Am I a Libertarian?

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by edwhys211, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. edwhys211

    edwhys211 Guest

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, these are the things that concern me the most about our failure of a government:

    We have the War on Drugs, the most prisoners in the world, more drug users in prison than violent people, lobbyists, corporate bailouts, bank bailouts, a humongous military that does unthinkable damage around the world, the federal reserve, corporations have more rights than people (corporations actually are now considered people under the law), the government goes to war to make money for oil and arms companies, soldiers are used as profitable pawns instead of national defenders, etc.

    Now that I got my concerns out of the way, here are my views:

    I am extremely socially progressive. As long as you are not hurting anyone, do what you want. Have sex with a prostitute, smoke marijuana, use ecstasy, buy an AK47 for home defense. If you are gay, get married if you want.

    Economic views:

    The only regulations we should really have are ones that protect the environment. I consider myself an environmentalist, so this would be a big thing concerning whether or not I am a libertarian.
    -Allow people to opt-out of social security
    -Cut regional restriction on health insurance in order to cut down the costs
    -I have no problem with a single-payer healthcare system, but states would have to do it on their own if enough people in one state want it.
    -Reform the FDA. It seems that many libertarian want to abolish it, but I think that idea is stupid. We need to make sure food and drugs are safe, but on the other hand, the government should not be allowed to prevent people from buying raw milk or other types of food that are illegal in the US.
    -I think there should be an income tax to fund roads, police, military, and fire fighters, and possibly a very small social safety net, but that's it. A very low flat tax would be a good idea.
    -End the federal reserve, and banks can only operate as lenders to companies and people, and of course a place to safely store money. They should have absolutely no control over the government, or the country's money. That is the treasury's job.
    -No bailouts for any businesses or banks. If they fail, tough shit. They should have been more responsible.

    Foreign Policy:

    -Friendly relations and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
    -Our military should only be involved overseas if we are attacked by that country.
    -Shut down all overseas military bases.


    Also, one last question. I am concerned about unregulated free trade though. Wouldn't that cause more American jobs to be lost, or would that not be a problem since there would be less regulations and much lower taxes?
     
  2. Cherea

    Cherea Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    You don't seem to be a slam dunk libertarian only due to your environmentalist, regulatory, protectionist, and social welfare leanings.

    Other than that, you're years ahead of any liberal I know. :biggrin:
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Hi Edways


    First I’d point out that there is no firm definition of ‘libertarian’ there can be left wing libertarians and right wing libertarians, with every hue and shade in between. Even within groupings like right wing libertarianism there are differences of opinion.



    What I ask is are the ideas put forward by anyone aimed at improving a situation or would likely make it worse.



    *

    Thing is the US has an ‘elected government’ so isn’t any failure down to those that elected people into government? It seems to me you are blaming ‘government’ for being ‘bad’ when the true problem is a dysfunctional political system that allows ‘bad’ representatives into power, it would seem then to me that the solution would be to try and fix the political system so elections get ‘good’ representatives into power.



    What I and many others are concerned about is the power and influence that wealth seems to have within the US political system. That influence has grown over the last thirty odd years, because of free market/neoliberal ideas that wealth has been prompting through lobbying and propaganda.




    Again the people that enacted the drug laws were elected, the ones that enacted the stupid ‘three strikes’ rule (which so ballooned the prison population) were elected, people voted into power those that then voted for war etc etc.



    I was here in the run up to the Afghan and Iraqi war, and a great many Americans supported the ‘war on terror’ and were contemptuous of those of us opposed or sceptical about Saddams WMD capabilities.



    It is easy to blame faceless ‘government’ for bad laws and stupid actions but in a democracy the people responsible are not faceless they are the faces of your fellow citizens.

     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Edways


    I’m not sure that would bring progress, this sounds a lot like the right wing libertarian stance of not caring, its not about wanting a better society it is about not caring what happens to others.

    Has the prostitute been coerced into the sex trade? Is he/she only there out of economic necessity or dependence on drugs? Are they spreading diseases?
    On drugs who would control it? Would the ecstasy be regulated for quality (you seem to want regulation in other areas)? What about highly addictive drugs?
    Is a society a better place if people feel so threatened by it that they feel they need an AK47 to defend themselves?

    Allowing gay marriage is fine but are you going to try and counteract bigotry?
    The problem with ‘as long as you are not hurting anyone’ is that there can be unobvious or hidden hurts.

    It often seems to me that when examined the supposedly socially progressive ideas of certain right wingers are nothing of the sort, they just have a right wing take on social problems, which as I said seem to boil down to just not caring. The left wing approach on social issues is to try and help, to assist, to change, to try and improve a situation - for example in drugs they see it as a health issue and want to assist, and with abortion they ask why and try to work so they are not even needed. With prostitution they are concerned about the welfare anr health of the sex workers. Often the right wing approach is basically ‘I don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect me or means I have to pay for it in taxes’, it is not about helping people with problems but about not caring if they have problems, and they do this by hiding behind such phrases as ‘those decisions should be left up to individuals’
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    edways

    I’ve often spoken to libertarians who’ve talked about drastically reducing regulation, but when examined they often realise that regulation is needed -
    The only regulations we should really have are ones that protect the environment.

    But you then say -

    We need to make sure food and drugs are safe

    Presumably by regulation?

    And you also say you think infrastructure work is needed that would need regulating (for quality and financial oversight). You want Police which means the policing of laws (which are regulations) and anyway would need regulating (nobody would like unregulated police), same with fire-fighters and also one of the best ways to prevent fires is to have building regulations and laws (regulations) about the use of such things as fire resistant materials. Also to protect people from the risks of fire you need health and safety regulations in workplaces etc

    I could go on and on –the thing is that many regulations are there for a very good purpose, reform is always a good thing but it seems to me many libertarians wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


    So you basically want to vastly increase the power and influence that wealth has within US politics and its society in general – to me that would scupper any chance of getting good governance.


    It depends on regulation, if you have an ethos of selfishness (which underpins a lot of neoliberal/free market/right wing libertarian thought) and an unregulated system that allows selfish practices to take place, then you can get a situation were people at the top feel they should only be responsible for themselves not for the company or wider society.

    If the people at the top are making millions out of irresponsible actions, that is good for them.

    Try reading -
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=6954377&postcount=7

    Also because of lack of regulation we got the problem of ‘too big to fail’ where there are corporations that are so central to the economy that if they failed it would bring down the greater economy. That should not be allowed to happen but it is an inevitable consequence of a move toward a more free market/neoliberal economy.

    Try reading -
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5325789&postcount=1

    You should be


    Try reading –
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922
     
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Edway


    Rather than ask ‘am I a libertarian’ ask yourself do the ideas I have stand up to scrutiny.
     
  7. Michael Starless

    Michael Starless Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ya you seem mostly liberal
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice