Flawed Libertarianism

No

Probably would still be, as libertarian government would still need all the things necessary for the defense of the nation. Just no taking of property, even with the contrived "payment" scheme used with eminent domain now. I think things like dams and the like would be privatized.

Greed. Offer enough and the owner would sell. If a price cannot be agreed on, then the project would have to be rethought.

The prevalent attitude is that if you take care of each individual's rights, then all people would benefit more than the current system allows. In the case of things like flood control, the obvious answer is to not build in areas where it floods. If a person chooses to, they do so at their own peril. Under the current system, taxes I pay go for the construction of dikes and levies hundreds of miles from here, and do not in any way benefit me, and I find it unfair I have to pay part of the costs for this sort of thing so Joe Scaboti can have his mansion on the banks of a river that floods. My experience with trying to tame rivers is fairly extensive, having worked in the area of heavy construction my whole life. The area where I grew up had a river that would always flood when the rains hit. They tried to contain them with earthen dikes, which were constantly failing. The prevalent thought was that they were necessary to create farmland, housing areas, etc. I disagree with that. Sure, the farmers thought it was great as the public got to foot the majority of the costs to maintain the dikes that protected his farmland, but where is the benefit to the other people who pay for it? Being able to buy the food he produced? Minimal benefit considering the cost and constant upkeep necessary.

 

My apologies for getting snappish, getting tired and very busy this time of year getting set for winter. I do a lot of research during the winter when I am not so busy, I will keep this in mind and see if I can find anything you might be interested in.

There is not, really, other than the constant intrusions by governmental agencies purporting the need to control everything because we can't do it ourselves. Want to build a house? You have to go through review of the land to see if it fits current regulatory use. Then plan review to see if your plan fits the current codes, because, as we all know only the government knows how to build decent buildings, even in light of the fact that building codes are a relatively new thing and people used to build on the strength of their word, and their accomplishments. In other words, if they did a shitty job, they would go out of business. Word of mouth is still the best advertisement and a crappy business operator soon finds themselves out of business. Unless you are a large bank, then you can always rely on government controlled public money to bail you out, which does little to force them to operate better.

Nothing is going to eliminate poverty. All we can do is get by the best we can. Non profits go a long way to help, when they can and when they have funds available. I work very hard to avoid taxes in every legal manner possible, and give all I can afford to give to the non profits I think do the best for the people in our area. Sorry, but I try not to get to concerned about people hundreds of miles away, there is only so much anyone can do, and we feel it is best to take care of our family and close friends and neighbors first. If everyone did this, it would go a long way towards helping those in need.

It takes support for a change. Given the choice, too many people will take the easy way and go for government freebies to get by, instead of putting extra effort into it when needed. Then, the prevalent attitude in this nation seems to be that we are required in some way to help others. So, people on the one hand don't want change as then they might have to turn off the Nintendo and work harder, and on the other, people don't want change since we are "supposed" to help others. The "need of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or the few." sort of dribble. That is all well and good for the many, but what about the needs of the one, or the few, who lose out? Why are they expendable? It sounds good on paper, but I bet the people who push for that sort of thing would squawk and fuss like crazy if they were all of a sudden on the losing end of the one, or the few.

 

I was HEAVY into the Libertarian-ism during the 1970s and 1980s in Colorado. I met the folks who started things, long before the Clearchannel and Reaganites got interested enough to hijack it. I quit it around 2006, because it was no longer about liberty for people, but just a springboard for corporate thugs who want to have their way with the rest of us.

 

Just clarifying the fact that taxes have to be administered in accordance with the constitution, in addition, the courts have ruled that the name of a tax has nothing to do with what the tax is, and they all have to be duties, imposts, and excises. The so called income tax is an excise tax according to the courts, and has to be administered as such. I think this is the issue with libertarians, but I never got into that issue deep enough to find out. The 16th amendment, according to the US Supreme court, did not add any new tax, just removed the requirement to apportion it in the manner of all other excise taxes, and I think that might be the crux of that matter, I just don't remember. Apportionment in this regard means:
Apportionment
apportion v. to distribute proportionately Source: NMW
In the context of the Constitution, apportionment means that each state gets a number appropriate to its population. For example, Representatives are apportioned among the states, with the most populous getting the greater share. Direct taxes (of which there are none today) were to be charged to the states in this manner as well.
The need for apportionment of taxes, and the reason for it, is difficult for us to imagine today, but there were good reasons for it. The following is an explanation of the need for the Direct Tax Apportionment clause. It was written by Supreme Court Justice Paterson in Hylton v US (3 US 171 [1796]):
The constitution declares, that a capitation tax is a direct tax; and both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax... The provision was made in favor of the southern states; they possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory, thinly settled, and not very productive. A majority of the states had but few slaves, and several of them a limited territory, well settled, and in a high state of cultivation. The southern states, if no provision had been introduced in the constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other states. Congress in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion or arbitrarily, and land in every part of the Union, after the same rate or measure: so much a head, in the first instance, and so much an acre, in the second. To guard them against imposition, in these particulars, was the reason of introducing the clause in the constitution.

That found here: http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

Which I think brought up a memory about that issue, that if the So called income tax is an excise, as the courts have stated, then it cannot be administered as it is, the libertarians believe it is being administered in the manner of a direct tax. I think that was it. I seem to remember it getting into things about how if you work in at will employment the earnings from that were not something an excise could be laid against, I just don't remember for sure.

 

You're right, I found a reference to that in my notes and had to look it up.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

Well, as I stated, I think it would change, but there would still be police, and they would still be mandated to keep the peace, but in such a manner as they did not initiate violence, in the manner they do now, and what they did would probably be closely scrutinized, at least until all the libertarian politicians got settled into office and set up their own little empires as all politicians do, then I am sure things would start to slip.

 

I think you are confusing censorship with the workings of the military.

Censor:
noun
1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3.an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4.(in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

censorship:
noun
1.
the act or practice of censoring.

In order to keep an effective defensive military, as libertarians prefer it, obviously any secrets that would be necessary to protect the lives of those in the military and the country, would have to be kept secret.
That is not the same thing though as censorship, according to how it is defined. The censorship issue as I understand it is in regards to people being censored, so maybe you would see a lot more porn and crap like that, I really don't know. I assume that at first there would be all sorts of people who would push the boundaries of common sense and logic and there would be lots of trash getting tossed around, but hopefully it wouldn't last long. Since this is all speculation, who knows?
Gee, just think, the owner of this website would be able to allow nudie pics without worry, wouldn't that make all the sex obsessed people who visit here happy.

And no, the web sites I provided in regards to the court system are discussions, and not the final word on that matter. You make it sound like libertarians are bloodthirsty pricks just waiting to gang up on people that piss them off.
I had thought you better than that sort of tactic, really.
You were concerned with how the court system would work, I gave you some info to look at that would explain what the thinking was better than I could. Please stop twisting what I post in this manner, or I will just cease discussing anything with you.

 

I think the quote from the libertarian source I provided in regards to your original question on this issue explains it best. I see no reason why it would not work on a larger scale if it works on a small scale. Obviously it would take some doing to make it work.
And if someone building a bridge understood that they are personally responsible for it, and are liable for the safety of the people using it, then I would assume they would make sure it was safe.
Things like this were done in the past, ferries were private, for instance.
I don't see any reason why private systems would not work alongside public ones either, since they do already, but the issue for libertarians seems to be that the government should not be in the infrastructure business, that all government services should be privatized.
Would that work? I have no idea as I am not a fortune teller, but I doubt that anyone would just tell all the government employees to go home and start selling government equipment, buildings, and tools. There would be trial and error, adjusting the whole thing to make it work, etc., just like they do now with new things. The ultimate goal, though, is to privatize most or all of the services the government provides now, since the prevalent thinking is that private industry can do it better.

 

@meagain

Yes.

It wouldn't be a public works project, it would be a private project for private gain by a private business, yes. And yes, then the project would be scrapped in favor of a workable idea. That is my take on that issue.

Not at all. The various people could get together, form some sort of association or business venture, negotiate with others to acquire what they need, land, etc., and build whatever it is. There would be no restrictions on them so long as they did not harm others, or the environment, in the process. It would not be a public project, it would be a private one, much as private water associations, diking districts, power systems and the like are formed today.

Yes. Although defense projects are a different matter, and I am not sure how those would be built, but I assume the government would still own the land.

It wouldn't matter if I or anyone else could see benefit to it, if someone thought they could make a buck off it, it would probably be built and any loss would be the builders problem. It would be a private venture and the only say anyone would really have over the issue would be if they would be damaged by it.

 

Even with minimum standards today we are not guaranteed a safe or efficient product. Looking back at the early car industry, and the carriage industry before that, there was little in the way of any standards. The building code industry today, and that is what it is, does not guarantee a safe house. I have read court cases where neither the building code industry nor a building inspector were liable when a building failed, even though adherence to the codes and permits and inspections by an inspector are mandatory. So what good are standards if the people who create them and those who enforce them are not liable? In the libertarian system, anyone who sells products or services to another is liable for them doing what they were sold as being able to do. If they do not, and something fails, then the provider is responsible and must make it right, just as they are supposed to do now.

In your opinion.

Partially correct. The federal government needs to butt out, people need to again take responsibility for their families, and neighbors need to start helping each other more. People are starving in Mississippi while you are in New Jersey even with the current national welfare system, so which is better, a system that relies on locals to make decisions about what happens close to home, where most everyone knows what is going on, or a system where all you know is what Fox news or one of the other profit oriented so called "news" services TELLS you is happening in Mississippi?
You have no real idea of what is even going on there if you do not go there yourself and see with your own eyes. At least at a local level the people would know who is capable of caring for themselves and who is not.

You know, the funny thing is, the early liberal thought was virtually identical to libertarian thought, both stemming from the same premise concerning the liberty of each individual. MODERN liberal thinking is pretty screwed up and so far off from what it originally was, I would be ashamed to be associated with it.

I never said that, is that your opinion?

Twisted again.
I am not even going to bother to explain this again since you are bound and determined to misinterpret what I say.

You know, I agree. I have figured out a few things about this site that I have been wondering about, and you have pretty much cleared that up for me. Thanks!