What does "libertarian" mean to you?

Lightwizard wrote:

I would think most disgruntled Democrats are in the Green Party.

Have you read the Green Party platform? Pretty scary stuff in my opinion. A lot of nonsense about how corporations have pilfered the wealth that belongs to us all, as if that wealth pre-existed the efforts of the men and women who made up those corporations, and with no thought to what incentive anyone would have to create wealth in a society where it is all confiscated in the misguided name of "the greater good".

Lightwizard wrote:

I definitely concur that ultra right wing conservatives will call themselves that even though they are registered Republicans, they will call themselves Libertarians.

What does ultra right wing mean to you, exactly? As I've stated before, I think using such terms detracts from the discussion as they tend to be taken as being inflamatory. To me, ultra right wing would probably mean an authoritarian conservative, which in no way resembles a libertarian, nor would an authoritarian likely identify him- or herself as libertarian.

Lightwizard wrote:

I would think that Libertarians would be against many Republican doctrines if they were following the true spirit of the meaning in the term.

Yes they would. Likewise they would be against many Democrat doctrines. Specifically they would be against those that attempt to impose rules for private conduct and those that redistribute wealth or diminish the right to personal property.

0 Replies

Yes, I'm aware of the Green Party's platform and it would seem to me it would attract those Democrats who are dissatisfied with the performance of their elected officials. I didn't say that was a good thing as many view what they advocate as extreme left.

As to using the term ultra-right conservatives being inflammatory -- that would only be true if one was ultra-right conservative and thought I was putting them down. As I clearly stated, I don't characterize all libertarians as ultra-right conservatives. I do point out that some who call themselves libertarians are not being genuine about their political affiliations when they are registered Republicans.

Republicans do advocate controls of private conduct or the perpetuation of old laws and, justified or not, have introduced new controls by taking away more privacy (which has been eroding steadily over the last fifty years). The fact that bank records seem to including checking account numbers are now being bandied about like they were public information is very disturbing. I was already victimized by a phone service for that very thing and had to cut off all electronic check features.

What exactly is this "redistribution of wealth?" Giving the poorest tax payer enough relief to buy one can of coke a day and giving the rich enough to buy a yacht? Yeah, that's sure redistribution of wealth.
I have to admit some of my business has been illumination of yachts but the "trickle down effect" theory represents a drop in the ocean for all of us -- nearly all yachts are made on the Pacific Coast of China and have been for over thirty years. This class warfare accusation is thrown out by conservatives, ad nauseum, as a sound bite.

I just have had the experience that those that label themselves politically are often insincere and when trying to explain themselves come up with the most convoluted explanations for their views, boggling the most cognizant of minds.

0 Replies

Ah'd lahk ta git me one o' them fancy, lit-up Chinee boats, ya know ... that'd be real cool, ah thinks. Ah promise thet when Ah gits one, Ah'll equitably trickle down on all the libruls ah hahrs ta crew 'er. Ah'm sure they'uns 'll 'preciate that.

fishin', I too have noticed that the "Strongly Held Principles" of many folk seem to get a bit soft, ill defined, and runny at the edges when called to stand in the glaring heat of reason's light. Deprived of their molds, many such puddings collapse totally, displaying the coehesiveness and structural integrety of clear broth.

timber

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of the Green Party's platform and it would seem to me it would attract those Democrats who are dissatisfied with the performance of their elected officials. I didn't say that was a good thing as many view what they advocate as extreme left.

I certainly view government confiscation of all corporate assets as "extreme left", though I think it makes more sense to just identify it as what it is, a plank of the Green platform.

Quote:

As to using the term ultra-right conservatives being inflammatory -- that would only be true if one was ultra-right conservative and thought I was putting them down.

I disagree. A comment is not merely inflamatory to someone who thinks it is intended to apply to him or her. A comment is inflamatory if it is likely to be interpreted as hostile by some.

Quote:

As I clearly stated, I don't characterize all libertarians as ultra-right conservatives. I do point out that some who call themselves libertarians are not being genuine about their political affiliations when they are registered Republicans.

I reiterate that without defining what you mean by "ultra right" or "ultra right wing" the phrases are meaningless, so why use them?

Quote:

Republicans do advocate controls of private conduct...

Some Republicans do, some do not.

