Post: #76

Weren't you a libertarian just a few months ago, Samseau?

Post: #77

I've always thought of myself as a libertarian who disagrees with most libertarians. But not because I think libertarianism is some amazing a priori system of the world, but because it is the political ideology which promotes the spirit of liberty in which the US Constitution was written.

If there was "Jeffersonian" party, I would join that.

Post: #78

I was registered libertarian since 1999, until a few weeks ago (switched so I could vote in the GOP primary).

I never took most of their candidates too seriously but I registered with them to help them get on ballots and debates. I'd also vote for their party as a protest vote if the two parties weren't putting forth a candidate of quality.

They do pretty well, the Libertarian party, in my state but not to mince words most of their candidates are nut-jobs. I always hoped the party would grow and evolve into something else, but I think it's more likely that a related movement takes up or someone tweaks the GOP from within. It could even happen, conceivably, from within the democrats.

Post: #79

(03-06-2016 04:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to losing their food stamps?

Extremely unlikely, for the following reasons:
- Food is relatively cheap in former capitalist countries, especially places like America.
- If tax rates were gutted, everyone else would be freed from that parasitism, and become wealthier.
- There exists a natural charitable instinct in humans, especially when they see people who've been dealt terrible luck in life. And especially when the difference between their own wealth and the charity case's is so huge ('he can't even eat!').

The only scenario I can foresee where starvation would happen is if people feel no pity for the individual, due to their own actions. For example:
- people who are so lazy even hunger can't motivate them
- anti-social people who blame others for their predicament
- people who have committed crimes upon others

In those cases, yes those individuals might possibly starve. If there is no one in a wealthy country who will donate you enough food to stop you starving, and you can't do something productive enough to earn that food, then you're probably a pretty wretched individual. Such people dying is simply a fact of life, and I see zero moral issues with it. Allowing these people to anti-socially parasitize others is the moral issue. I also foresee there being an extremely few number of these people.

No one who is capable or earning, or capable of receiving pity (e.g. disabled people, hardworking people who've fallen on bad times, people who've had accidents etc), would starve.

(03-06-2016 04:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Wouldn't some people who aged out of the workforce lose their homes should they lose their promised benefits?

They wouldn't lose their promised benefits. It would be faded out. I.e. they are the last generation to receive them, the next generation gets less, and so on until the system is erased. Pension systems are outright evil, and massively socially damaging. Places like Japan, where ever fewer young people have to support an ever larger dead-weight of old people, are disasters waiting to happen. All pension systems should be replaced with superannuation systems, like Australia did, as an intermediate step to phasing out state intervention altogether.

Post: #80

(03-07-2016 04:15 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 04:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to losing their food stamps?

Extremely unlikely, for the following reasons:
1. Food is relatively cheap in former capitalist countries, especially places like America.
2. If tax rates were gutted, everyone else would be freed from that parasitism, and become wealthier.
3. There exists a natural charitable instinct in humans, especially when they see people who've been dealt terrible luck in life. And especially when the difference between their own wealth and the charity case's is so huge ('he can't even eat!').

You are creating the concept of an idealistic utopia where altruism solves all problems over systematically creating ways to protect the people of society as a whole.

1. The US has never been a fully capitalistic society. It has always needed tax income to fund various government projects.
2. Lower income workers who are on food stamps are barely taxed already, so you are talking about "freeing" wealthier folks from the pretty lax tax system that we have already. In addition to this, you are relying on the assumption that jobs fall from the sky. No, they are dependent upon a company needing work to be performed. When companies are increasing automation and shipping jobs overseas in order to improve their bottom line, the job pool decreases and many people are left out.
3. The natural charitable instinct is not enough. Remember the Irish potato famine? Starving people usually have to take care of themselves or they die.

Quote:

(03-06-2016 04:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Wouldn't some people who aged out of the workforce lose their homes should they lose their promised benefits?

They wouldn't lose their promised benefits. It would be faded out. I.e. they are the last generation to receive them, the next generation gets less, and so on until the system is erased. Pension systems are outright evil, and massively socially damaging. Places like Japan, where ever fewer young people have to support an ever larger dead-weight of old people, are disasters waiting to happen. All pension systems should be replaced with superannuation systems, like Australia did, as an intermediate step to phasing out state intervention altogether.

