Libertarianism is the best ideology

[MrJonno]

A moderate repub who supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, is pro voluntary euthenasia and supports the legalisation of ALL drugs? I don't think so.

You could easily be in right wing of most European countries and believe that, its only in the US that religion and right wing politics are seriously linked. If anything its the left that is associated with christianity in the UK

[Nickel]

If anything its the left that is associated with Christianity in the UK

How do you figure?

[MrJonno]

Church of England generally when it gets involved in politics its about championing the poor, social justice etc ie 'left wing'. The catholic church is involved in similar issues but it does go down the sexual bigotry anti-women line as well

[Tortured_Genius]

Church of England generally when it gets involved in politics its about championing the poor, social justice etc ie 'left wing'. The catholic church is involved in similar issues but it does go down the sexual bigotry anti-women line as well

The Labour party also had its roots in Methodism in a major manner - that being the main branch of christianity that actively encouraged social mobility during the industrial revolution. C of E and RC were very much "every man in his place" so methodism became the religion of the working man during the 19th century and was intimately associated with the union movement and "left" politics.

The C of E was more usually the church of the status quo and consequently the creature of the Conservative and Liberal parties (we are talking early 20th century here before the Liberal's current incarnation). It's role as anything else has only really changed in the last few decades. Certainly it was "conservative" when I was forced to associate with it at school 30 odd years ago.

Oh and no apologies for the references to "men" there. None of them were big on women's suffrage!

[GrayToneS]

Libertarianism is the best ideology?

I generally dont get hung up on, or label anyone 'left' or 'right', or up or down, as theres really no drawing a distinct line with any of them, they are all men with similar and/or conflicting views within each others circles.

One man, probably the only man I like right now in politics, is labeled by the media as being "right progressive libertarian independent", and thats Ron Paul. I like his stance on a lot of viewpoints, I like the man he is, and I think he would be the best leader to choose from in our limited selection of quality individuals, and libertarianism is in his 'label', so I'd say it could be the best.

[Martok]

Libertarianism is the best ideology?

I generally dont get hung up on, or label anyone 'left' or 'right', or up or down, as theres really no drawing a distinct line with any of them, they are all men with similar and/or conflicting views within each others circles.

One man, probably the only man I like right now in politics, is labeled by the media as being "right progressive libertarian independent", and thats Ron Paul. I like his stance on a lot of viewpoints, I like the man he is, and I think he would be the best leader to choose from in our limited selection of quality individuals, and libertarianism is in his 'label', so I'd say it could be the best.

His racist newsletters from the 80's and his friendly associations with the founder of stormfront will haunt him big time.

[GrayToneS]

His racist newsletters from the 80's and his friendly associations with the founder of stormfront will haunt him big time.

I dont think he wrote those letters personally.
And havnt heard anything about ties with stormfront.
With the recent lift of corporate restrictions on campaigning (the next campaign will look very different from anything in the past) I'm sure those will be brought up in advertisements and what not, with alot of lowblows no matter how much he denies them.

But it appears that they're not haunting him presently.

[eXcommunicate]

His racist newsletters from the 80's and his friendly associations with the founder of stormfront will haunt him big time.

I dont think he wrote those letters personally.
And havnt heard anything about ties with stormfront.
With the recent lift of corporate restrictions on campaigning (the next campaign will look very different from anything in the past) I'm sure those will be brought up in advertisements and what not, with alot of lowblows no matter how much he denies them.

But it appears that they're not haunting him presently.

Well, tbh, I doubt such associations would haunt him over at CPAC, but in a general election? Ripe for Swift Boating, right or wrong.

One man, probably the only man I like right now in politics, is labeled by the media as being "right progressive libertarian independent", and thats Ron Paul.

Who the hell has labeled Ron Paul a "Progressive"? Glenn Beck?

[Julia]

Ron Paul is also a "pro-lifer".

[Coito ergo sum]

Most nations have public healthcare. To pay of it requires higher tax rates which does hurt economic freedom in that map. However it takes a number of other factors into account as well (ease of starting a business for instance). Hence nations with high tax rates can still be economically free (just not as free as they would be with lower taxes)

I'm sorry this is gibberish.

