Social Libertarian?

[electronicmaji]

Even Ron Paul is not crazy enought to think a goverment can not tax at all. Taxes are a evil necessity. I don't think essential goods and income should be taxed but it is not unreasonable for the state to tax uneeded items to build roads and maintain common infrastructure. Anything else is just plain Anarchy.

 

[user]

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

You've already contradicted yourself here. Maybe we should just let this thread die so fewer people are tricked into reading your nonsense. This is like starting a thread called, "Short Tall Guy?"

 

[electronicmaji]

I never contradicted myself. Just because your one track mind can not see a social service system working without taxation of ones private property does not mean that it can't be so.

The world is not black and white and you absolutism does nothing but discredit Paulites as crazies.

 

[user]

Lie

I never contradicted myself.

I don't think the goverment has a right to steal from other people.

Yes taxation is theft. But you can't do away with all taxation

So you've admitted that you support something you call theft. But you also don't think the government has a right to steal.

 

[AFM]

You are what we call a commie.
Which is fine, you have a "right" to your beliefs. You just aren't a libertarian.

 

[user]

Haha, here's more from our friend.

I doubt his evolution comments would alienate but the most loyal of the left and those guys are hardly with us anyway. They actually beleive in the Welfare state. It could only help among the right though...

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

I never contradicted myself.

 

[topaz420]

electronicmaji:

I'm sorry you've been so vehemently attacked in this thread just for not being 112% libertarian (which even the Libertarian Party itself can't claim with their new platform).

I turn to our own Dr. Paul, and the respect with which he views his friend across the aisle, Mr. Dennis Kucinich:

"Dennis is saying things that I say... he and I would come very close on foreign policy... we interpret things in a very similar way. He and I both know we don't agree on a lot of the economic issues. But we're good friends and we talk to each other about it."

 

[evilfunnystuff]

electronicmaji you should check out this video individualism vs collectivisim its broken up into 6 parts heres the first 1 i really think it might change your perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

Fine. But why imprison doctors into your state run program? Why can't they just opt out and start their own businesses?

 

[foofighter20x]

The Constitution was meant to be a contract with the states to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Will the US government come to our aid if we're invaded? Stupid question.

Fact is, you're a libertarian-leaning liberal.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The states ratified the constitution. What distinction are you making between the states and the people?
Do you mean that delegates from each state ratified the constitution in the name of the states? Please clarify. Thanks.

The preamble and the fact that popularly-elected ratifying conventions--and not the state governments--put the Constitution into force lays waste to any assertion that the Constitution is a contract between the states.

The Articles of Confederation was a treaty between the 13 states. The Constitution was a popular act of the people.

On the flip side of the coin however, the state governments were given a place within the new federal government; that is, until they idiotically cast away with it under the 17th Amendment.

 

[DriftWood]

If you're invaded, by a foreign country, is the federal government obligated to come to your protection?

We're all supposed to go broke if Mexico wants california back? Do all the californians deserve such special treatment anyway? Einstein? People get invaded every decade... that is part of life and is natural.

You see, some people here love to make arguments in favor of something, or against something based on preconceptions of what they heard or opinions of other s- without really thinking logically of the positions for themselves.

Well, I would say that there is a difference (between.. a govt keeping people from dying from violence, compared to sickness or starvation). People forget how and why governments are formed in "the wild". Govt is a natural thing.. its what happens when individuals seek protection from violence with a group. During anarchy and civil war etc.. its hard to stay alive. You really need a group, to protect you from the violence of others. You will pay protection money to the leaders of this group. This groups whole purpose is to have a monopoly on violence in the area that you live in. If someone kills you in the territory that belongs to the group, they have the power to revenge. They are the biggest bully on the block and people don't dear cross them, or anyone in their protection. A govt is much like the biggest bully in school, or the mafia, or the gang leader in prison, their whole purpose is to have a monopoly on violence. And you seek them out and pay them for the service of keeping you safe from violence. Thats all they should do, protect their people from violence of other groups. If some outside group starts to take over the territory, the group leaders will fight back because they don't want to loose out on the protection money that the people there pay. If the former group cant keep the territory, they dont have a monopoly on violence, and the new group is better. The people (if they survive the takeover) will pay the new group protection money instead.

So police, military and judges are necessary to the survival of the govt. Health care and other forms of "public kindness" is not as necessary.

The govt is necessary, but it not your friend.

Cheers

 

[clouds]

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.

They tended to seek balance in their speeches and sentences, hence using 'pursuit of happiness' instead of 'private property.' The end effect of the line is the same, for you need the ability to acquire the tools required to pursue your happiness.

 

[clouds]

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.

These are the greatest verses in the Bible ever. That said, I don't know how you can use this for political thought, as it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[DriftWood]

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.

I dont mean to be rude (well maybe a little)

But socialism is based on love.

Capitalism is based on selfishness.

It is very counter intuitive.. but selfishness leads to a society that is better for most people, while love leads to a society that is worse for most people.

Love works really good for small groups of people. Like a family, you know that if you are kind you will be repayed by kindness. And over a lifetime, it all kindof equals out in the end. If someone is only taking and not giving, it becomes clear to everybody and they will get kicked out off the family. Black sheep. Love does not work for big groups though because everyone does not know everyone else and they cant keep track of who takes more than he gives. Thats why money and the price system was invented. That way it all equals out in the end, people get as much as they give. They consume no more than they produce. Its amazing how effective it is. Hundreds of people where involved in making the pen you use to write. And none of them did it because they love you, and these people might even hate each other. The wood might have come from Russia, and the lead(?) might have come US, and it might have been glued together in China. Love could not have accomplished the amazing cooperation that is manifested in the most simple of mass produced items, as a pen.

Edit: I think socialist and conservatives really want the same thing, a society where people are happy. They just disagree on the method. There is a saying.. that anyone not a socialist by the age of 20 has no heart, and anyone still a socialist by the age of forty has no head.

Cheers

 

[pcosmar]

I dont mean to be rude (well maybe a little)

But socialism is based on love.

Capitalism is based on selfishness.

It is very counter intuitive.. but selfishness leads to a society that is better for most people, while love leads to a society that is worse for most people.

Love works really good for small groups of people. Like a family, you know that if you are kind you will be repayed by kindness. And over a lifetime, it all kindof equals out in the end. If someone is only taking and not giving, it becomes clear to everybody and they will get kicked out off the family. Black sheep. Love does not work for big groups though because everyone does not know everyone else and they cant keep track of who takes more than he gives. Thats why money and the price system was invented. That way it all equals out in the end, people get as much as they give. They consume no more than they produce. Its amazing how effective it is. Hundreds of people where involved in making the pen you use to write. And none of them did it because they love you, and these people might even hate each other. The wood might have come from Russia, and the lead(?) might have come US, and it might have been glued together in China. Love could not have accomplished the amazing cooperation that is manifested in the most simple of mass produced items, as a pen.

Edit: I think socialist and conservatives really want the same thing, a society where people are happy. They just disagree on the method. There is a saying.. that anyone not a socialist by the age of 20 has no heart, and anyone still a socialist by the age of forty has no head.

Cheers

I believe that you are mistaken on a couple points.
Socialism is not based on love. It is based on control. It redistributes wealth and imposes laws based on an elitist attitude. "we know what is best for you."

 

[DriftWood]

I believe that you are mistaken on a couple points.
Socialism is not based on love. It is based on control. It redistributes wealth and imposes laws based on an elitist attitude. "we know what is best for you."

We probably have a bit different definitions of love/selfishness/socialism.. they are not neutral words and are loaded with emotional baggage.

I dont think socialist are bad people, their hearts probably truly aches when they think about the poor. They think that if people just loved their neighbor as much as themselves then there would be no poor people. Clearly the problem is that rich people don't love the poor people enough. So the govt has to regulate the environment and peoples lives so that they would love each other more. They have to take taxes from the people that don't love enough, the rich, and give to the poor.

I don't think chavez or obama for example are a bad people, i just think they are badly misguided and short sighted. They don't understand that the path they walk down will not lead to less poverty and misery, but more. Even when things don't turn out as they hoped, they might think that it would have been worse if they had done nothing. They don't seem to learn from history and other past failures.

I might be a bit different from most RP fans, in that i dont justify morality or political positions from some inalienable fundamental right. I don't think rights are real unless people have the power to protect them. I do think the end justifies the means (consequentialism). The "end" being a society with more happiness, or less misery. The problem is that people are not very clever, and mostly the means don't lead to the end. Its better to do nothing at all than to make things worse. Thats why i think none-intervention is a good idea. Money might not buy happiness but it sure can buy food, shelter, education, a good job, more time with your family, things you enjoy etc. And those things are probably going to make you more happy and less miserable. Thats why i think free market capitalism and libertarianism is a good idea. Thats why i like RP.

If socialisms actually created more happiness and wealth and less misery than the alternatives then i think it would be inhuman not to be a socialist. However socialism clearly does not work in practice, and if you take human nature into account it does not even work in theory.

Cheers

 

[clouds]

yeah, I believe most socialists are people with good intentions, but what's that old saying about the road to hell being paved by good intentions... capitalism is based on self-interest, not selfishness, I would say. It's saying an honest day's wages deserve an honest day's pay, and I am free to do with that pay what I want.

 

[Michael Ingram]

Are there any other Social Libertarians out there? I am a Social Libertarian.

Now for those who don't understand Social Libertarianism let me quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to explain.

I beleive that federal level income taxes are wrong as are heavy taxation. I beleive in laissez faire and social freedom. But I also beleive the following Section 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is true.

That is socialism, not libertarianism in the least.

 

[Michael Ingram]

We have a Marxist in our midst.

 

[weslinder]

FDR claimed to be a Social Libertarian (not in those words, but I digress).

His Four Freedoms:

Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

Notice that he has no qualms about taking your property. Social Libertarianism is another word for Utopian Socialism, and similarly based on flawed premises.