Libertarians love to pretend that Libertarianism means no forcing ideologies on people. Libertarianism forces an ideology too. Just because you think certain types of economic policies are more inherently "free" than others doesn't mean that the worker whose wages just got cut and can no longer afford health insurance agrees with your ideological notion of freedom. To most people who actually work for a living and have experienced living paycheck to paycheck, the most important economic freedom is freedom from immediate risk of homelessness, starvation or general economic ruin. In order to be a truly free market participant, one must have a certain amount of capital to guarantee that one's basic ability to sustain oneself is not threatened in the short term. It's basic economics that the job market will always necessarily have some scarcity (fewer jobs than workers). It sounds nice on paper to have the 'reserve army' of labour for new industries, etc., but it's not so nice for the unemployed workers. If I'm unemployed and can't afford my next meal, I am not truly free. My very survival depends on obeying the whims of anyone who can provide me with capital. On another note entirely, whose property is the air, or the ozone layer, or the water supply? When companies are "free" to pollute as they will, all of this common property is degraded. Why is that acceptable?The rich man's "freedom" not to pay taxes means that the people living in some remote rural village have to accept that it's no longer profitable to have a paved road to town maintained and go without. It means that there is no funding for any collective political projects to alleviate the socio-economic problems I highlighted above and provide all citizens with a meaningful kind of freedom. 0 taxes means no military, no basic infrastructure except where private enterprise builds and maintains it, no emergency services, no funding for schools or hospital grants... Not even a diplomatic branch to maintain formal ties with the rest of the world as a collective entity. Most libertarians are not anarchists, so at least some taxation is a given. Why is a flat % of earned or spent income the fairest way to distribute the burden? Even the most "fair" income tax lets heirs and heiresses completely off the hook, and consumption taxes are sharply regressive. If there is still any public spending on things like roads and communications infrastructure, this also provides increased economic opportunities for businesses, investors and other wealthier people, whereas it at best expands the radius of potential employers for working class people. From that perspective, since the wealthy and businesses gain more benefit from tax spending, it seems only "fair" that they should pay a higher proportion. Otherwise, the working class will be paying to subsidise the upper class' income.While we're at it, there are plenty of other forms of regulation that are probably good things to have at the federal level. Unless private prisons and courts are going to be allowed, things like market oversight for insider trading, safety regulations for power plants and gas storage facilities, radio frequency assignments, etc. probably wouldn't work too well in private hands. And if we still have police and emergency services, well, we're back to a healthy budget.It's late and I should get going, but one last thing: Ron Paul's gone now. We can stop pretending that Constitutionalism and Libertarianism are the same thing. If a strict reading of the Constitution does not protect some specific social freedom, a Constitutionalist doesn't see it as a matter of principle to uphold that freedom. A Libertarian does. Libertarianism is a specific political ideology; if, on any given issue, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not line up with that ideology, a Libertarian would disagree with that interpretation whereas a Constitutionalist wouldn't. Constitutionalists tend to favour states' rights for many social issues, but don't really care what polices the states enact beyond following their state constitutions, whereas Libertarians would want particular social policies passed and may or may not prefer it to be on the state level. A good contrasting example: if the feds decided to legalise marijuana but some states kept their state laws criminalising it anyway, a Constitutionalist would support the states while a Libertarian would not. The federal/state level distinction isn't really central to Libertarianism; it's about the policies that get enacted.
I was thinking. Barr should declare that he would give Ron Paul a cabinet seat ( maybe Treasury Secretary ) is his administration. I would give the hard core RP supporters that are planning upon writing him in a way to vote that would make a difference.
The Constitution Party Http://www.constitutionparty.org/ is the 3rd largest party in the US. I am sorry but Bob Bar voted for the USA PATRIOT Act that enough for me to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin <a class="user" href="http://www.baldwin08.com/">http://www.baldwin08.com/</a> (Dr. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin Http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/ ). The Constitution Party is larger and on more states ballets then the libertarian party there for I feel that they have a better chance. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
Closed AccountJun 28, 2008
This will never make it to the front page of digg because the screensavers kid of obama are butt buddies.
elshizzoJun 28, 2008
You guys realize that Bob Barr supported the drug war, the Iraq war, and the patriot act, right?If he's a libertarian, than anyone is a libertarian...
mizswannJun 28, 2008
You make an accurate distinction - well said!I have to agree, too - Bob Barr DOES have a mustache.
