Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Martok]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

[Wumbologist]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

Martok! I just finished a marathon-run watching of all 7 seasons of DS9. Congrats on the promotion to Chancellor.

[Martok]

Martok! I just finished a marathon-run watching of all 7 seasons of DS9. Congrats on the promotion to Chancellor.

<- blood wine

[Wumbologist]

Martok! I just finished a marathon-run watching of all 7 seasons of DS9. Congrats on the promotion to Chancellor.

<- blood wine

He really was the best Klingon they ever had. His voice was just naturally suited to the role.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

The reality is that the other 59,999 do not pay an equal share, and a good many people pay nothing. Whether that's acceptable in a given circumstance depends on one's philosophy. In the US, for example, a huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes, and this is masked by things called "credits" where people wind up paying either no taxes or actually get money back.

This is one of the things that I think libertarians are right to point out. We hear so much about how "selfish" it is for people to not want a nationalized health care plan. However, a single taxpayer already subsidizes people who choose to have children in this country, in addition to lower income people. So, to call that person "selfish" because he or she questions the wisdom of another plan designed to further increase that person's subsidy of other people is wrongheaded, I think.

[Coito ergo sum]

But in order for Libertarianism to work, everyone has to agree on the basic rule of behavior in the society isn't it ?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It's like playing a card game, it only works when everyone agrees that Ace of Spades is the biggest card, or that a royal flush will trump a pair.

That's no different than any other system of government.

What's to stop a bigger group of players from changing the rules? You can say laws will be enacted to prevent that but the ultimate nature of the law is still set by the guy with the biggest group backing him up isn't it ?

Well, that's why I'm not a Libertarian, because I am not in favor of privatizing everything, or coming up with some system of voluntary allegiance to private entities, like some extreme libertarians. I am for a constitutionally limited representative republic whereby common issues are determined by the majority through the Legislature, and fundamental rights are protected from government interference.

If so much faith is placed on that everyone could agree on a common rule of behavior and abide by it, how would this in the end be any different from communism?

Well, communism eliminates private property, among other things. Libertarianism is fundamentally based on private property rights. So, the two are polar opposites.

But, needless to say, I do not think a pure Libertarian society would work well. And, I definitely do not think a pure Communist society would work well.

[Coito ergo sum]

Under libertarianism the haves would have more and the have nots would have less.

I don't believe libertarians would agree with that. And, under any system the haves have more and the have nots have less.

In the Roman Empire the emperors would often give out free loafs of bread to the poor.

Libertarians would call this socialism.

No, I think they would call that "monarchy" and "tyranny." Maybe "despotism."

Many socialists, however, do seem to side with the despots these days, like Chavez among others. I've wondered about that. I see a lot of socialists or Left leaning folks applauding Chavez while he seizes private companies, "nationalizes" the media to eliminate free press and dissent, consolidates power, eliminates his term limits, oppresses the people....but, he does give them some bread....

[MrJonno]

I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

The reality is that the other 59,999 do not pay an equal share, and a good many people pay nothing. Whether that's acceptable in a given circumstance depends on one's philosophy. In the US, for example, a huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes, and this is masked by things called "credits" where people wind up paying either no taxes or actually get money back.

This is one of the things that I think libertarians are right to point out. We hear so much about how "selfish" it is for people to not want a nationalized health care plan. However, a single taxpayer already subsidizes people who choose to have children in this country, in addition to lower income people. So, to call that person "selfish" because he or she questions the wisdom of another plan designed to further increase that person's subsidy of other people is wrongheaded, I think.

Thats mainly because taxes are far lower in the US than any other 1st world country, obviously the tax burden isnt spread evenly but it is at least spread. People obviously abuse the system the problem is determining who exactly is abusing it costs more money than just letting people abuse it. Unless you are prepared to just cut back and not care if innocent people get hit

[Nickel]

I'd like to see some research on the contribution that the very rich and very large corporations pay in taxes. Not what they SHOULD pay, what they ACTUALLY pay. I'm sure there will be quite a gap...

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

[eXcommunicate]

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

That's essentially where I end up on the graph as well. I'd say most Progressives would end up roughly in the middle of that quadrant.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

The reality is that the other 59,999 do not pay an equal share, and a good many people pay nothing. Whether that's acceptable in a given circumstance depends on one's philosophy. In the US, for example, a huge number of people end up paying zero federal income taxes, and this is masked by things called "credits" where people wind up paying either no taxes or actually get money back.

This is one of the things that I think libertarians are right to point out. We hear so much about how "selfish" it is for people to not want a nationalized health care plan. However, a single taxpayer already subsidizes people who choose to have children in this country, in addition to lower income people. So, to call that person "selfish" because he or she questions the wisdom of another plan designed to further increase that person's subsidy of other people is wrongheaded, I think.

Thats mainly because taxes are far lower in the US than any other 1st world country, obviously the tax burden isnt spread evenly but it is at least spread. People obviously abuse the system the problem is determining who exactly is abusing it costs more money than just letting people abuse it. Unless you are prepared to just cut back and not care if innocent people get hit

Well, actually, the tax burden in the US is very high right now, and corporate taxes are not really higher than in other 1st world countries. As of 2007, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes and that was up from 37% of all income taxes two years prior to that. The top 5% of income earners pay something like 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay something like 71% of all income taxes, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.

That means that the other 75% of income earners pay 14% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all income taxes!

I mean - I'm not sure how much fairer it can get. I suppose we could get the top 1% to pay half of all the taxes, and the top 10% to pay 85% of all the taxes and the top 25% to pay 99% of all the taxes, leaving the other 75% to divvy up the remaining 1%.

In the US not only do we have federal tax rates, but most states have state income taxes (usually around 4 or 5%) and some cities, like NYC, Detroit and other big cities also have income taxes of about 1% or so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

That's essentially where I end up on the graph as well. I'd say most Progressives would end up roughly in the middle of that quadrant.

I ended up here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-4.62

I guess that's probably in line with how I describe myself.

I think that some of the questions were poorly worded though.

[Fact-Man]

Well, actually, the tax burden in the US is very high right now, and corporate taxes are not really higher than in other 1st world countries. As of 2007, the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes and that was up from 37% of all income taxes two years prior to that. The top 5% of income earners pay something like 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay something like 71% of all income taxes, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all income taxes.

That means that the other 75% of income earners pay 14% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay 2.89% of all income taxes!

I mean - I'm not sure how much fairer it can get. I suppose we could get the top 1% to pay half of all the taxes, and the top 10% to pay 85% of all the taxes and the top 25% to pay 99% of all the taxes, leaving the other 75% to divvy up the remaining 1%.

In the US not only do we have federal tax rates, but most states have state income taxes (usually around 4 or 5%) and some cities, like NYC, Detroit and other big cities also have income taxes of about 1% or so.

This should be placed in the context of the distribution of income, which is heavily skewed toward the top and has been trending that way since GWB's tax cuts in 2001. The top two per cent of earners now hold 40 per cent of the wealth.

A few posts upthread you were going on about how little income tax the lower percentiles pay, which came off like a complaint, yet here you say the taxation burden is "fair." A bit puzzling that.

The middle class is being squeazed out of existence, with incomes stagnant for the past 30 years and declining in recent years as most of the wealth is being sucked up to the top and unemployment remains high.

In 1980 there were two legitimate billionaires in America, today there are more than 400. And no fewer than ten million new millionares have been added to the rolls since 1980.

If these trends continue, and nobody thinks they'll do anything but continue, income distribution in the US will soon be exactly like it is in third world countries, were typically the top ten per cent hold 90 per cen of the wealth and the remaining 90 per cent are left to fight over ten per cent.

America will then have joined the ranks of third world countries.

[eXcommunicate]

Also I did the political compass test for a larf and got this

That's essentially where I end up on the graph as well. I'd say most Progressives would end up roughly in the middle of that quadrant.

I ended up here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-4.62

I guess that's probably in line with how I describe myself.

I think that some of the questions were poorly worded though.

Well, the quiz is run by Libertarians after all.

[Dr. Kwaltz]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

Libertarians only look at "freedom to", I also like to include "freedom from", one without the other is useless.