Social Libertarian?

[angelatc]

I'm not a communist I simply think rights exist and one of those rights is the right to be healthy.

I think you mean that you are a social liberal, not a social libertarian.

Libertarians don't believe in using force to redistribute wealth.

I also believe that we are born with rights, but i do not believe those rights extend beyond life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I do not believe we have a right to housing, health care, or even food and water.

I do not believe that any person has a "right" to any material thing that they haven't contracted for.

 

[angelatc]

I beleive in property rights.


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

Uhm, I think you mean that people have a right to healthcare. I mean, where would a right to health come from? Not all of us are born healthy, so we certainly can't presume it is a right that we are born with.

Money is property. If you support taking money from another person by the use of social force then you are negating your argument, because you do indeed make certain exclusions to property rights.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Never come out of the closet to admit you are social

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.

The whole idea of positive government resulted from a deliberate act of socialism. In fact, compared with the primitive caste systems that existed before, the notion of a positive government itself is socialistic.
While I wouldn't worry about the idiot hot heads out there who get hostile at the sight of the word "social," I certainly wouldn't admit to them that I am social for this amounts to coming out of the political closet.
As Hillary would argue, one should never appear in politics to be without balls.

 

[WRellim]

"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."

To be provided by and paid for by WHOM exactly?

Nice of you to preemptively and unilaterally GIVE AWAY other people's work and money.

I just have one question for you... what will you do if they those people refuse to "cooperate" with your plan? What means of force will you "persuade" them to "cooperate" and provide the work or money?

If you propose to use force (threatened or actual), how then can you call yourself a "libertarian"?

And if you are unwilling to use violence to "enforce" your proposition, how can you call youself a "socialist" ?



The term "socialist libertarian" is oxymoronic... it even tops "army intelligence" or "governmental assistance."

 

[AutoDas]

We all have a right to our life and property otherwise you would not have either of them. Health-care is not an inalienable right because that is your decision to pursue it and some might not want to take care of their health.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The differing points of view between what is a good and an evil government are subtle

To be provided by and paid for by WHOM exactly?

Nice of you to preemptively and unilaterally GIVE AWAY other people's work and money.

I just have one question for you... what will you do if they those people refuse to "cooperate" with your plan? What means of force will you "persuade" them to "cooperate" and provide the work or money?

If you propose to use force (threatened or actual), how then can you call yourself a "libertarian"?

And if you are unwilling to use violence to "enforce" your proposition, how can you call youself a "socialist" ?

We Americans aren't here for our health. We don't send unhealthy soldiers to fight in wars for our health; rather, we send healthy soldiers to fight for our happiness.
When an American mother notices that her child has a problem, she hasn't noticed that he or she is unhealthy but that he or she is unhappy. So, she proceeds to take the child to a doctor to find out why he or she is unhappy and then how to go about making him or her happy again.
The free market here is simply when the woman takes the child to go see a doctor. Any regulation created by the government to hinder this mother in her quest to seek help for her child should be considered socialistic.
In order to establish a social problem, the government focuses not on the contentment of health but on the responsibility of health. This type of government tries to divide the national dinner table by arguing we should all be healthy, wealthy and wise rather than we should all live as happy beings.
Marxism is this type of government because it attempts to sit its citizens down at the dinner table as a classless society. One never has to bind the master class to sit at the table in this type of socialist society because, legally speaking, no master class legally exists in a Marxist society.
The American system does not attempt to sit every citizen down as a classless society but as a classful society. It acheives this classful society by regulating liberty even to the extent of binding the master class to remain at the table while it also grants liberty to the slave class to come to the same table. When the king is not concerned with the thirst of the uncomely ones at the table as a king should be, then he or she is neglecting them as a tyrant.

 

[Meatwasp]

When I was young before welfare the church helped the poor and also helped them to get a job. That's all there is too it.

 

[Paulitician]

I believe Social Libertarians have the right for such opportunity, but they don't have the right to demand it from someone else.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Such subjective value has to be earned, or granted from someone else who's willing to earn it, but no one has the right to demand that against someone else's will, as I said before.

"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"

So save and work, and/or ask friends and family help you out if need be... It really isn't that hard.


As a Libertarian, I would assume you accept the non-agression axiom. In which case, the only "right" a you have is the right not to have force initiated on you.

This is what you're proposing:

 

[user]

I believe Social Libertarians have the right for such opportunity, but they don't have the right to demand it from someone else.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Such subjective value has to be earned, or granted from someone else who's willing to earn it, but no one has the right to demand that against someone else's will, as I said before.

"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"

So save and work, and/or ask friends and family help you out if need be... It really isn't that hard.


As a Libertarian, I would assume you accept the non-agression axiom. In which case, the only "right" a you have is the right not to have force initiated on you.

This is what you're proposing:

That is a simple, excellent cartoon. Bump so more people see it.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I do support Laissez-faire capitalism. I also support a little bit of social services because I believe the government plays a little role. I want it done by local governments. Welfare should be cut down by 95%. I think only very few people should be in government services. As you all know, we spend and print to much. If we would stop doing that we'd have enough to help some people who actually need it. Yes there are some people(not to many) who actually need it. I want to steer people away from the government. I do belive in public schools for cities and towns. Only to be locally funded by everyone paying a little bit of taxes for the schools, or maybe people investing into one school and no taxation. I can't makeup my mind. This shall be locally run, if I did choose the local government one, it would be only funded by the goverment through taxation. No beaurocrat control, but parent and teacher control.


Don't criticize me and call me a big government socialist if you do choose to respond to my idea. Any questions will be accepted.
Carry on.

 

[user]

I do support Laissez-faire capitalism. I also support a little bit of social services because I believe the government plays a little role. I want it done by local governments. Welfare should be cut down by 95%. I think only very few people should be in government services. As you all know, we spend and print to much. If we would stop doing that we'd have enough to help some people who actually need it. Yes there are some people(not to many) who actually need it. I want to steer people away from the government. I do belive in public schools for cities and towns. Only to be locally funded by everyone paying a little bit of taxes for the schools, or maybe people investing into one school and no taxation. I can't makeup my mind. This shall be locally run, if I did choose the local government one, it would be only funded by the goverment through taxation. No beaurocrat control, but parent and teacher control.


Don't criticize me and call me a big government socialist if you do choose to respond to my idea. Any questions will be accepted.
Carry on.

I think I have an idea of where you're coming from, and my honest guess would be that your positions will become more liberal (in the classical sense) as time passes. You are obviously already on the freedom path, but there are always going to be some contradictions when there's an attempt to combine capitalism and socialism.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I think I have an idea of where you're coming from, and my honest guess would be that your positions will become more liberal (in the classical sense) as time passes. You are obviously already on the freedom path, but there are always going to be some contradictions when there's an attempt to combine capitalism and socialism.

I'm a liberal-leaning libertarian. Maybe you'e right on the contradictions part, but I believe in what I'm saying. I do want to try and steer people away from the government, though.

 

[Jeremy]

"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

 

[user]

I do want to try and steer people away from the government, though.

Nothing wrong with that

How do you feel about the non-aggression principle?

 

[acptulsa]

"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

It will be interesting to see what luck China has over time in attempting to reap the benefits of economic freedom without suffering the 'inconveniences' of political freedom.

 

[user]

It will be interesting to see what luck China has over time in attempting to reap the benefits of economic freedom without suffering the 'inconveniences' of political freedom.

Very true. We were just discussing this in another thread; my feelings are mixed.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Nothing wrong with that

How do you feel about the non-aggression principle?

Well, that's a pretty tough question. Well in my community, (Not saying everyone will for sure agree with me) but I don't believe in heavy taxes. See in my city there's a lot of big government liberals(I'm not for huge social programs ,but extremely small ones in order to steer people away from the government) who want all these social services like welfare to be huge. Now I'm not against social services entirely. A lot of people in my city depend on public transportation and in my city it's pretty damn good. Welfare should only be for people who need if they're freaking downright poor and can't work( ex; frail old ladies who have no one and just can't work). I don't want to throw people on the streets(homeless people can attack to you know). I'd work with people in my community to make it work so everyone can agree upon something.

Is that good enough? My explanations sometimes suck, but let me know if you have any questions.

It's a pretty tough question and I'll admit I can't answer everything.

 

[user]

Well, that's a pretty tough question. Well in my community, (Not saying everyone will for sure agree with me) but I don't believe in heavy taxes. See in my city there's a lot of big government liberals(I'm not for huge social programs ,but extremely small ones in order to steer people away from the government) who want all these social services like welfare to be huge. Now I'm not against social services entirely. A lot of people in my city depend on public transportation and in my city it's pretty damn good. Welfare should only be for people who need if they're freaking downright poor and can't work( ex; frail old ladies who have no one and just can't work). I don't want to throw people on the streets(homeless people can attack to you know). I'd work with people in my community to make it work so everyone can agree upon something.

Is that good enough? My explanations sometimes suck, but let me know if you have any questions.

It's a pretty tough question and I'll admit I can't answer everything.

Well, you can probably see where I was going with that question. If you agree with the non-aggression principle, you oppose all taxes. On the other hand, if you could really make it so everyone agrees on something, that suggests it would be voluntary and not a tax. So I guess the question is, what would you do if a few people didn't agree with the rest of you? Tax them, or leave them alone?

 

[Kade]

"The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom."
- Ludwig von Mises

Except some who believe in "economic freedom" use it now to justify the end of other freedoms.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Well, you can probably see where I was going with that question. If you agree with the non-aggression principle, you oppose all taxes. On the other hand, if you could really make it so everyone agrees on something, that suggests it would be voluntary and not a tax. So I guess the question is, what would you do if a few people didn't agree with the rest of you? Tax them, or leave them alone?

I'll have to think about that. I guess I oppose it on a local level, because taxes pay for a lot of things that benefit the people here. Yes I would leave schools to be controlled by the parents and teachers, and etc. about other things. If they didn't agree with me I'd honestly try and talk to them and work things out. Remember my taxes are localy run and funded and distributed by the government. The welfare state will be cut 95%"(only those who NEED it will get it). For healthcare I'll probably do what they did in the 60's. I think a lot of what I'm saying will fit my community as a good amount of it already does. Except the welfare state is too big.

This is my community ,or city only.

Do as you please in yours. I can only set an example, if what I say somehow fails(which I don't think it won't) thou can always try again.