Quote:

...or the perpetuation of old laws...

I can only assume this means, "advocating adherence to the law where Democrats no longer agree with that law".

Quote:

...and, justified or not, have introduced new controls by taking away more privacy (which has been eroding steadily over the last fifty years).

Both parties have been cavalier about eroding our rights, and I am unhappy about it regardless of which party pushed for that erosion.

Quote:

What exactly is this "redistribution of wealth?"

I think it is fairly clear; the confiscation of wealth from those who earned it and redistribution to those "in need" in the interest of achieving some form of cosmic "fairness", and without regard to the negative impacts inherent in such schemes.

Quote:

Giving the poorest tax payer enough relief to buy one can of coke a day and giving the rich enough to buy a yacht? Yeah, that's sure redistribution of wealth.

Who exactly is giving people Cokes and yachts?

Quote:

I have to admit some of my business has been illumination of yachts but the "trickle down effect" theory represents a drop in the ocean for all of us -- nearly all yachts are made on the Pacific Coast of China and have been for over thirty years.

Are you arguing that because one product is built outside this country that this means trickle-down economics does not work? (I am not asking whether it does work, I am asking whether your statement tells us whether or not it does.)

Quote:

This class warfare accusation is thrown out by conservatives, ad nauseum, as a sound bite.

How is it class warfare to argue for an economic policy? "Class warfare" as I have always seen it used means describing issues as this class against that class, where one class is attributed blame for the problems of the other class. This is not what you are describing.

Quote:

I just have had the experience that those that label themselves politically are often insincere and when trying to explain themselves come up with the most convoluted explanations for their views, boggling the most cognizant of minds.

I translate this as: Anyone with whom I disagree is probably lying to me about where he or she really stands on the issues.

0 Replies

Disagree that that is a platform of the Green party. Have a cite?

Ultra-right wing is the religious right, those who advocate doing away with all social programs including safety nets, those who consistently state and believe that all liberals are communists -- I don't really need to go on -- you know what it means.

I should have said some Republicans -- sorry, a gaffe (and I really meant that to apply to some Republicans who are were very far right).

So redistribution of the money from the ordinary taxpayer and what is being considered in a study by this administration is not considered redistribution of wealth? It's the sum total of the wealth of the middle and lower echelon taxpayer filtered up to the wallets of the rich. You must be rich.

I didn't say giving them cokes and yachts -- I said giving them enough money back on their taxes to buy them. Seems like the economy, however, would get more of a shot in the arm if more cokes were sold over a few more yachts sold where most of the money goes to communist China. Last time I looked, cokes were made in the U.S.A. (and a really high tech industry).

That's only one of the many, many products built outside of the U.S. which happens to be one the rich can afford. If you think they'll chock it into the stock market or in hiring new employees, dream on.

Who was arguing for an economic policy -- never use the terminology. I was giving an example and should have said "The class." Anyway, it was a train of thought and I though it had some relevance even if it is really off topic. I think the topic is a dead horse at this point.

You seem to think you're talented at putting words in someone's mouth, tress. I did not say anyone with whom I disagree, I said those labeling themselves are often insincere and that can mean someone is writing something I am attempting to agree with but don't get a clear picture of their stance. I did not say you were insincere although I'm having a tough time figuring out your politic -- have you identified as a true libertarian?

When I came in on this discussion, I saw it careening all over the place and an attempt to rewrite the dictionary, making something far more complicated than it is. Sure, I threw in some comments that were certainly provocative and they seemed off the point. I don't see this discussion as having a clear point. Again--

L - I - B - R - A - R - I - A - N

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Disagree that that is a platform of the Green party. Have a cite?

Quote:

Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets.
Democratic Conversion of Small and Medium Business: Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of the 22.5 million small and medium non-farm businesses in the US to worker or consumer cooperatives or democratic public enterprises. Mandate that workers and the community have the first option to buy on preferential terms in cases of plant closures, the sale or merger of significant assets, or the revocation of corporate charters.
Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of the 200 largest banks with 80% of all bank assets into democratic publicly-owned community banks. Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned community banks or consumer-owned credit unions.

Green Party Platform, "Economic Democracy"

Lightwizard wrote:

So redistribution of the money from the ordinary taxpayer and what is being considered in a study by this administration is not considered redistribution of wealth? It's the sum total of the wealth of the middle and lower echelon taxpayer filtered up to the wallets of the rich.

Reducing the amount of money the government takes from the person who earns it is not giving that person someone else's money, it is reducing how much of his or her money is being given to someone else who did not earn it.

Lightwizard wrote:

You must be rich.

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you must be rich. (Or is it possible that I might support policies because I think they are right, not because they benefit me personally?)

Lightwizard wrote:

I didn't say giving them cokes and yachts -- I said giving them enough money back on their taxes to buy them.

The point is that no one is giving them anything, they are reducing the amount being taken away.

If I tell you my fee for mowing your lawn is $50, and then reduce my price to $40, would you say I had given you $10? No. I've reduced what I am taking in exchange for my services by $10.

Lightwizard wrote:

You seem to think you're talented at putting words in someone's mouth, tress. I did not say anyone with whom I disagree, I said those labeling themselves are often insincere and that can mean someone is writing something I am attempting to agree with but don't get a clear picture of their stance.

No, I simply explained how I interpret what you wrote. If I got it wrong, mea culpa. My point was that if you assume that people are not going to be honest about what they believe, how can you have any fruitful discussion with them? You seem to want to decide for yourself who is "really" a libertarian and who is not, regardless of what those people consider themselves. Or am I wrong?

0 Replies

Quote trespassers:

"Have you read the Green Party platform? Pretty scary stuff in my opinion. A lot of nonsense about how corporations have pilfered the wealth that belongs to us all, as if that wealth pre-existed the efforts of the men and women who made up those corporations, and with no thought to what incentive anyone would have to create wealth in a society where it is all confiscated in the misguided name of "the greater good". "

That's your characterization of the what the platform is suppose to mean -- can't say I can quite figure out what they mean without more detail. They seem rather tentatative about what they really mean, therefore opening it up to all sorts of interpretations. That's why I hate platforms -- the Green party are also politicians who advocate stuff like this that has little pragmatic basis. I'm not saying that liberal Democrats may be a little loony going to the Green party, I'm just suggesting more have gone with that party and the Indendent party and am only conjecturing. They do have a point even if their ideas look like overkill.

The ordinary taxpaper also earned that money. Because they earned less money doesn't mean taking it from them in taxes and reducing the tax of the wealthy isn't redistributing the wealth of the masses to the wealth of the few. That you believe that makes me believe you are in the rich tax bracket. If you're not, go ahead and me fooled by the whining of the 10% super-rich that they can't afford their taxes and that's why they are laying people off, not investing in markets, blah, blah, blah. Not the super-rich I know -- they're lining up to buy another yacht. Meanwhile, you might have the alternative minimum tax looking you in the face next year.

Rebates are the same as giving back. Your playing the semantics game. Anytime a business gives you a rebate, a reduced sale price, or other discounts -- they characterize it as giving you money back. The government, in effect, is discounting your taxes. Somewhere along the ways, we always manage to have to pay for those discounts and it turns out it was only a loan.

I continually hear conservatives who say that the government has taken too much in taxes over the past fifty years and now they're "giving it back." They've done it before and managed by taxing you someplace else and eventually having to say, damn -- we gave you back too much so we have to raise taxes (could be because we just fought a very expensive war). Actually they aren't giving you anything back and because you live in the U.S. and agreed to work and pay taxes, that money isn't really yours. It's no longer in your possession -- you paid it in taxes. You drove on the roads the taxes paid for, you supported the wars the taxes paid for, you sent your kids to schools the taxes paid for and on and on.

My experience is the ones who complain about taxes the most are the ones who scream the loudest when they run over a pothole in the road and throw their car out of alignment. I think their head is out of alignment.

I keep hearing the mantra about the government "wasting money" applied only to government. How many corporations do you suppose waste money? How much money did Enron waste? Hmm, seems to be a human condition when they get together to grovel for money.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

"Have you read the Green Party platform? Pretty scary stuff in my opinion. A lot of nonsense about how corporations have pilfered the wealth that belongs to us all, as if that wealth pre-existed the efforts of the men and women who made up those corporations, and with no thought to what incentive anyone would have to create wealth in a society where it is all confiscated in the misguided name of "the greater good". "

That's your characterization of the what the platform is suppose to mean...

You challenged me to show you where I got this idea from their platform. I showed you where.

Lightwizard wrote:

The ordinary taxpaper also earned that money.

No, the "ordinary taxpayer" earned his own money, and he will have less of his own money taken from him as well. The money in question does not belong to the government, it belongs to the people who earn it.

Quote:

Because they earned less money doesn't mean taking it from them in taxes and reducing the tax of the wealthy isn't redistributing the wealth of the masses to the wealth of the few.

Who is advocating doing anything of the kind? What proposal advocated raising the tax rates of lower income earners and decreasing those of higher wage earners? I haven't seen one, and I don't think one exists. Certainly not coming out of this White House.

This begs a fundamental question: Who owns the money you earn; you, or the government?

Lightwizard wrote:

Rebates are the same as giving back. Your playing the semantics game.

No, because I wasn't discussing rebates, I was discussing cuts in tax rates. And if you want to talk about a rebate, it is still only an advance payment of some of the tax benefit that individual taxpayer would have reaped in the coming year. The rebates simply give you back now, some of what the government will owe you back because your tax rate was cut but your withholding rate did not.

Quote:

Anytime a business gives you a rebate, a reduced sale price, or other discounts -- they characterize it as giving you money back.

That is is characterized in that way in sales is precisely to mislead the consumer. But again, I was not discussing rebates.

Quote:

It's no longer in your possession -- you paid it in taxes.

NO. I AM DISCUSSING CUTS IN THE RATE AT WHICH WE ARE TAXED, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PAID. It has to do only with how much of each person's income the government will take in the future. Period. If my landlord decides to lower my rent effective next year, he hasn't given me someone else's money, he's let me keep more of my own.

And I don't care what you think "continually hear conservatives" saying. Deal with what I am "saying". It's not my job to defend some fictitious conservative's point of view, just my own.

0 Replies

On the topic of affirmative action (previously discussed here), Colin Powell comes out in favor of the U of M issue... http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/01/19/affirmative_action/index.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On the topic of affirmative action (previously discussed here), Colin Powell comes out in favor of the U of M issue... http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/01/19/affirmative_action/index.html

On a side issue, I think the diversity of opinion within the current administration is a good thing.

0 Replies

or is it choreographed?

0 Replies

or is it choreographed?

0 Replies

I think Colin has more integrity than that, Dys. But to address Tres's point, one reason this internal disparity of opinion is so noticable is because it is so rare...oasis-like.

0 Replies

not choreographed, I think Bush et al have to put the right (pun intended) slate on issues to get Colin to go along with them - otherwise, he just stays quiet. On this issue, he found he couldn't stay quiet because it is so egregious. Look at Rice's response. It is slanted towards Bush and then slipped back out from beneath his feet.

0 Replies

hehhehheh ... the libertarian party participated in the dutch elections once, i believe. the one moment they attracted attention was memorable. i remember hearing that the party leader gave a live interview on the radio - by cellphone, while he was driving. the libertarian party proposed to end max speed and the leader illustrated his point by bragging that he was in fact driving too fast, now - before subsquently crashing in a minor accident, on air. ;-)

0 Replies

to good nimh - BTW, welcome aboard A2K where the speeds are at your desired rate and your always safe!

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

to good nimh - BTW, welcome aboard A2K where the speeds are at your desired rate and your always safe!

thanks for the welcome, billW <smiles>
I'm a slow kinda speeder myself ...

no-itsme, habibi

0 Replies

Okay, we been together before over there, over there. I use to speed some, now - just too old!

0 Replies

IMO Libertarians are people who can't face the fact that the modern world is very cimplex and want a simple solution that covers every problem imageanable. A couple of years ago, I spent an evening with a Libertarian in a major conservative think tank. His mantra throughtout the evening was "All government is evil." He held government to a standard of perfection and was all excuses about errors made in the private sector.

How do you handle a company that is emitting measureably deadly carcinogenic pollution? The government should not interfere. If enough people sue the company for the death of their loved ones, people will eventually stop buying the widgets they make and they'll be out of business.

Still, I appreciate and support the Libertarian position on victimless crimes.

0 Replies

From a simple libertarian - choice is right!

0 Replies

What does "libertarian" mean to you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know