solistusJun 29, 2008
Libertarians love to pretend that Libertarianism means no forcing ideologies on people. Libertarianism forces an ideology too. Just because you think certain types of economic policies are more inherently "free" than others doesn't mean that the worker whose wages just got cut and can no longer afford health insurance agrees with your ideological notion of freedom. To most people who actually work for a living and have experienced living paycheck to paycheck, the most important economic freedom is freedom from immediate risk of homelessness, starvation or general economic ruin. In order to be a truly free market participant, one must have a certain amount of capital to guarantee that one's basic ability to sustain oneself is not threatened in the short term. It's basic economics that the job market will always necessarily have some scarcity (fewer jobs than workers). It sounds nice on paper to have the 'reserve army' of labour for new industries, etc., but it's not so nice for the unemployed workers. If I'm unemployed and can't afford my next meal, I am not truly free. My very survival depends on obeying the whims of anyone who can provide me with capital. On another note entirely, whose property is the air, or the ozone layer, or the water supply? When companies are "free" to pollute as they will, all of this common property is degraded. Why is that acceptable?The rich man's "freedom" not to pay taxes means that the people living in some remote rural village have to accept that it's no longer profitable to have a paved road to town maintained and go without. It means that there is no funding for any collective political projects to alleviate the socio-economic problems I highlighted above and provide all citizens with a meaningful kind of freedom. 0 taxes means no military, no basic infrastructure except where private enterprise builds and maintains it, no emergency services, no funding for schools or hospital grants... Not even a diplomatic branch to maintain formal ties with the rest of the world as a collective entity. Most libertarians are not anarchists, so at least some taxation is a given. Why is a flat % of earned or spent income the fairest way to distribute the burden? Even the most "fair" income tax lets heirs and heiresses completely off the hook, and consumption taxes are sharply regressive. If there is still any public spending on things like roads and communications infrastructure, this also provides increased economic opportunities for businesses, investors and other wealthier people, whereas it at best expands the radius of potential employers for working class people. From that perspective, since the wealthy and businesses gain more benefit from tax spending, it seems only "fair" that they should pay a higher proportion. Otherwise, the working class will be paying to subsidise the upper class' income.While we're at it, there are plenty of other forms of regulation that are probably good things to have at the federal level. Unless private prisons and courts are going to be allowed, things like market oversight for insider trading, safety regulations for power plants and gas storage facilities, radio frequency assignments, etc. probably wouldn't work too well in private hands. And if we still have police and emergency services, well, we're back to a healthy budget.It's late and I should get going, but one last thing: Ron Paul's gone now. We can stop pretending that Constitutionalism and Libertarianism are the same thing. If a strict reading of the Constitution does not protect some specific social freedom, a Constitutionalist doesn't see it as a matter of principle to uphold that freedom. A Libertarian does. Libertarianism is a specific political ideology; if, on any given issue, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not line up with that ideology, a Libertarian would disagree with that interpretation whereas a Constitutionalist wouldn't. Constitutionalists tend to favour states' rights for many social issues, but don't really care what polices the states enact beyond following their state constitutions, whereas Libertarians would want particular social policies passed and may or may not prefer it to be on the state level. A good contrasting example: if the feds decided to legalise marijuana but some states kept their state laws criminalising it anyway, a Constitutionalist would support the states while a Libertarian would not. The federal/state level distinction isn't really central to Libertarianism; it's about the policies that get enacted.
callibrtJun 29, 2008
Reagan did. But you are right and my patience finally ran out.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2008
The last hope for the country is the D.) none of the above vote.
shonenshadow1Jun 30, 2008
I'm glad someone did their homework. All the candidates are the same. There is no hope for America
kevin108Jul 1, 2008
Does anybody have free bumper stickers?
bostonparker1Jul 14, 2008
By the way, Bob Barr was a Georgia Congressman.liberty or death!
coltin5Aug 18, 2008
yeah he did vote for that but realized the government abused it and changed his opinion on all of it, good to see you researched....
goes211Aug 26, 2008
I was thinking. Barr should declare that he would give Ron Paul a cabinet seat ( maybe Treasury Secretary ) is his administration. I would give the hard core RP supporters that are planning upon writing him in a way to vote that would make a difference.
issaccheriyathuOct 4, 2008
Check out this article. Push it up please<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Open_up_and_improve_presidential_debates_with_Barr_and_Nader">http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Open_up_and_impr ...</a>
jonnyrebelOct 21, 2008
The Constitution Party Http://www.constitutionparty.org/ is the 3rd largest party in the US. I am sorry but Bob Bar voted for the USA PATRIOT Act that enough for me to cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin <a class="user" href="http://www.baldwin08.com/">http://www.baldwin08.com/</a> (Dr. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin Http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/ ). The Constitution Party is larger and on more states ballets then the libertarian party there for I feel that they have a better chance. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams