How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

lord jim is a nut i have yet to crack, against all odds, as damn near everyone i know who loves conrad tells me it's the one i should like best

[soon, i promise, there's a copy a few feet from my chair]

libraries are in trouble, everything is in trouble here - it depends on who is doing the finger-pointing from what state legislature - everything public is at risk, it would seem

personally, i find reading books on a computer a near-impossibility, and hope that what has indeed happened elsewhere can be avoided where i live - it's a very small library so may have a better chance . . .

 

It would seem to me that the arrangement of the same three letters of the alphabet should be our first priority in achieving any solutions. Instead of looking for WHO to blame, we should instead be asking ourselves HOW to fix each problem. In addition we should try to recognize and prioritize each problem in order of its importance, and that would appear to be our most difficult problem in achieving agreement. We place too much emphasis on attaching possible solutions to a political party view, yet we can not define what a libertarian, conservative, socialist, or most any other political term in a way applicable to all in every situation.
Tax, borrow and spend cannot solve every problem perpetually.
And Communism fails simply because not everything exists or can be produced in a quantity adequate to share proportionately with all members of growing societies. Demand eventually outstrips supply, and some form of rationing or population pruning becomes necessary.

So can I assume that libertarians are not really looking to close libraries, but some politicians regardless of party may be looking to reduce funding in order to balance their budget?

 

Asking WHO to blame is one of the very first steps in determining HOW to fix ANY problem.

If you don't understand the problem, it gets worse while you flounder. And who did it, how they did it, why they did it, and how to restrain them and their type from doing it again are all rather central to the issue at hand.

 

it's part of the small-government agenda, a thing shared by libertarians and radical republicans

blame yourself

 

i am definitely a libertarian, and i can tell you...closing libraries would cause deep disagreement with me. it smacks of book burning and the denial of human knowledge in total.

defunding libraries from the tax base, however, seems perfectly reasonable. let the patrons pay for the library. this goes back to, i think, reagan's idea of 'user pay'. if you use it, you pay for it, not society at large. this principle, i agree with....reduce my federal and local taxes, and i would be willing to pay to go into the library. i might even be willing to give some money to pbs, but not if i'm forced to support these kinds of things through the inefficient federal system.

i don't agree with big government. government has only a few legitimate functions in my opinion. forcing us to pay taxes for things we do not use is not one of those functions. road taxes are a good example of user pay.

i agree with wa. we have only ourselves to blame for our problems...it's not 'them', it's us. we elect these goons who simply throw our money around like it's water, and pocket some percentage that we can't even quantify. we have rich people in washington who mostly got that way from our money, not their own sweat or briiliance (unless you consider a hyena or vulture brilliant). we have paid no attention to their depredations...so, we get to look in the mirror.

i met a guy the other day-Marine corps when younger, now working as a fund raiser for a federal agency. he was complaining to me that he hosted a meeting with some uber-rich, and they refused to donate to public schools. i told him, "the feds and liberals are all screaming to raise tax rates on the rich. i'm sure their position is 'if they are going to take it from me forcibly, when i don't agree with how the schools are being run, why should i give ANYTHING voluntarily?'. yep.....it's a 'fuck you greedy bastards' response. we think we can have 'everything' and there will be no cost...i don't care who you are or how much you have or think you don't have....there is a societal cost to this lethargy, apathy and ebullience with money.

wa, i know a guy who loves his kindle. he tried to convince me...i told him i like holding a book in my hands. he said he found a 'free' site that has thousands of downloads of classics....that sounds tempting, until i think about the $100+ cost of the kindle, another damn rechargeable battery....and something else to worry about being stolen or broken.

