Social Libertarian?

[FunkBuddha]

Just curious

Just curious, electronicmaji, how much did you give to medical charities like St. Jude Children's Hospital last year?

 

[Dr.3D]

Since true liberty in any society comes, ultimately, from God (because He gives us our unalienable rights) when we obey His commandments and laws, I consider myself a social libertarian, based on these two moral precepts:

1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

2. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Social libertarianism is based on love, and only true love comes from God.

Then, you shouldn't be worried! People who love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, would love their neighbor as themselves and thus, they would help each other as needed. There would be no need for the government to get involved in any way.

 

[mosquitobite]

Basic goods are not taxable but something has to be taxed. Its unrealistic to havea goverment that doesn't tax things. I think luxury goods like recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco ought to be taxed. I think its completely realistic for the goverment to tax some things like those. And I also think that health is a right.

Yes taxation is theft. But you can't do away with all taxation thats anarchy. People have a right to health and there is no getting around that. Sorry.

So let me understand this... you support taxation, you support "free" (HA!) healthcare for the poor...

Why DO you support Dr Paul electronicmaji? Please explain which of his positions you do support, and why so that we can get some insight.

Also, just for the record, Dr Paul despises national healthcare. And please don't expect the man to change his position come Jan 2009 when you charge to Washington "I voted for you and I demand you support my position!"

If you want to believe he's like other politicians and will change his mind, then I suggest you vote for Hillary instead.

 

[electronicmaji]

Ron Paul isn't against taxation. Hes only against the irs and excessive taxation at a federal level. Now you can all be anarchists but I believe that taxations are a neccesary evil. While we should not tax basic goods like food and gas and things people need to survive luxury items should be taxed.

I also beleive that the poor have a right to health.

I haven't given any money to charity ever. My family makes less than 20 thousand dollars a year and I have 3 brothers and sisters. I am also the first member of my family to go to college.

 

[Eponym_mi]

I haven't given any money to charity ever.

I've given $4500 so far this year to non-religious charities, 90% of that to a cancer support organization. You might prefer to tell me the how and who in respect to my contributions, but I'm very capable of deciding these things on my own quite well, thank you. You see, I really don't need you or government telling me where my money should go. I'll evaluate the needs of my community and act accordingly.

I'm sure you mean well, but you really have no business telling anyone what to do with their money. If this is an important issue to you, I suggest you contribute or volunteer.

BTW...imagine if I didn't have to pay 3 times that amount in taxes.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, i'm just a rational thinker.

1) the constitution does not guarantee liberty and should not be referenced when discussing liberty.
2) federal armies are a form of socialism.

rational thinker? lol. You have no faith in the market, be honest with yourself.

 

[Zack]

I hope everyone on this board is smart enough to know that Ron Paul NEEDS the votes of MANY people who support forced socialism, to win the primaries, or at least the general election. Yes, changing people's view of how government should work is the long term goal, but President Paul's term(s) will be but the first step of many. That road is long, if it exists at all (on a National level).

And there are MANY reasons for socialists to vote for Ron Paul... the obvious ones are that (if you really look at it) he's the only anti-corporatist anti-war candidate out there... but you can even take it further. Take California:

He's running for federal office, not state office. If the FEDERAL government had stayed at constitutional levels for the past 200 years, wouldn't states like California have used their relative power to try out ideas like say, socialized medicine by now, without trying to drag other states into the mud with them? Heck, they probably would have done it in the 1980/70's!! And do you think they would have let their border get out of control if they knew they had to pay for lifelong socialized medice for millions of Mexicans? No, they would have sealed the borders tight as crazy to prevent it. Domino effect.

Would it be a Utopia for socialists or would it be so inefficient by comparison to the other states, that econimic/moral reasons would cause them to drop their ideas? In any event, they'd be better off then they are now. Right now, freedom is outlawed by both the federal government, and the governments of the countries we compete with, so socialists can make claims about who would be hurt, and not have to back it up statistically.

Of corse, Ron Paul makes his views very clear:

In a free society, an individual benefits from wise and frugal decisions and suffers the consequences of bad judgment and wasteful habits. The state should neither guarantee nor tax success, nor compensate those who fail. The individual must be responsible for all of his decisions. Because some suffer from acts outside of their control, we cannot justify the use of violence to take from someone else to "help out." People in need are not excused when they rob their neighbors, and government should not be excused when it does the robbing for them. Providing for the general welfare means that the general conditions of freedom must be maintained. It should never be used to justify specific welfare or any transfer of wealth from one person to another.

-Ron Paul, "Freedom Under Siege"

 

[Sey.Naci]

See I don't think one should have to rely on charity to fufill a basic right.

Much of the problem is with the understanding and definition of 'rights'.

You are talking of positive rights as 'basic' rights. They aren't. These so-called rights have been decreed by, for example, supra-national bodies such as the United Nations. They are not god-given or held by us by virtue of our being born (I put it that way to cover the theists and non-theists among us).

We are born with life. Life, essentially, is the only right we have and with it comes the defense of our lives (and by extrapolation, liberty and the fruits of our labour) should anyone try to take it away - this is why negative rights is the term used to describe this type of right.

The rights you are talking about are positive rights, which by their very nature involve the trespassing of the negative rights of others - to take away from their liberty (by, e.g., legislating what they can and cannot do) and the fruits of their labour, both in order to provide for others.

In other words, everyone has negative rights. To encroach upon the negative rights of some in order to provide positive rights to others is wrong.

 

[Theocrat]

A Good Observation

Then, you shouldn't be worried! People who love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, would love their neighbor as themselves and thus, they would help each other as needed. There would be no need for the government to get involved in any way.

I agree with your observation, Dr.3D, except, as a social libertarian, I do believe that civil government has divine legitimacy to restrain evil and protect the innocent by enforcement of the law (Romans 13:1-4; I Timothy 2:1, 2). Justice and righteousness are hallmarks of any civil government because they reflect the character and love of God.

 

[electronicmaji]

Much of the problem is with the understanding and definition of 'rights'.

You are talking of positive rights as 'basic' rights. They aren't. These so-called rights have been decreed by, for example, supra-national bodies such as the United Nations. They are not god-given or held by us by virtue of our being born (I put it that way to cover the theists and non-theists among us).

We are born with life. Life, essentially, is the only right we have and with it comes the defense of our lives (and by extrapolation, liberty and the fruits of our labour) should anyone try to take it away - this is why negative rights is the term used to describe this type of right.

The rights you are talking about are positive rights, which by their very nature involve the trespassing of the negative rights of others - to take away from their liberty (by, e.g., legislating what they can and cannot do) and the fruits of their labour, both in order to provide for others.

In other words, everyone has negative rights. To encroach upon the negative rights of some in order to provide positive rights to others is wrong.

I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

 

[user]

I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

In that case, you do not believe in basic property rights, and you are not a libertarian. Do you agree?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I disagree I think those are basic rights. You can feel free to disagree with me but I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

Basic rights? Government provides poor healthcare. More like a right for the government to burden people and imprison doctors.

 

[Eponym_mi]

I think your wrong and I will always support these as basic rights...

Don't forget your guns.

 

[electronicmaji]

I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

 

[forsmant]

The Declaration of Independence does not include property as one of the God given rights. If you recall, Jefferson thinks the pursuit of happiness is the third right. I think it was only included because of the Rule of Three. Life and Liberty sounds incomplete. It has no rhythm.

 

[user]

I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

Yes, it does. How do you provide socialist health care without infringing on the property rights of others?

 

[electronicmaji]

By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...

 

[Eponym_mi]

I beleive in property rights.


Beleiving that one has a right to health does not exclude a belief in property rights.

I think you're hopelessly confused. Come back when you actually have property. Maybe then you'll understand that your so-called "right" can only be provided by denying someone else's right to property. You can't get any farther away from libertarianism than that.

Click on the link in my sig...you might learn something.

 

[forsmant]

By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...

One could argue that all things are property. If it is ok to tax alcohol than it would be ok to tax a house.

 

[user]

By taxing luxuries...

The property rights only protect income from tax at a federal level. No one ever said taxes on non essential items were wrong. And they're completely voluntary. If you dont want to pay the taxes don't buy the item; since they're luxuries there nothing you need.

I don't think its irrational or crazy to say that the goverment can tax things like the sales of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs...

You don't understand what property rights are. Taxes are never voluntary. Any definition of "luxury" you provide is arbitrary.