Americans have actually less economic freedom with the insurance based health care system as the individual insurance cost has to be added to what you pay in taxes. The only time you can disregard the insurance cost is when you have no insurance whatsoever. But you also have to understand that in the health care tax other countries pay, things like nursing home and home for elders, are included. In the US, you economic freedom is lower since you have to put aside money for health care, unemployment, retirement and nursing homes etc.......

You don't 'have' to put the money aside it would just be overwhelmingly stupid not to. Economic freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices though, a freedom one loses to so degree when dealing with government run healthcare. I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it clearly isn't and all evidence suggests that, from a purely pragmatic stand-point, a public healthcare system would actually be preferable to it (in its current form). However, you will find few if any libertarians defending the status quo when it comes to healthcare in America. American libertarians from what I have seen tend to promote other ideas such as allowing the purchace of out of state insurance.

Buy with what again?

This is what I don't get about libertarians. Do you really think the reason people don't have health insurance today is because there is no insurance available to them or do you think it is because:
- Can't afford the insurance

The statistics are rather curious on this point. The latest available 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. This is curious in that none of the mandatory health insurance bills offered so far have provided any assistance at all to anyone making more than $45,000 a year (and people making from the poverty level up to $45,000 would at best be eligible for partial assistance). Of the 46.5 million uninsured, about 10 million are not US citizens. So, of the 36.5 million uninsured, almost half of them are at an income level where even under the proposed plans they would be held to be able to afford insurance.

In addition, the House and the Senate bills (we don't know yet about Obama's new proposal) BOTH would increase the cost of health insurance, according to the CBO. So, of those uninsured (who necessarily do not have employer based options or else they would not be uninsured), 1/2 of the uninsured (who you say can't afford health insurance) would be FORCED under the law to buy health insurance that will be more expensive than the health insurance that they don't buy now. If indeed they can't afford it at their over $50,000 income level now, they surely will not be able to afford it after either the House or the Senate bill is passed.

According to a 2003 survey, 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.

People making over $50,000 are not eligible for Medicaid. So, if we add 17 million to 14 million, we get 31 million. That leaves 5 million uninsured Americans plus 10 million uninsured non-Americans. That's a much smaller problem, in a population of 300,000,000+ than a 46.5 million figure.

- Have pre-existing conditions

That is a thorny problem, of course, but it does not require a complete overhaul of the current system. We can make adjustments - or create a preexisting condition system that will address those people who are unininsurable (like in auto insurance when states set up funds for the uninsurable).

It doesn't matter if they can buy out of state insurance when they don't have the funds to pay for them in the first place.

Likewise, if a person makes over $50,000 and can't afford it now, they still will not be able to afford insurance after the House or the Senate bill is passed (since ZERO assistance is given to people making over $45,000 under the House bill, and ZERO assistance is given to anyone making over $32,000 in the Senate bill). So, remind me how making insurance more expensive for people who "can't afford" it now, and then not giving them any assistance to pay it helps those 17,000,000 people?

Besides, why should I have to finance a bunch of rich unproductive idiots in the insurance industry?

You shouldn't have to.

It just makes health care more expensive on every level.

So do the House and the Senate bills.

Get rid of the insurance nonsense and get a real UHC system

Maybe so. However, the new Obama proposal is not that, and the House and the Senate proposals were not that. I will assume that you are, therefore, against those measures, especially since they do not help 17 million of the uninsured Americans, and 14 million of the uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but haven't enrolled. Yes?

and you'll see the cost will drop.

We would have to see the details of your UHC proposal before that is known. There are many ways that UHC can be set up, and UHC is not a synonym of "cost savings." And, no proposal for UHC has been put on the table here in the US yet.

Aren't you in favor of spending less money on healthcare?

Yes, and none of the proposals so far would result in me spending less money on health care. The opposite, actually.

Every UHC country spends less than the US on health care via taxes and get better result.

That is not exactly true, as the comparisons are not apples to apples, and many of the costs of UHC systems are not taken into account when comparing them with the US system. But, needless to say, none of the proposals so far are UHC like in Canada, Europe or elsewhere.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Indeed, libertarianism encourages the worst in people.

I don't think that's true. Libertarianism is more akin to "atheism" as a belief system.

Just as "atheism" - a lack of belief in gods - doesn't "encourage" the worst in people. It just is. So too libertarianism is not an "active" belief system, so to speak. To put it differently, it's just a lack of belief in government intervention. Liberty is a lack of constraints on individual freedom, it's not an "encouragement" of anything at all.

I mean, to say that people should have the liberty to associate, speak, own property, and move about to the greatest extent possible so long as they do not infringe on someone else's right to do the same, is not "encouraging" bad behavior.

Atheists try to follow a secular code of ethics.

Really? Maybe some do. But, I've been an atheist for some time now and nobody has given me a copy of the Atheist Code of Ethics yet. Atheism is not an ethical code - it's a lack of belief in gods. Atheists can be Marxists, or middle of the road folks, or libertarians or Randian Objectivists. They can be progressives, liberals, conservatives, libertines, anarchists and socialists and capitalists. All of those categories involve radically different codes of ethics.

Greed and selfishness isn't part of that.

Well, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she created Objectivism and published a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness." I'm sorry, but you do not speak for atheists in general. Further, I've known some atheists I would very much categorize as greedy and selfish. I have also known some libertarians I would characterize as kind, generous and selfless. I have known many atheists who are libertarians as well.

Polluting the air and water isn't part of that.

Hardly anyone thinks it is good to pollute the air and water. However, atheism does not necessitate a belief that pollution of air and water is a bad thing. Many atheists do a lot of polluting. Many libertarians do not. Many atheists are libertarians, in fact.

Allowing people to suffer and die because they can't afford health care isn't part of that. To libertarians; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is a privileged. To an atheist those things are a right to everyone, not just the wealthy.

To a libertarian, actually, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a right to everyone. I've never spoken to a libertarian who believes otherwise. I am not a libertarian, but I am familiar with libertarianism, and they do believe in a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, etc.

Many atheists ARE libertarians. Many atheists are Randian Objectivists.

Many atheists are socialists and progressives too, and to many other folks being a socialist or a progressive is "greedy and selfish" because it means that you are in favor of reduced property rights for the individual (and if you are a Marxist socialist, then you are in favor ultimately in the elimination of property rights for the individual). To many people socialists and progressives want to simply take the property and income of some individuals and, under force of law, give it to other people. Many folks don't find that particularly selfless.

Further, many people sincerely believe that socialism will, in the US, make things worse for the greater number of people (and will not be the greatest good for the greatest number, but rather the opposite) - therefore, those who oppose socialism and progressive policies often sincerely believe that they not only champion the rights of the individual more, but actually advocate an overall policy that is better than the socialist or progressive alternatives.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, that's probably true - not in the sense of violent extremists, but they do hold an extreme political view in the same way that socialists and "progressives" hold extreme political views.

Did you hear that there are other countries that exist other than America? Shocking, I know.

I never said I was talking about the United States.

However, whether something is "extreme" depends on what is in the middle of a given population. In a nation of libertarians, libertarianism is not extreme.

In the US, libertarianism is one extreme on the political spectrum -- other views are even more extreme, like "anarchism" - anarcho-capitalism - anarcho-syndicalism, communism, socialism, etc.

In Europe, libertarianism is also extreme, but so is socialism in its pure sense. Most European countries are mixed economies, which puts socialism, and things like Marxist socialism, etc. on the extreme.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

You can use your own money to buy your own self-defense force. There is nothing illegal about that. Private security firms are all over the place.

No shit?

Now I wonder who could afford to do that...?

People with money.

It's like asking "I wonder who can afford a Lamborghini?"

People with enough money to pay the asking price.

I'm sorry we don't live in a world where everybody can afford to buy everything they want anytime they want. But, unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that anything you want to buy takes the fixed and variable costs associated with producing the product or service. Everything costs money Unless you are going to force everyone to sell their products and services for $0 asking prices, I don't know how else you can set up the system but to have a price on goods and services.

Keep thinking about that and you'll realize why libertarianism is just a way to transfer more money and power to people who already have too much of both.

Oh, o.k. - can you clue us in on how we are to determine how much money each individual is supposed to have? Are we to take the entire amount of income in the US in a given year, divide by 300,000,000 and then reallocate any income on a pro rata or per capita basis? What's fair?

[Coito ergo sum]

But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care,

If universal health care in the US were proposed with a measure that would make health care and health insurance less expensive, then I would agree with you. However, I disagree with the present proposals because they are built on the premise that the present situation is economically unsustainable, but then proceed to make the economics of it worse.

I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus,

Unemployment insurance does go for at least 6 months.

Yes, many things can happen to people through no fault of themselves.

paid postnatal leave for 6 months,

I disagree with that. Such measures increase the cost associated with employing employees and make employers resist hiring people. That's why countries that have these sorts of extreme paid leave situations tend to have high unemployment. 10.2% unemployment in the US had people reeling like crazy, and we are borderline depression statistics. Places like Brazil routinely have 15% unemployment and while they do have many weeks of mandatory paid vacation and many months of paid maternity leave, and other such mandatory benefits, it is very difficult to find a job and once you have one you are not as free to leave a job you don't like and move to something you do like because there are far fewer employers out there.

The reason I oppose mandatory post natal leave like that is that I think that while the intent is laudatory, the consequences are to severe to justify it.

labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes

O.k., I'm not sure why you pick 40% and not 50%, but whatever. I guess someone who thinks it should be 35% and not 40% is an asshole in your book, but you've got it right because you pick 40% and not 45%.

There are economic models that probably should be consulted before picking rates out of thin air. There are times when reducing a tax "rate" will result in an increase in total tax "revenue." So, if the goal of taxation is to raise money for the government to operate, then we should be less concerned with what the rates are, and more concerned with how much money is collected. However, if the goal of taxation is social engineering, then that changes one's analysis.

and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

Why? Why 50%? Why not 75%? Because one just "feels right?"

I think the current political system is stupid.

If you can describe one that isn't stupid, you win a prize.

A lot of people aren't eligible for unemployment benefits, although you are correct, it usually lasts up to 39 weeks. Let's extend it to 52 weeks and increase it to a point where people aren't starving to death.[/quote]

What are the statistics on starvation in the US? Are you using the word "starving" metaphorically?

Why not extend it to 104 weeks? Where do you get 52 weeks as being sufficient?

Your comments about postnatal care are flawed and this is me being nice.

In what way? Tell me what I said that was wrong?

Comparing the US to Brazil is crazy. Try any Western European nation and see who has lower unemployment AND more postnatal care.

The US generally has much lower unemployment than Western European nations, by far.

Western European nations do not have more postnatal care. They have more paid time off granted to a woman after she has a baby. Those are two different things.

"The consequences are severe." How silly.

How so?

"There are times when reducing a tax "rate" will result in an increase in total tax "revenue."". Nope. Never happened ONCE. Not ONCE. You lose.

That's false. It has happened.

Tax rates in the 1920s dropped from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent. According to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

As for your condemnation of my tax rate examples, I picked the minimum I'm comfortable with. If you want to raise it higher than that, enjoy.

So, just so we're clear - you rail against those who pick lower rates than your subjective comfort level requires, and consider yourself "right." That's convenience. So, if someone says they think a 35% tax rate is sufficient, they are the bad guys, and since your "comfort level" tells you 40% is better, then you're the good guy.

Social Democracy has worked in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg at least. So it's not stupid. Where's my prize?

Our form of government in the US has "worked" here too. There are plenty of problems in those countries you have listed. I've never claimed their systems have no redeeming qualities, or that people aren't able to live out their lives under those systems. However, the US has done pretty well over the last 230 years. Not too shabby. Nothing says we have to follow the social democratic model.

You'll find the only places where it really works extraordinarily well are in states of plenty. Like, for example, Norway. They have a population of 4.5 million, and a per capita GDP surplus that is huge, giving their government gobs of money to work with. They get this from a disproportionately large supply of natural resources and a disproportionately small population. That's when socialism really works. Socialism is great in a state of plenty, but bad at allocating scarce resources.

[Godless Libertarian]

Oh, o.k. - can you clue us in on how we are to determine how much money each individual is supposed to have? Are we to take the entire amount of income in the US in a given year, divide by 300,000,000 and then reallocate any income on a pro rata or per capita basis? What's fair?

One thing I've learned is never to expect a direct and rational response to this question.