The superannuation scheme sounds pretty much the same as the US, except in the US workers pay into a tax pool rather than a personal account in order to fund social security.

Also, Australia has social security too, except it is called an age pension: https://www.humanservices.gov.au/custome...ge-pension

Post: #81

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  so you are talking about "freeing" wealthier folks from the pretty lax tax system that we have already.

Pretty lax tax system!?

In 2014 I was self employed. By late summer I had made about $70K, which sounds pretty good, but being self employed, I owed 15% self employment tax on that income, off the top, before any deductions.

At that point, I calculated the federal taxes I owed year to date, and it was already $16K, plus another $3K state. Now here's the thing. From that point forward, if I made any more money, I wouldn't see any more deductions, so I would be taxed at the full rate of my tax bracket for any remaining income.

Let's say I made an extra $10,000. I would have to pay 25% federal tax (with the 28% bracket just around the corner). I'd have to pay 15% self employment tax. I'd have to pay 5% state income tax. So, I'm already at the 45% tax mark, just with income tax. Now, if I spent any of the money left over, I'd be paying an additional 8-10% sales tax, plus all the fees that are tacked onto everything nowadays, from phone bills to car rentals.

So, at $70,000 in year to date income, I was already over the 50% tax bracket. Needless to say, this sapped my motivation to make money the rest of that year.

The current tax rates in the US are not lax at all. When you count all federal, self employment, FICA, State Income, property, and sales taxes, plus a long, long list of government fees tacked onto nearly every other bill you pay, the tax rates are stiflingly high by the time you reach middle class income levels.

Post: #82

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  You are creating the concept of an idealistic utopia where altruism solves all problems over systematically creating ways to protect the people of society as a whole.

Nope, I'm just observing that humans have a charitable streak. A snake or a leopard, for instance, does not. And who comprises governments? Do they transform into special angels as soon as the get the power they crave? Or is that merely an illusion they have made you believe, that they are morally chaste and there to protect you?

People in government are not more altruistic than other people. They are more power hungry. Under a democratic constitution, they know they can rob some people, and fence that stolen property to others in exchange for votes. That is their 'systematic protection' -- of themselves. It is for this reason that their 'welfare' strategically targets voter demographics, rather than actual charitable need.

And come the next potato famine, they will not go hungry to help those in greater need, nor will they conjure potatoes out of thin air.

To put charity in the hands of the state is to corrupt it. To put it in the hands of the people is to let it flourish.

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The superannuation scheme sounds pretty much the same as the US, except in the US workers pay into a tax pool rather than a personal account in order to fund social security.

So to clarify, you're a communist right? You see no difference between owning something, and it being communally administered?

Post: #83

The idea that charity doesn't exist without government is contradicted by thousands of years of Christianity. Christian cultures have been extremely charitable to the poor long before the government took over, especially in America as well.

Even Islamic cultures are extremely charitable (to other muslims). Jews to Jews as well. The idea that charity does not exist without government is simply bullshit.

Post: #84

Ron Paul warns Republicans not to vote for Ted Cruz


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...-ted-cruz/

Quote:SALEM, N.H. -- In a sign of just how tricky it is to court libertarian Republicans here, and how diffuse Ron Paul's old supporters have become, the former Texas congressman took to Fox News Friday to criticize Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

"They think he's for the free market, and he's owned by Goldman Sachs," Paul said. "He and Hillary have more in common than we have with Trump or anyone else."

The "we" in that sentence was Paul's son Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Rand Paul's Wednesday exit from the presidential race kicked off a scramble for the sort of voters who gave almost a quarter of the 2012 Republican primary vote to Ron Paul. Since then, supporters of Rand Paul have been contacted by emissaries of Cruz and other candidates, and many have balked.

...

Cruz had frequently praised Ron Paul -- a Texas constituent. But in an interview earlier this week, Paul told The Washington Post that Cruz was a "fake libertarian" who did not deserve support from voters worried that Rand Paul was slipping.

"He's associated with the groups we talk against all the time, the neoconservatives," Paul said. "We believe they're the ones associated with so much of the killing in our foreign policy."

At least the libertarians haven't gone full retard yet.

Post: #85

Thank God that Ron hasn't gone full cuck!

Post: #86

(03-07-2016 11:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  You are creating the concept of an idealistic utopia where altruism solves all problems over systematically creating ways to protect the people of society as a whole.

Nope, I'm just observing that humans have a charitable streak. A snake or a leopard, for instance, does not. And who comprises governments? Do they transform into special angels as soon as the get the power they crave? Or is that merely an illusion they have made you believe, that they are morally chaste and there to protect you?

People in government are not more altruistic than other people. They are more power hungry. Under a democratic constitution, they know they can rob some people, and fence that stolen property to others in exchange for votes. That is their 'systematic protection' -- of themselves. It is for this reason that their 'welfare' strategically targets voter demographics, rather than actual charitable need.

And come the next potato famine, they will not go hungry to help those in greater need, nor will they conjure potatoes out of thin air.

To put charity in the hands of the state is to corrupt it. To put it in the hands of the people is to let it flourish.

This whole thing right here is ideology. Plain and simple. I personally try to ground my views in evidence over beliefs of how things are or how they should be.

I am not saying government officials are altruistic. I am saying that they are beholden to the will of the people. People have to vote for them. If a governor, senator, etc. does not do things that helps society, the people will rise up and vote them out of their office.

This also does not address the point with regards to use for welfare, so you haven't refuted my points.

Quote:

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The superannuation scheme sounds pretty much the same as the US, except in the US workers pay into a tax pool rather than a personal account in order to fund social security.

So to clarify, you're a communist right? You see no difference between owning something, and it being communally administered?

First off, you are relying on ad hominem attacks too heavily to make your arguments.

Second, you ignored my point that Australia has social security in addition to the superannuation scheme. Also, the US has a superannuation scheme. It is called a pension.

(03-07-2016 11:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  The idea that charity doesn't exist without government is contradicted by thousands of years of Christianity. Christian cultures have been extremely charitable to the poor long before the government took over, especially in America as well.

Even Islamic cultures are extremely charitable (to other muslims). Jews to Jews as well. The idea that charity does not exist without government is simply bullshit.

But... one could make the argument that that charity occurred mainly through a state church.

With the separation of church and state, the government has begun to displace the charitable function of the church.

You could say that social security through the government and charity through a state driven church are the same things, they just look different on the surface.

^Would like to see a counter-point on state driven church charity vs government social security. I'm not a history buff, so would like a little more history on how state driven church charity works.

Post: #87

(03-07-2016 01:41 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  This whole thing right here is ideology. Plain and simple. I personally try to ground my views in evidence over beliefs of how things are or how they should be.

That's a meaningless reply. What I've described is logical, and you can't rebut it because it's true.

(03-07-2016 01:41 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  I am not saying government officials are altruistic. I am saying that they are beholden to the will of the people. People have to vote for them. If a governor, senator, etc. does not do things that helps society, the people will rise up and vote them out of their office.

Incorrect. The people vote between 2 groups of similar people, once every 4 years. In the interim, they are beholden to their lobbyists and donors. This is well understood fact. ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-lobbying/ , http://www.owen.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-a...panies.cfm )

There is no such homogeneous blog called 'the people', and 'society', that they help. They take money from certain members of society, and give it to others. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian...ending.png , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax...Income_Tax )

People vote not for "what's best for society", but what is best for themselves. An individual only has enough information to make decisions about himself -- not to deduce what is best for the whole of society. Furthermore, he is self-interested. If someone promises to rob someone else, and give him some of the loot for free, with no repercussions, he will often take that offer up.

Quote:This also does not address the point with regards to use for welfare, so you haven't refuted my points.

Do you mean this point?:

Quote:Lower income workers who are on food stamps are barely taxed already, so you are talking about "freeing" wealthier folks from the pretty lax tax system that we have already. In addition to this, you are relying on the assumption that jobs fall from the sky. No, they are dependent upon a company needing work to be performed. When companies are increasing automation and shipping jobs overseas in order to improve their bottom line, the job pool decreases and many people are left out.

Someone else already addressed the joke of "pretty lax tax system" (I know some people who are having 50%+ of their income taken), so I'll address the rest.

Jobs are created by business. There are no naturally occurring salaries in the world. The world is chaotic, and the businessman (the most simple being the farmer), has to reign in multiple factors of production in order to successfully produce. To aid in this, he employs people, to set to work as he directs, to meet his productive aims. Salary and wage work, AKA 'jobs', is a byproduct of the activities and desires of businessmen. There is no reason you can claim 'I assume that jobs fall from the sky'.

Furthermore, mechanization & sending work to the cheapest bidder has been around since the industrial revolution. If it were true this caused unemployment, none of us would have jobs by now. Instead, places like Japan, where there are lights-out factories ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out...ctories.22 ) producing products with zero workers, the employment rate is currently 3.2%. Your current image of the world is simply uninformed.

(03-07-2016 01:41 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Quote:So to clarify, you're a communist right? You see no difference between owning something, and it being communally administered?

First off, you are relying on ad hominem attacks too heavily to make your arguments.

Second, you ignored my point that Australia has social security in addition to the superannuation scheme. Also, the US has a superannuation scheme. It is called a pension.

It was a fair question. To claim that 'money being yours' and 'money being granted to you by a state' is the same thing, is so extreme that only communists see things that way. Communism is simply an ideology, not a character attack. If that is your ideology though, there is probably little point in us debating since the rift is too massive.

No I didn't ignore that, I'm well aware Australia has social security system. But everyone is required to save at a fixed rate until they're 65 (the superannuation system), and this forms the bulk of retirement provision. A pension is benefits granted by the state. It is not like superannuation. Under superannuation -- the money is your own that you saved. Under a pension, it isn't directly connected to your own earnings. Some pay in lots more than they get out, and vice versa.

Post: #88

Quote:Incorrect. The people vote between 2 groups of similar people, once every 4 years. In the interim, they are beholden to their lobbyists and donors.

The current US election process for president is showing that this is not true.

Quote:People vote not for "what's best for society", but what is best for themselves. An individual only has enough information to make decisions about himself -- not to deduce what is best for the whole of society. Furthermore, he is self-interested.

This is the whole point of governance. The constituency vote for people (governors, senators, etc.) who promise to take care of their needs. The elected officials then turn around and find ways to compromise and strike balance between the needs of various constituencies in order to maintain the stability and welfare of society as a whole.

Quote:Furthermore, mechanization & sending work to the cheapest bidder has been around since the industrial revolution. If it were true this caused unemployment, none of us would have jobs by now. Instead, places like Japan, where there are lights-out factories ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out...ctories.22 ) producing products with zero workers, the employment rate is currently 3.2%. Your current image of the world is simply uninformed.

Japan is a moot point because this increase in automation is actually meant to replace people in the labor force.

What appears to be happening is that the total labor force is decreasing in size due to Japan's aging population. Automation is increased in order to fill in the hole created by the shrinking numbers in the total labor force.

Essentially the unemployment rate stays the same for those who fit into the age group of the working population even though the total labor force is decreasing in size relative to the total population as Japan's society ages as a whole.

I have not researched this area well enough to understand it completely, but this is my gist of it.

(03-07-2016 01:41 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  It was a fair question. To claim that 'money being yours' and 'money being granted to you by a state' is the same thing, is so extreme that only communists see things that way. Communism is simply an ideology, not a character attack. If that is your ideology though, there is probably little point in us debating since the rift is too massive.

Here's the thing, by accusing me of being a communist saying that welfare and financial safety nets are necessary and good for the financial stability of society, you are broadening the definition so much that it lacks any weight.

Europe has social welfare. Japan does. Brazil does. South Korea is even working on welfare programs for their impoverished elderly. By calling me a communist, you are essentially saying that all of these societies are communist too.

We don't have to debate, but I would like to offer alternative points of view.

Post: #89

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  3. The natural charitable instinct is not enough. Remember the Irish potato famine? Starving people usually have to take care of themselves or they die.

The Corn Laws of the time also kept the price of other grain products artificially high. This is yet another case of socialists blaming the free market for problems caused by government interference into the free market.

Famine is the health of the state.

Post: #90

Who watched the debate on Fox Business last Friday? McAfee did a great job. I didn't like Austin Petersen that much.

Petersen just seems to be a Red politician who decided to jump to the LP. We get those now and then. I am always suspicious of anyone who ONLY talks about "Obamacare." If you talk about health care in America, you need to talk about repealing everything that's been enacted in the last 100 years.

Post: #91

I was very fortunate to meet Brett Pujonis last week. He's running for national chair. He's built a great party in Nevada and can bring this success to the national level. I loved a lot of his marketing ideas.

Post: #92

Gary Johnson is the nominee. This was on the second ballot.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...=3&theater

Post: #93

I think this has probably been discussed on the Trump thread somewhere, but who do you guys think Johnson would most likely take votes from, Trump or Clinton? If I recall correctly, he won a record number of votes for a Libertarian candidate in 2012. It seems like in a year like this, that number would probably increase. I voted for him in 2012 (voting for Trump this year), but it would suck to see him take votes away from the Republicans. I can't really imagine someone who would be willing to vote for a democrat voting for Johnson.

Post: #94

And now I'm reminded of why the LP consistently fails to accomplish anything. Look at this ridiculousness:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...ps-stage-/

Here is the video. To their credit, the crowd reacted negatively. Unfortunately, the damage has been done:





I often wonder if these people are in the party only to sabotage it.

Post: #95

Makes you wonder, Puckerman...

(05-29-2016 02:10 PM)Mark Fletcher Wrote:  I think this has probably been discussed on the Trump thread somewhere, but who do you guys think Johnson would most likely take votes from, Trump or Clinton? If I recall correctly, he won a record number of votes for a Libertarian candidate in 2012. It seems like in a year like this, that number would probably increase. I voted for him in 2012 (voting for Trump this year), but it would suck to see him take votes away from the Republicans. I can't really imagine someone who would be willing to vote for a democrat voting for Johnson.

Gary Johnson is pro open borders, and his Veep is pro gun control. This is a pretty toxic platform, and it's not likely to hurt Trump as he's defined himself squarely on the other side of that divide.

For a fringe party, the LP has too many currents, some mutually exclusive. This is going to limit their influence, at least in this election cycle.

Post: #96

As the dancing fat guy demonstrated, Libertarianism got pozzed after Ron Paul.

I still endorse the ideas, like being pro-capitalism and a general live and let live attitude.

But that doesnt mean I am neutral on these positions, and mistaking tolerance for non-judgement is how leftists infiltrated.

You need a healthy stable society for liberty to flourish.

Also being open borders is a bad idea

Post: #97

There will be a Libertarian Town Hall tonight at 9pm on CNN with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

Post: #98

(03-07-2016 11:24 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:53 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  so you are talking about "freeing" wealthier folks from the pretty lax tax system that we have already.

Pretty lax tax system!?

In 2014 I was self employed. By late summer I had made about $70K, which sounds pretty good, but being self employed, I owed 15% self employment tax on that income, off the top, before any deductions.

At that point, I calculated the federal taxes I owed year to date, and it was already $16K, plus another $3K state. Now here's the thing. From that point forward, if I made any more money, I wouldn't see any more deductions, so I would be taxed at the full rate of my tax bracket for any remaining income.

Let's say I made an extra $10,000. I would have to pay 25% federal tax (with the 28% bracket just around the corner). I'd have to pay 15% self employment tax. I'd have to pay 5% state income tax. So, I'm already at the 45% tax mark, just with income tax. Now, if I spent any of the money left over, I'd be paying an additional 8-10% sales tax, plus all the fees that are tacked onto everything nowadays, from phone bills to car rentals.

So, at $70,000 in year to date income, I was already over the 50% tax bracket. Needless to say, this sapped my motivation to make money the rest of that year.

The current tax rates in the US are not lax at all. When you count all federal, self employment, FICA, State Income, property, and sales taxes, plus a long, long list of government fees tacked onto nearly every other bill you pay, the tax rates are stiflingly high by the time you reach middle class income levels.

You should look into starting an offshore corporation in a low or no tax country. You would be able to pay yourself as an employee, thus avoiding self employment tax, and keep your remaining business earnings in the corporation to be free of tax, or taxed at a lower rate than U.S. corporation would.

Post: #99

It looks like the Johnson-Weld ticket will be on the ballot in all 50 states. This is actually the first time for an LP ticket since 1996.

Post: #100

I am trying to convince my brother, a registered Libertarian, to not waste his vote and vote for Trump. He will unfortunately be voting for Johnson, which is a waste of a vote and shows cognitive dissonance.