 

Indie

I know, as I’ve said I think we all have a pretty good idea of your views by now, the question is why do you have them and can you defend them from criticism.
I mean – ‘I just don’t agree’ – is not a reasonable or rational argument.
We are talking here of progressive taxation, where the quality of life of one person is not diminished but the quality of life of all is improved.
What you seem to be arguing is that you don’t want the quality of life of all improved because… well just because…you just don’t agree.
*

Yes I know you did - but as I’ve said I think we all have a pretty good idea of your views by now, the question is why do you have them and can you defend them from the criticism that they are distorted or even wrong.
And as I suggested to you the last time the topic was discussed (and I’m still waiting for you to address what I said) try reading ‘The American age of Unreason’ by Susan Jacoby it has a lot to say and explain about the decline in educational standards in the US.
One of them is the inability of some to put forward rational or reasonable arguments for their ideas, but would impose them anyway.
*
Once again try reading ‘The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Again we get slogans and not considered argument.
The problem is that Thatcher did a lot of harm that we British are now paying for (and will be for some time). As I’ve said the neo-liberal policies that she and her ilk pursued have caused so many problems. So that today we have a system that means in the upturns most of the benefits go to a few and in a downturn most of the misfortune is suffered by the many.
*

I think we all have a pretty good idea of your views, the question is why do you have them and can you defend them from criticism.
I mean ‘you feeling’ something isn’t a substitute for a rational and reasonable argument. If you feel it why can’t you explain it?

You are entitled to your biases but can you defend them and why do you have them if you can’t?

It is if you’re views on why they are in need of help is based on a simplistic premise that you can’t even defend from criticism.

Again with the simplistic view – to you it is about ‘bail outs’ but what I’m talking about is having fewer ‘bailouts’ either of businesses or individuals.

As I’ve explained at length several times your ideas would most likely lead to more ‘bailouts’ of businesses and individuals.

As to the question of jobs we have been through that before as well and I’ll point out now what I pointed out then.

In my view one of government’s major tasks, if not the major task is to try and bring about full employment. But that Keynesian approach is not shared by most free marketeer’s

The problem is that you refused to address this only giving as your reply that you are a free marketeer
(post 236 etc - Effort and Luck thread)

 

Indie

Again another insight into your thinking, and again it’s not a pretty one.

To you the ‘pain’ of having to pay taxes under a progressive tax system is equivalent in your head to having children forcibly removed from their parents, or someone being sterilized against their will.

I’ll ask again - why do you think such cruel and unusual punishments are a reasonable solution to the problem of the disadvantaged in a society and by what rational argument would you defend them.

*

Well I believe there are 412 Billionaires in the US, some 34% or roughly a third of the total.

But again you show that simplest approach that goes straight to absolutes; in you mind progressive taxation is equivalent to stripping a person of everything they own, but a more rational and considered viewpoint would realise that is silly.

Also in you mind it is all about individuals while in my view wealth encompasses such things as corporations and the movement of wealth.

And that is why I’m against businesses being ‘too big to fail’ and a such things as a financial transactions tax (Tobin tax).

As I say you seem too narrow minded to see things holistically

*

 

Indie
I wish to increase the potential of people to achieve success which is more likely to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

Again I think we know you views, but can you defend them from criticism?
*
To me ‘basic’ education or training is not going to achieve that it is more likely to limit many people’s potential which in turn is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

Oh please you’re not going to be the petulant school child again are you?
Look religions are a matter of faith rather than rational and reasonable argument – I can defend my views with rational and reasonable argument – you on the other hand cannot.
Which viewpoint sound more like a religious belief?
*
I’ve asked you to address the criticism of your views but you seem incapable or extremely reluctant to do so, and I wonder why?

If anything my desire is to increase the number of choices available to the majority of people, while you seem to want to limit most people range of options.
I can understand your reluctance to help the disadvantaged it’s because you seem to think that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved. A premise you seem unable to defend.

 

Indie

As we have gone through at length this goes against you philosophy of individual achievement and steps into the realm of Social Darwinism.
Your argument also falls over the fact that you still want government to enforce taxation (see below).

But once again we have been through this – you still want government and you still want things that you consider are good for society – AND you still want it paid for by taxation – SO in other words you do believe that what is earned by others can be taken by a government which would then decide how to disperse or dispose of it.

The only difference is that you don’t believe that helping the disadvantaged is good for society because – One -you seem to think that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved and –Two – it take money away from those you feel are ‘good’ and ‘superior’.

The problem is you don’t seem able to defend these ideas against criticism.

Actually in poor areas the infrastructure is normally inferior to that of more wealthy areas so their isn’t ‘equality’ there.

And can you back that assertion up with rational or reasonable argument?

LOL - but as pointed out I’m not a Marxist and I wonder why you seem to think anyone with views to the left of you is.

