So... how libertarian are you... really? Libertarian Purity Test! ***

[ClayTrainor]

Dr. Paul is a pretty hardcore libertarian; let us keep in mind, he has signed a manifesto devoted to ultimately abolishing all federal welfare, he wants to end all federal drug prohibitions, end all foreign interventionism, abolish the income tax, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish several federal departments, etc. I expect he would land about 95 at the lowest, and possibly as high as, say, 120.

I would argue that Ron Paul is easily the closest to a libertarian anarchist that a politician has ever been.

 

[farrar]

But here a salient issue is what is to be adverted. Taxes - OK, I'm on board. But what of murder laws? I am somewhat in favor of them because they seem to me to be eminently reasonable, though I am open to counter arguments as to why they are not.



We are in full agreement on this point. Not paying a tax is not a crime, all labeling to the contrary notwithstanding. Robbing a bank, however, is and persons engaging in such actions must be held accountable for their actions lest the world fall into even greater chaos.



Once again this is the defacto truth, but things could be different. That they are not is a reflection of humanity and not of the concepts of governance. Governance per sé is not the problem - people are.



And in that society you will still have those who will do their best to master you. When things come down to brass tacks, your ability to wreak untold violence upon such persons is the only reasonable guarantee that you will be able to keep them at bay, and even then you are always at risk. How else would you protect your rights in such a culture, particularly if there was a large and powerful group interfering with you? How would you protect your rights? Help from neighbors? Perhaps, but what if those neighbors were not interested in getting involved? In the end, these matters always boil down to force and the threat thereof - they HAVE to because of the nature of humanity. When push comes to shove, force is the only thing people will respect, and if you do not have enough force you are SOL.

Consider all the lunatic groups in the world. Imagine how long would an ancap society last with kooks like fundamentalist christians, muslims and jews, just to name three? No matter how you pose the arguments and rhetoric, once the cuffs come off there will be virtually instantaneous activity arising by such groups to force the rest to toe their line of beliefs. Communists, socialists, environmentalists, creationists, evolutionists.... you name it, will immediately get to work to attempt to force everyone else into their vision of how life ought to be lived. This is absolutely guaranteed to happen. What then? Force. Force and its threat is all that stands between any given person and tyranny. There is nothing else because people who are hell bent on making you do as they bid will not likely be swayed by your pretty logic or heart rending emotional appeals. The prospect of a bullet between the eyes, however, gets their attention rather instantly.

Even an ancap society would require a broadly agreed upon framework of enforcement to best ensure that one group is unable to interfere with the rightful choices of others. Until the fundamental character of the human animal changes drastically in what I daresay is a better direction, the sword of Damocles in the form of the threat of possibly violent and overwhelming force must be held over the heads of every man, woman, and child, for without this the world would descend into madness in the blink of an eye. It takes but a tiny proportion of people acting along a common line to wreak untold havoc upon the rest. NAZI Germany and the soviet union are two excellent examples of this.



This presents some problems. For example, you join a group that lives in a clearly delineated part of a large city. That group chooses to have no law whatsoever. Murder and mayhem and anything else goes. Fine by me so long as all participants are willing and well-informed. But what happens when a shootout sends bullets into an adjacent neighborhood, killing someone? What now? Are those people not to be held accountable for having involved unwilling parties in their violence? If not, then we would be living in pure chaos and this would become very bad and would absolutely end up in some form of feudalism as each group would inevitably have to seek to protect itself against every other - and you can completely forget about individualism. That would become forgotten history because all who decided to go it alone would be eaten alive by one of the predatory groups.

As we see, there must be a baseline standard to which all must adhere, the threat of force being always present to ensure that the standard line is toed. The real issue for the question of personal liberty is not whether such a baseline exists, but what is its nature and the specifics of its implementation. We simply cannot escape this requirement in order to live freely and justly amongst each other. In other words, we as a group of individuals must agree to, accept, and abide by some set of fundamental precepts and limitations in order to enjoy a broader freedom with the guarantees and protections that those freedoms will not be violated. It is seemingly somewhat paradoxical that this would be so, but this is how it must be. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I am more than willing to be convinced to some contrary position.



It is used out of laziness, ignorance, and perhaps even malice in some cases. Wrong is wrong, and when wrong resides at this fundamental a level it becomes a very dangerous thing because it distorts everything that has been built upon it.



In a sense, yes, but it behooves us to understand clearly that there are other aspects to "quantity" where this is either not so, or it is justifiably so. Human affairs tend to run toward the diverse and not-so-simple. Keeping all of these sorts of things straight in one's thoughts is not an easy thing, but it is IMO a very important thing, for as the saying goes the devil is in the details. Many vitally important things that seem to be relatively insignificant details get lost in the currents of other, seemingly larger and more important issues. This is a very dangerous phenomenon and people should not only be aware of it, but should endeavor not to fall victim to the lure of easier answers that ignore such important "details".

Right, Anarchy doesn't mean no laws, it means no government... literally no ruler. This is a common mistake, possibly based on the misunderstanding of the orgin (and consequently the meaning of law). Law does not originate from the latin lex, meaning the dictation of rulers, but from the germanic word lag, meaning order. Anarchists do not oppose order, they embrace it, The circle around the A in the anarchist symbol is actually an "O" for order.

The way order comes about is natural through our social interactions with one another. Much like how the free market regulates itself, so to does human action in the social sector. Murder would be dealt with either by market options or by concerned family, friends, and community members. These all work together to prevent murder as well as carry out justice. Police and courts are possible market options.

What I don't understand is you continuously reference the idea that man will descend into chaos, with murder and theft rampant without government and feel that the answer then must be a government of men, specifically one of good character. Let me be the first to tell you that I do not think men are angels, nor do I see them as demons. What confuses me is there seems to be a double standard with you. Men are demons without government, but angels in government. I contest to say men are men. In an ancap society men interact socially in the same way they do economically. There are incentives and disincentives for actions such as theft and murder. Law is not inexistent as you seem to think, it is all that matters. Law is the result of social relationships and economic services. Anarco-capitalism has done what a constitutional republic could not... it enables the law to rule, not the men who write them. There is no utopian system with an imperfect being, I merely believe that the closer government is to the individual and the more choice he has in it the better. whether that system is better or not in your eyes is irrelevant, forcing me to contribute to your monolithic government of Angels I think are demons is immoral by my standards. I'm not among the common utilitarian folk found in the libertarian movement, its too demanding of centralization and command structures for my liberty tastes. I believe in mutual contract of empathy, and that sets the stage for anarco-capitalism being the only moral system, if one chooses to believe in it.

 

[Batman]

There is a need for services, period.

The question is, are services provided better by a coercive monopoly, or a competitive market?

Obviously a competitive market beats a monopoly any day. That doesn't mean I want to privatize my President, the Supreme Court, or Congress.

How many dollars have to be destroyed, before you stop trusting government with money? How many people have to be kidnapped and murdered by the state, before you stop trusting governments with justice?

Honestly, justice is a concept that transcends the government as well as the private sector. But someone has to provide the legal definition of Rights that all citizens can agree to - which the Constitution does.

What flavor of statism do you drink?

The Constitution is fine by me. At least there's 10 rules in there I can agree to follow.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s

I was actually referring to the Judge, but I like Ron Paul too. I just don't see how he's going to abolish the Constitution if that's really what his goal is, seeing as how he consistently votes to uphold it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Obviously a competitive market beats a monopoly any day. That doesn't mean I want to privatize my President, the Supreme Court, or Congress.

There's no need in a market for politicians, lobbyists and dictators.

Honestly, justice is a concept that transcends the government as well as the private sector. But someone has to provide the legal definition of Rights that all citizens can agree to - which the Constitution does.

All citizens? Does that mean every single citizen agreed to the constitution? How many people signed it?

The Constitution is fine by me. At least there's 10 rules in there I can agree to follow.

You're just talking about the bill of rights though, and I'll agree that it's the best part of the constitution. The rest of it is absolute crap.

There's a lot more than 10 rules in the constitution, many of them I do not agree with, for example...

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes".​

I do not agree that the people in "congress" are entitled to anything I've earned, not even Ron Paul, as much as I love the man. What do you think should happen to me if i refuse to give it to them??

I was actually referring to the Judge, but I like Ron Paul too. I just don't see how he's going to abolish the Constitution if that's really what his goal is, seeing as how he consistently votes to uphold it.

He votes to limit and shrink government, and uses the constitution as a tool to do so. IMO, It's futile to try and shrink the state through politics, but it provides a platform for spreading the message of liberty and free-markets.

I doubt that anyone has grown the readership of the Austrian School of Economics more than Ron Paul, in recent history.

 

[Wesker1982]

I just don't see how he's going to abolish the Constitution if that's really what his goal is, seeing as how he consistently votes to uphold it.

Voting consistent with the constitution is usually voting for less government. If your only choices are a vote between A.more government and B. less government (constitution), its logical to vote for the constitution.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm


edit:

In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.

Ⓥ


edit 2:

In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.

In short, Ron Paul is the master vacuum salesman.

 

[The One]

99

 

[ChrisDiamond]

117

 

[PBrady]

Dr. Paul is a pretty hardcore libertarian; let us keep in mind, he has signed a manifesto devoted to ultimately abolishing all federal welfare, he wants to end all federal drug prohibitions, end all foreign interventionism, abolish the income tax, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish several federal departments, etc. I expect he would land about 95 at the lowest, and possibly as high as, say, 120. Rand, on the other hand, might be substantially lower down the scale, at least if he were to answer in accordance with the positions he adopted after entering electoral politics.

Yeah, but I voted for all of those things, and yet scored a 69. Too many of those questions, though, were absolutes dealing with all or nothing scenarios, and I just couldn't justify saying "yes".

 

[osan]

According to the Constitution - yes.

One of the profound weaknesses of an eminently flawed, if otherwise pretty, document.

Theft is either theft or it is not. Which is it? There is nothing in between. Expropriating one man's property against his will is theft no matter who is doing it or for what purpose. Therefore, you are either OK with theft or you are not because there is absolutely nothing in between. If you are OK with it, then you must be OK with it for everyone and not just some arbitrarily chosen group. Otherwise you would be either a hypocrite or a psychotic, in which either case your opinions on the matter could not be taken as credible by any sane, rational, and minimally intelligent person. If you do not see this, then simply strip away all labels such as "government", which serve only to obfuscate the underlying truth.

Look at it in a simple way - perhaps an example is in order. Imagine a commercial jet crashes into the sea and 100 passengers survive, making it to a nice but uncharted desert island where discovery and rescue is guaranteed not to ever happen and everyone recognizes this.

For whatever reason, be it cultural or what have you, those people decide to institute a "government" with 10 offices: president, a 5-member senate, and 4 cops. They institute a tax system to fund public works (e.g. shelter). One of those 100 people want to have nothing to do with any of it, yet the enforcers (cops) come and at the ends of pointy sticks take that person's "fair share" from him even though he protest peaceably, if unequivocally. Would you support such action? Would you deem it as anything other than theft? If so, on what non-arbitrary basis? The basis must be non-arbitrary in order to be valid. I contend that any such basis is inherently arbitrary WRT the the objective standard of human life and is therefore invalid at its very roots. Can you validly refute this position? If so, please present your proof because I would be most sincerely interested in seeing how it could be so. My mind is open.

 

[Travlyr]

One of the profound weaknesses of an eminently flawed, if otherwise pretty, document.

Theft is either theft or it is not. Which is it? There is nothing in between. Expropriating one man's property against his will is theft no matter who is doing it or for what purpose. Therefore, you are either OK with theft or you are not because there is absolutely nothing in between. If you are OK with it, then you must be OK with it for everyone and not just some arbitrarily chosen group. Otherwise you would be either a hypocrite or a psychotic, in which either case your opinions on the matter could not be taken as credible by any sane, rational, and minimally intelligent person. If you do not see this, then simply strip away all labels such as "government", which serve only to obfuscate the underlying truth.

Look at it in a simple way - perhaps an example is in order. Imagine a commercial jet crashes into the sea and 100 passengers survive, making it to a nice but uncharted desert island where discovery and rescue is guaranteed not to ever happen and everyone recognizes this.

For whatever reason, be it cultural or what have you, those people decide to institute a "government" with 10 offices: president, a 5-member senate, and 4 cops. They institute a tax system to fund public works (e.g. shelter) farming and hunting. One of those 100 people want to have nothing to do with any of it, yet the enforcers (cops) come and at the ends of pointy sticks take that person's "fair share" from him to force him to help even though he protest peaceably, if unequivocally. Would you support such action? Would you deem it as anything other than theft? If so, on what non-arbitrary basis? The basis must be non-arbitrary in order to be valid. I contend that any such basis is inherently arbitrary WRT the the objective standard of human life and is therefore invalid at its very roots. Can you validly refute this position? If so, please present your proof because I would be most sincerely interested in seeing how it could be so. My mind is open.

Good question with no simple answers.

While your scenario constitutes obvious theft with the threat of violence not everybody will voluntarily pitch-in to contribute, but they will still expect benefits. So what do you do? Keep him out of the shelter during the ice storm? Keep him from the table if he doesn't help; let him starve? What if one of the members is blind or crippled? Then what? Who feeds the orphaned child? Whoever steps up to the plate to feed the indigent is taxed unfairly ... unless everybody does.

The story of the little red hen comes to mind.

Life is not free from effort, and humans are not self-dependent. Keeping taxation as small as possible with no penalty for avoidance is a laudable goal. But no organized government with no taxation wouldn't be much fun or compassionate.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I am okay with theft, as long as it benefits the greater good, and not capable people. I put limits on how much is acceptable, and I would put a limit on how far I would go to punish someone who did not pay. A world of 10% total taxation would be peaceful, fulfilling, and fun, imo.

"There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Echoes]

160.

I dont believe in any monopolies, especially one on force/security. Competition is imperative to producing quality and cost, if the State allowed competition to all their services they'd go out of biz mad quick.

 

[osan]

Good question with no simple answers.

While your scenario constitutes obvious theft with the threat of violence not everybody will voluntarily pitch-in to contribute, but they will still expect benefits.

How do you know this? What about those that do not?

So what do you do? Keep him out of the shelter during the ice storm? Keep him from the table if he doesn't help; let him starve?

That is a possibility. It would be the right of those who paid to deny those who did not. Waiving denial is equally their right.

What if one of the members is blind or crippled?

What of it? Nobody is obliged to help another. That we choose to anyway speaks well of our kindness.

Who feeds the orphaned child?

Dopes such as myself.... or nobody. Probably not nobody, but some volunteer. Shall we employ threats of force and violence?

Whoever steps up to the plate to feed the indigent is taxed unfairly ... unless everybody does.

Life isn't fair. If you choose, it is on you. Your choices are not binding upon me. Why not make me pay for the car you bought but could not afford? In principle it is precisely the same thing.

Life is not free from effort

An irrelevant issue. We are each free to choose how to devote our efforts including the choice not to devote them to anyone other than ourselves. It seems as though you are contriving to justify theft and the use of violence to force behavior upon those who have committed no crime.

and humans are not self-dependent.

And how is that relevant to the issue at hand?

But no organized government with no taxation wouldn't be much fun or compassionate.

But what we have is?

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I am okay with theft, as long as it benefits the greater good,

You are? OK. I am not. May I take it that you are OK with threatening me with violence and death if I refuse to comply?

and not capable people.

And how is capable determined? Who determines it? How are they chosen? What are the qualifications? Who determines those? Who determines the standard of judgment? By what moral standard is the presumption itself justified? As you see, such a seemingly simple issue raises many difficult questions, the litany of which could go on for quite a bit longer.

I put limits on how much is acceptable, and I would put a limit on how far I would go to punish someone who did not pay. A world of 10% total taxation would be peaceful, fulfilling, and fun, imo.

And in my opinion that is, at the very least, 9% too much, if not 10.

"There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

That is not very convincing.

 

[ClayTrainor]

160.

I dont believe in any monopolies, especially one on force/security. Competition is imperative to producing quality and cost, if the State allowed competition to all their services they'd go out of biz mad quick.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[wormyguy]

Was 141 IIRC, now am 160.

 

[Doug8796]

I am a Constitutionalist first, then Libertarian. So I couldn't have privately hired police.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I am a Constitutionalist first, then Libertarian. So I couldn't have privately hired police.

So should we all be forced to pay for your idea of police, under the threat of violence?

 

[Travlyr]

But what we have is?

No. Taxation at 50 or 60% is not fun or compassionate. This is the only question of yours I feel compelled to answer because after spending a lifetime of ~ 50% taxation a limited government of 10% (as suggested by Ron Paul) would be a wonderful welcome orderly change. It is possible when Dr. Paul finally gets enough supporters who actually understand what he writes, says, and teaches.

 

[erowe1]

143

 

[Wesker1982]

No. Taxation at 50 or 60% is not fun or compassionate. This is the only question of yours I feel compelled to answer because after spending a lifetime of ~ 50% taxation a limited government of 10% (as suggested by Ron Paul) would be a wonderful welcome orderly change.

But how will the poor be taken care of on only 10%?

 

[Travlyr]

But how will the poor be taken care of on only 10%?

Redistribution of wealth is not a proper function of government. Virtually everyone can have opportunity if allowed which would also give them purpose. The poor could find opportunity and purpose in free markets, if the powers-that-be would just let them. Plus, I advocate for the federal government to give-up much of their western land holdings by homesteading it out to people who want it. Prosperity would abound if people were given land and they were allowed to grow industrial hemp and industrialize hemp products.

There will always be some indigent people that cannot perform menial tasks, and I have no problem with being taxed to help them out. If 10% is good enough for God, then it should be enough to cover the legitimate functions of an organized society.