One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians

Spideynw · 06-23-2008, 11:22 PM

One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians is that liberals think it is ok to take money from people who have earned it through honest work and give half of what is taken to beuracrats and the other half to someone else. A libertarian thinks it is always wrong to take from someone who has earned their money through honest work and give it to someone else.

7960 · 06-23-2008, 11:23 PM

David Octavius · 06-23-2008, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

liberals think it is ok to take money from people who have earned it through honest work and give half of what is taken to beuracrats and the other half to someone else.

Though I disdain the very broad brush you just used to describe anyone on the left side I would say that in that context I can easily substitute the modern "conservative" and that statement and it still holds

Spideynw · 06-23-2008, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Though I disdain the very broad brush you just used to describe anyone on the left side I would say that in that context I can easily substitute the modern "conservative" and that statement and it still holds

Especially if you said "fiscal conservative". But, I do think it would apply to most conservatives as well.

A_C_E · 06-24-2008, 02:18 AM

I had to do it

motivez · 06-24-2008, 04:08 AM

Darn those founders and their liberal, money taking schemes (taxes)

lew · 06-24-2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Darn those founders and their liberal, money taking schemes (taxes)

No one's perfect.

Ezra Smack · 06-24-2008, 04:58 PM

The following is paraphrased from a lecture by Citizen X

http://libertyradiounderground.com/

This is probably the best condensed explanation of the way Libertarians view the conventional left/right political spectrum.
------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives believe governments should control peoples personal lives. They believe that we should all conform to their moral standards; even if those standards aren't what we would choose for ourselves. They believe in economic freedom but government control over personal behavior.

Liberals on the other hand, believe that government should control economic issues. They love high taxes and wealth redistribution schemes.
They champion freedom over personal decisions but think government should strictly regulate economic and property matters.

Conservatives and liberals may disagree on what government should control, but both agree that government should exercise a strong degree OF control.

Conservatives believe that people are inherently immoral. Therefore we need a strong government to keep control of people. To keep society from destroying itself through immorality and vice.

Liberals believe that people are greedy and only care about themselves. Without a strong central government the rich and powerfully would run amuck and the people would starve.

In other words both Conservatives and liberals think people are evil. If this is really the case, if people are immoral or greedy, or evil, why would you want to empower them further by giving them the mechanisms of government? Government is after all made up of people. If people are evil, wouldn't you want to restrict the damage they can do? Conservatives and liberals don't see it that way. They don't see themselves as evil, wicked, immoral or greedy. They just see everyone else that doesn't agree with them that way. They see government as something to embrace; a vehicle to forward their agenda. The problem is that this vehicle is getting bigger and bigger and is now careening off course.
Libertarians believe in strictly limited government who's only function is the protection of it's citizens life, liberty and property.

DosEquis · 06-24-2008, 06:19 PM

Cool story hansel

motivez · 06-24-2008, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

The following is paraphrased from a lecture by Citizen X

http://libertyradiounderground.com/

This is probably the best condensed explanation of the way Libertarians view the conventional left/right political spectrum.
------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives believe governments should control peoples personal lives. They believe that we should all conform to their moral standards; even if those standards aren't what we would choose for ourselves. They believe in economic freedom but government control over personal behavior.

Liberals on the other hand, believe that government should control economic issues. They love high taxes and wealth redistribution schemes.
They champion freedom over personal decisions but think government should strictly regulate economic and property matters.

Conservatives and liberals may disagree on what government should control, but both agree that government should exercise a strong degree OF control.

Conservatives believe that people are inherently immoral. Therefore we need a strong government to keep control of people. To keep society from destroying itself through immorality and vice.

Liberals believe that people are greedy and only care about themselves. Without a strong central government the rich and powerfully would run amuck and the people would starve.

In other words both Conservatives and liberals think people are evil. If this is really the case, if people are immoral or greedy, or evil, why would you want to empower them further by giving them the mechanisms of government? Government is after all made up of people. If people are evil, wouldn't you want to restrict the damage they can do? Conservatives and liberals don't see it that way. They don't see themselves as evil, wicked, immoral or greedy. They just see everyone else that doesn't agree with them that way. They see government as something to embrace; a vehicle to forward their agenda. The problem is that this vehicle is getting bigger and bigger and is now careening off course.
Libertarians believe in strictly limited government who's only function is the protection of it's citizens life, liberty and property.

I think that's a reasonably fair assessment of the two parties, but obviously it's not at all critical of the libertarian philosophy

Smull · 06-24-2008, 11:37 PM

I think thats a pretty fair statement, though I do view taxation as a necessary evil, I still think we should see far less of it than we have now. I also tend to put more emphasis on the social aspect of libertarianism than the fiscal aspects.

Ezra Smack · 06-25-2008, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Smull

I think thats a pretty fair statement, though I do view taxation as a necessary evil, I still think we should see far less of it than we have now. I also tend to put more emphasis on the social aspect of libertarianism than the fiscal aspects.

If in fact taxes are really a necessary evil, they should be assesed on a consumption basis, not as a mechanism for redistributation of wealth. Car tags are a good example. In my state your tag is a reciept for having payed for the use of public roads. People who don't have cars are not forced to buy tags to subsidise those who do. What if education were funded the same way?

thewise1 · 06-25-2008, 01:31 AM

Although I tend to be pretty libertarian, i wouldn't mind paying some taxes. I just think we could do what we need to do via taxes with about 1/10 of what we pay now.

motivez · 06-25-2008, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

If in fact taxes are really a necessary evil, they should be assesed on a consumption basis, not as a mechanism for redistributation of wealth. Car tags are a good example. In my state your tag is a reciept for having payed for the use of public roads. People who don't have cars are not forced to buy tags to subsidise those who do. What if education were funded the same way?

If you fund education only through local tax receipts for the specific school you'd have permanent poverty in some areas.. the places already poor wouldn't be able to keep up with the cost of new technology, books, etc.. and it already happens to a certain degree.

Dylith · 06-25-2008, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

If in fact taxes are really a necessary evil, they should be assesed on a consumption basis, not as a mechanism for redistributation of wealth. Car tags are a good example. In my state your tag is a reciept for having payed for the use of public roads. People who don't have cars are not forced to buy tags to subsidise those who do. What if education were funded the same way?

Then everyone would still have to pay for education, because everyone would still be benefiting from it. Just because you don't go to school personally, doesn't mean that you do not benefit from living in a society with an educated population.

Obviously everyone does not benefit equally, but just about everyone benefits in some manner from it.

Spideynw · 06-26-2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dylith

Then everyone would still have to pay for education, because everyone would still be benefiting from it. Just because you don't go to school personally, doesn't mean that you do not benefit from living in a society with an educated population.

Obviously everyone does not benefit equally, but just about everyone benefits in some manner from it.

Prove it.

A_C_E · 06-26-2008, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Prove it.

motivez · 06-26-2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Prove it.

Prove he's wrong if you're trying to refute him

A_C_E · 06-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Prove he's wrong if you're trying to refute him

I'd rather see Dylith prove it; it's one of the easiest proofs in all of public economic theory and the result is bulletproof