they become more generous and less afraid of debt, and less afraid they won't have enough money, because they know they have plenty in the bank. Bullshit criticisms.

 

[NaT805]

Would you say that Ron sways more toward fusionism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)) Also, he does agree with laissez-faire capitalism- NO? How would this prevent monopolies from taking over?

A monopoly isn't evil. In a free market monopolies can only exist by the consent of the people. If a monoply happened in a free market it would be because they provide the best service, for the best price. Which would not be bad. Assuming monoplies are bad is anti-capitalistic in nature. Monoplies are only evil when they're created WITHOUT the consent of the people.

 

[abruzz0]

You're worried about monopolies under a Paul presidency?

Take a look around, and see all the government monopolies we currently have

 

[josephadel_3]

bump