Social Libertarian?

[ARealConservative]

So you guys believe in "no taxes" at all? So the state has no point to it?

Pretty much, but the point I'm making is that we are so far in the minority on this issue that it is irrelevant. If 99% of the people want to push me down and remove my kidney by force, it's going to happen. I can cry until I'm blue in the face how it is theft, rape, etc, but this right will go unprotected.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Orlonater, I don't know if you were just angry or something when you wrote this, but you call yourself a libertarian so you should understand that the rights of the individual are paramount. It doesn't matter even if it's just one person against 100 million.

Again, the important thing here, at least for me, is whether or not the "tax" is completely optional. If so, I wouldn't even call it a tax (maybe a user fee). On the other hand, if you would force a minority of ANY size, including a single person, to pay against their will then I would call that unlibertarian.

Joseph's point about private schools is also correct. Whatever number of private schools exist now and however much competition there is, there would be far, far more if government schools did not exist. This would lower the price of admission to those schools and increase their quality. In addition to this, the government interferes even with the few private schools that exist today.

Fine maybe I'm not a pure 100% libertarian. I believe the states should allow comunities to go their own way. Now, no one has found a person for me in my community yet that is against low atxes for the greater good of the community. They pay for some public schools(Or I might privatize them), they build roads up. But then again I've been thinking. If we didn't have so much debt and spend like a preppy girl at the mall with her mom's credit card. We probably might have enough to pay for this stuff.
On your last paragraph. Why can't you have both? The state should have nothing to do with private schools. And by decrease the price, how low will it go?

I believe the local community government may have a role on some things.

 

[Truth Warrior]

so you guys believe in "no taxes" at all? So the state has no point to it?

Bingo!!!

 

[The_Orlonater]

Bingo!!!

Fine, I respect your choice and what you believe in your community. I'm still a free market guy, I just want extremely low taxes to pay for the city's repair, abou 100 old frail people who have no one and can't work, some privatized public schools and public transportation.



I don't care if that part of me is "unlibertarian." But do what you want.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Fine, I respect your choice and what you believe in your community. I'm still a free market guy, I just want extremely low taxes to pay for the city's repair, abou 100 old frail people who have no one and can't work, some privatized public schools and public transportation.



I don't care if that part of me is "unlibertarian." But do what you want.

Now, just try and figure out SOME way to accomplish your personal individual goals WITHOUT the state.

And I'll then just get off your case.

 

[JohnMeridith]

Theft is irrelevant as it's government that grants rights.


You would have no rights in an anarchy as they are created by man to minimize conflict in society. While our government isn't perfect, it can do a satisfactory job at creating as fair a society as possible if we keep our eyes open and our voices loud and unwavering.

The government does not grant rights, it only protects them, infringes upon them, or flat out takes them. Now when the latter occurs they grant priviliges. Now this fair society you speak of is only possible with a free market and protected "god given" rights.

 

[user]

Fine maybe I'm not a pure 100% libertarian. I believe the states should allow comunities to go their own way. Now, no one has found a person for me in my community yet that is against low atxes for the greater good of the community. They pay for some public schools(Or I might privatize them), they build roads up. But then again I've been thinking. If we didn't have so much debt and spend like a preppy girl at the mall with her mom's credit card. We probably might have enough to pay for this stuff.
On your last paragraph. Why can't you have both? The state should have nothing to do with private schools. And by decrease the price, how low will it go?

I believe the local community government may have a role on some things.

You say everybody you know supports your taxes. That doesn't really answer my question, because I think we both know it's extremely unlikely that there isn't at least one person who wouldn't support them. I take your saying you're not 100% libertarian to mean that you would indeed take their money by force. Is this correct?

As for the schools, you can't have both because the government diverts resources away from the private sector to government schools. And realistically, a government that powerful will not keep their hands off of private schools for long. There's no lower limit on how low the price will go. For many people even private schools can be free, paid for by charity and/or voluntary subsidies.

 

[The_Orlonater]

You say everybody you know supports your taxes. That doesn't really answer my question, because I think we both know it's extremely unlikely that there isn't at least one person who wouldn't support them. I take your saying you're not 100% libertarian to mean that you would indeed take their money by force. Is this correct?

As for the schools, you can't have both because the government diverts resources away from the private sector to government schools. And realistically, a government that powerful will not keep their hands off of private schools for long. There's no lower limit on how low the price will go. For many people even private schools can be free, paid for by charity and/or voluntary subsidies.

I have yet to find one . Honestly, low taxes that build roads, fund schools(parent control ), and community goals. If one person doesn't want to pay the taxes to say fixing a ton of pot holes on the road. What am I suppose to do say "Oh that's fine, but you're forbidden to use the roads."I wouldn't allow my government to do that to private schools. My government won't be powerful. It just organizes things that need to be done. I'm not controlling anything. Heck, even the public transportation won't be controlled by government officials. It isn't even now. IMO, free market public transportation(as in buses and trains) is impossible.