And that’s the problem - do you actually think someone should be promoting views they can’t defend in any rational or reasonable way?

That is the kind of mentality that can so often leads to abuse of power even tyranny.

And if you had the power (and thankfully you have not) you’ve admitted you would have “no problem with [the] persecution of communists” (and since you seem to think anyone with left wing views is a communist we can guess what would happen). You have proposed having children forcibly removed from poor parents as well as sterilizing them against their will. And you have hinted that you would have no problem with those you consider as having no use to society dying from want.

That doesn’t sound like a better society.

 

this is the u$a

small government here will still be mean, greedy, self-interested and idiotic

if you don't believe me go to your city or county meetings

it ain't the size, it's what you do with it

 

That might be true only if you were dependent on their assistance in solving the problem.

And then you go on to prove my point by demonstrating the passionate need to fix blame, not only on an individual but on all individuals you might classify as similar.

 

I'd be fine with taking half the savings obtained by eliminating each one government worker being used to fund public libraries.

I'm blameless.

 

I can pretty much agree with you except for "blaming ourselves", which ignores the fact that some of us have worked very hard in trying to make the changes necessary, but being in the minority against both the Democrat and Republican parties we have not been able to succeed. While we may have a two party system, we do not really have an opposition party which might produce the changes really necessary. For too long we have been voting for the lesser of two evils, and until that changes our problems will only worsen.

 

I believe in the right of ownership. An individual works and earns the means to purchase something. The purchase can be something that has temporary value, permanent value, increasing value, or diminishing value. Examples being food temporary, house or gold usually permanent and increasing, or a car usually diminishing unless a collectors item.
Some have to struggle very hard to be able to purchase the things that can be described as wealth related to their value while others may not. Wealth is a cumulative process, and in itself does not deprive another from doing the same. Supply and demand causes costs to adjust upward or downward, as does the amount of fiat currency government provides us. The progressive tax system implies that the rich will bear a greater burden than the poor, while the tax system is written in such a way that they either benefit from it or they find ways to avoid it. About all that is accomplished is upward mobility is limited for those in the middle class, and retention or an increase of those who are poor.

I fail to see the results, other than an increase in poverty. Jobs, and hand ups not handouts are the solution. Handouts are most useful primarily in producing voters who support Socialism, Marxism, and debt. Jobs and hand ups, on the other hand (no pun intended), create a more prosperous society, class mobility, and less debt.

I don't see government as the producer of employment, but the impediment to it. Keynes? I prefer Hayek, or Friedman among others.

You can always find someone else to blame for your problems, but I prefer to look at myself to produce solutions to my problems. If you maintain the attitude that solutions can only be obtained by making others responsible for providing them, then socialism and government control of society is the only answer, something that I don't accept.

 

Would it not be less cruel than having children grow up disadvantaged for life.

Yes.

You fail to see the facts as they exist. Obviously you cannot strip them of everything they own through the tax system. For one thing much of the wealth they are attributed to possess is only on paper and would quickly diminish if they attempted to convert it into real money. Also the wealth they possess would not be adequate to bail out just the U.S. from its debt, and once they no longer had their wealth who would provide the income government needs to fund its enormous budget going forward?

Corporation don't really pay taxes, people do. Money tends to relocate to where it can best be protected.

Nothing is too big to fail.

We appear to be stuck on the distribution of wealth and its unfairness or the rich versus the poor. Todays world contains over 6 billion unique individuals with no one solution to all their problems.

 

Like I said, do what you can, but you seem to wish to force or look to government to force others to accomplish your goals, with or without their permission.

It used to work quite well, although today many jobs require additional training which most businesses provide.

I've yet to see that.

Obviously I would answer, yours.

You seem to feel that money is the solution to all problems.

I am not reluctant to help anyone, I just like to be able to determine who I can help, how I might help, and see that the help I provide produces some desirable results. There many ways of providing help, and not all require money. Government, especially a central government is quite inefficient in providing help.

 

In what way?

As long as you have a government it has to be paid for. The more you ask it to do the greater the cost is. I would prefer to see the income tax done away with completely, as well as property taxes.

I would prefer each individual in society paid for only what it received from government.

I'm quite willing to provide help to those who show effort to help themselves, or those who are incapable of helping themselves. I have a right to refuse help to those who are able but refuse to do anything to help themselves, and leave them for those like you to provide help to them.