You know, they can always talk it over with me. You can never just order something and not discuss it.

I admit it, on a local level. For the community that I live in, I am not 100% libertarian.

P.S. I'm still leaving the libertarian in my signature, I'm not going to write

The last libertarian who wants some extremely small social programs and taxes.

 

[user]

I have yet to find one . Honestly, low taxes that build roads, fund schools(parent control ), and community goals. If one person doesn't want to pay the taxes to say fixing a ton of pot holes on the road. What am I suppose to do say "Oh that's fine, but you're forbidden to use the roads."

Yes?

I wouldn't allow my government to do that to private schools.

To do what? Divert resources away? The government does that just by existing and taking people's wealth.

My government won't be powerful. It just organizes things that need to be done.

Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean a government has to do it.

I'm not controlling anything.

It really sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because by any reasonable standard a government that takes citzens' money by force and spends it on things is exercising some control.

Heck, even the public transportation won't be controlled by government officials. It isn't even now.

Where is it not being controlled by government officials?

IMO, free market public transportation(as in buses and trains) is impossible.

Fortunately, we know that it is possible. There is a long history of successful public transportation being run completely by the private sector.

You know, they can always talk it over with me. You can never just order something and not discuss it.

Again this is just dodging the real issue. What happens when they disagree? Is your community a utopia where disagreements are impossible?

I admit it, on a local level. For the community that I live in, I am not 100% libertarian.

P.S. I'm still leaving the libertarian in my signature, I'm not going to write

The last libertarian who wants some extremely small social programs and taxes.

I doubt anyone is going to force you to change your signature, but based on what you've said, your signature isn't really accurate...

 

[The_Orlonater]

Yes?

Well that wouldn't work. How the hell would you do it? Put cameras everywhere and police everywhere looking for that one guy who can't use our roads and sidewalks? Is he/she suppose to stay inside all day? What if he needs to use the public transportation? Am I suppose to start something where they have a picture of every guy that doesn't pay taxes? It just wouldn't work.

To do what? Divert resources away? The government does that just by existing and taking people's wealth.?

Do you view every form of taxation? I see it as community's paying in so they can get things done.

Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean a government has to do it.

They do organize, it. Not all government's are evil.

It really sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, because by any reasonable standard a government that takes citzens' money by force and spends it on things is exercising some control.

Spending it on a few things. What I said is what I said, I don't intend on spending it on other things. What is so wrong with street cleaners, and garbagemen, and some privatized public schooling?

Where is it not being controlled by government officials?

Ugh, made a mistake typing that. Sorry, you win on this one.

Fortunately, we know that it is possible. There is a long history of successful public transportation being run completely by the private sector.

So a city, can't have it's locally run and funded public transportation? Is there suppose to be a free market in that too? 20 different train and bus companies?

Again this is just dodging the real issue. What happens when they disagree? Is your community a utopia where disagreements are impossible?

Things shall be talked over. I'm just sayng my ideas on the internet.

I doubt anyone is going to force you to change your signature, but based on what you've said, your signature isn't really accurate...

So are you saying I'm completely not libertarian? Look I'm for low taxes, not no taxes. I believe in community rights, I disagree with huge government, I like homeschooling, I support non-interventionism, etc. Just because I'm for low taxes that help the community(i.e. privatized public schools funded by taxes controlled by parents, a local pubic transportation, building roads, replacing street lights, etc. Just because I'm not an anarchist, I'm not Libertarian? I believe the state has a small role.

This is what I want you to answer. What do you have against paying very low taxes to fund building roads, sidewalks, lights, signs, funding the public transportation, privatize public schools? Just curious.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'd say not libertarian. Maybe Libertarian AKA statist, however.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I'd say not libertarian. Maybe Libertarian AKA statist, however.

Don't hurt my feelings.

 

[user]

Well that wouldn't work. How the hell would you do it? Put cameras everywhere and police everywhere looking for that one guy who can't use our roads and sidewalks? Is he/she suppose to stay inside all day? What if he needs to use the public transportation? Am I suppose to start something where they have a picture of every guy that doesn't pay taxes? It just wouldn't work.

Tolls? Or just let people use them whether they paid or not. Or have property owners pay for the roads adjacent to their property. There are ways to do it without resorting to force.

Do you view every form of taxation? I see it as community's paying in so they can get things done.

Again, is it voluntary or not? I've asked this many times and I don't think you've answered.

They do organize, it. Not all government's are evil.

Not sure what you mean here...

Spending it on a few things. What I said is what I said, I don't intend on spending it on other things. What is so wrong with street cleaners, and garbagemen, and some privatized public schooling?

Is it voluntary? And what do you mean by privatized public schooling anyway? If it's privatized, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless you're using the typical Republican definition of "privatization", which is to take taxpayer funds and give it to private firms as corporate welfare. There is a HUGE difference.

So a city, can't have it's locally run and funded public transportation?

Sure it can...if it's voluntary.

Is there suppose to be a free market in that too? 20 different train and bus companies?

Yes, and I doubt there would be 20. Again, free market public transportation has been very successful in the past, and even in the present in at least one case.

Things shall be talked over. I'm just sayng my ideas on the internet.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. What happens when someone disagrees? Are they left alone or forced to comply?

So are you saying I'm completely not libertarian? Look I'm for low taxes, not no taxes. I believe in community rights, I disagree with huge government, I like homeschooling, I support non-interventionism, etc. Just because I'm for low taxes that help the community(i.e. privatized public schools funded by taxes controlled by parents, a local pubic transportation, building roads, replacing street lights, etc. Just because I'm not an anarchist, I'm not Libertarian? I believe the state has a small role.

I understand that you are closer to a libertarian than most people, but for example "privatized" schools funded by taxes? That's not libertarian at all.

This is what I want you to answer. What do you have against paying very low taxes to fund building roads, sidewalks, lights, signs, funding the public transportation, privatize public schools? Just curious.

Once again, I take the word "tax" to mean it is not voluntary. That's my problem with it. If it were voluntary instead, I'd have no problem with it.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Tolls? Or just let people use them whether they paid or not. Or have property owners pay for the roads adjacent to their property. There are ways to do it without resorting to force.

So their should be a toll everywhere? I don't think you understand, let's say like 50-100 people in a city of a million didn't pay their taxes. Their is suppose to be a toll everywhere to look for these people? Why would anyone make their life like that? Who would pay for the tolls too? If it's a small tax and you can use the roads, what the hell is the problem? I sometimes get the feeSling people just say "no" for fun.

Again, is it voluntary or not? I've asked this many times and I don't think you've answered.

I don't think it should be. The previous example I gave is a good reason.

Not sure what you mean here.

Sorry, what I mean is that if there should a small government that a community that organizes to build roads, schools, etc. It's not like all government's are evil that want to take all your money away and eat lobster every night.

Is it voluntary? And what do you mean by privatized public schooling anyway? If it's privatized, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Unless you're using the typical Republican definition of "privatization", which is to take taxpayer funds and give it to private firms as corporate welfare. There is a HUGE difference.

What I meant was that every public school could be paid for by taxes. Privatized menaing that parents and teachers control it. Not beaurocrats.

I'm still debating myself on this and abolish public schools, but this might work.

Yes, I debate myself.

Sure it can...if it's voluntary.

Wouldn't it just be easier with a low tax?

Yes, and I doubt there would be 20. Again, free market public transportation has been very successful in the past, and even in the present in at least one case.

I'd like an example please. Wouldn't it just be easier for one? I mean it's for a city, controlled by the city.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. What happens when someone disagrees? Are they left alone or forced to comply?

Well, I can convince them. But if all fails. Why not make them? It would make life hard for everyone? Can't use the Roads, can't use the plumbing, can't send your kid to public school(well this one goes either way, but if said person has no time for homeschooling or money for private schooling)?

Instead of just saying no, why not talk it over? Why would you say no?

Would you? Why?

I understand that you are closer to a libertarian than most people, but for example "privatized" schools funded by taxes? That's not libertarian at all.

Maybe that's not libertarian ,but I think I might be a good idea. If the people in the community don't want it. I won't do it. Even if it fails after I try it, I can do it the other way.

Once again, I take the word "tax" to mean it is not voluntary. That's my problem with it. If it were voluntary instead, I'd have no problem with it.

But why depend on some people donating? There's people who never donate, but pay their taxes.

I just want to know why you wouldn't want to pay a small tax for all this and make life easier?

 

[brandon]

best of rpf

 

[dealerjim]

If you honestly believe that a person has a right to anything which someone else must provide for free, then you aren't a libertarian.

+1

 

[SimpleName]

I thought "Social Libertarian" meant somebody who dislikes moral standards and whatnot, as in, they don't personally mind prostitution, pornography, drug use, abortion, or any other social stigmas. Whatever else in that realm. Mostly, i think I fit in that crowd (see Penn Jillette). So yes, I am a social libertarian. But in the right way. Not in your skewed progressive way.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I thought "Social Libertarian" meant somebody who dislikes moral standards and whatnot, as in, they don't personally mind prostitution, pornography, drug use, abortion, or any other social stigmas. Whatever else in that realm. Mostly, i think I fit in that crowd (see Penn Jillette). So yes, I am a social libertarian. But in the right way. Not in your skewed progressive way.

Penn Jillete is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Social Libertarian is basically a contradiction in terms...I suppose the closest you can get to is Noam Chomsky and his ilk.

 

[Dreamofunity]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Libertarian.

 

[Bman]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Libertarian.

To clarify, socially liberal means we don't want to be told how to live our lives and we won't tell you how to live yours.