What kind of equality are you looking to produce?

How am I expected to relate fairness to what someone gives? I don't judge people on the basis of how much they have in relation to how much I think they should give. Whether or not they give and how much if they do is their decision, not mine.

While you may claim to not be a Marxist, you seem to hold beliefs quite similar. Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, and even Democrat each seem to be different words that have links common to Marxism. Which, or what other word would you claim to be most descriptive of your views?

Neither does a society in which government attempts to create equality where it does not exist.

 

No no, not so you can get their assistance, so you can remove them so that they can't cause the same situation again, and so that they may face whatever punishment.

 

I'd really be interested in seeing how you would go about solving the budget deficit problem, or would you even consider it a problem?

 

Indie

You are still not producing any rational arguments for your ideas instead you are just pumping out unsubstantiated assertions, or repeating stuff that has already had criticisms laid against them that you have still have not addressed.

Still not addressed

But someone born into wealth doesn’t, so is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?
So far your only reply to this is a simplistic – yes – which as I’ve pointed out a hundred times or more is not a rational or reasonable argument.

In my view one of government’s major tasks, if not the major task is to try and bring about full employment. But that Keynesian approach is not shared by most free marketeer’s

So far your only reply to this is the simplistic reaffirmation that you are a Free Marketeer which as I’ve pointed out a hundred times or more is not a rational or reasonable counter argument.

You can accept it or not - but what I’m asking is do you have any rational or reasonable arguments to back up your position and so far few or none have been forthcoming.

The problem is that the policies you seem to support and encourage would only give more power and influence to wealth and mean that they would use that power to corrupt any system so that it was run in their interests – including a bastard form of Keynesianism in down turns and neo-liberalism in the up turns. Basically meaning that in the upturns most of the benefits go to a few and in a downturn most of the misfortune is suffered by the many.

So far your only reply to this is the simplistic reaffirmation that you are a Free Marketeer which as I’ve pointed out a hundred times or more is not a rational or reasonable counter argument.

But as pointed out such a system would give more power and influence to wealth which could effort to pay for services. For example in poor areas the infrastructure is normally inferior to that of more wealthy areas. If wealth had even greater control over policing, security and justice they would be in a much greater position to suppress opposition.

This is just “the old con of the self serving argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help. So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged”

So far your only reply to this so far is you assertion that it isn’t - although you have not explained why not.


Unsubstantiated Assertions

[/quote]About all that is accomplished is upward mobility is limited for those in the middle class, and retention or an increase of those who are poor.[/quote]
Can you back this up?

Then why did you present that as what progressives would want to do? It seems to me you were trying to scaremonger rather that debate honestly.

Ever heard of Corporation Tax?
And they should pay taxes since they are one of the main beneficiaries’ of a society’s infrastructures.

Can you back this up?
As I commented in the ‘Utopia, no just Keynes’ thread –
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36
“And some encouraged the idea that if things went wrong the market would sort it out, companies or banks would just go to the wall and the taxpayers wouldn’t need to bail them out. But as many people pointed out (and were ridiculed or dismissed at the time) if a crisis did happen at some point a government might have to step in or watch the whole financial system go down the tubes.

Of course the logical conclusion of neoliberal ideas would seem to say let it go, although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theories turn out to be wrong and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-Mart.”

*

To me ‘basic’ education or training is not going to achieve that it is more likely to limit many people’s potential which in turn is more likely to continue unfairness (if not increase it).

Did it - can you back that view up?

*

“religions are a matter of faith rather than rational and reasonable argument – I can defend my views with rational and reasonable argument – you on the other hand cannot. Which viewpoint sound more like a religious belief”

Yes that is your belief but can you back it up with any rational or reasonable argument?
I mean look above, you seem rather incapable of forming any so far.
*

That is not what comes across in your posts, they clearly indicate that you think that disadvantage is wholly and solely due to the ‘poor behaviour’ or ‘inferior’ decisions of the individuals involved. A premise you seem unable to defend.
*

Again the simplistic approach anything vaguely left wing is in your eyes really just Marxism.
Again I think this is more like some kind of John Birch Society type scaremongering it isn’t rational or reasonable.
*