Ditto.

Here's a brief summary of my views. I am not a believer in the true free market. A completely free market will devolve into a corporate aristocracy. I believe in free enterprise, but with limitations - right of Keynesian, but left of Free Market.

The person who works more receives more benefit. I do think we need some kind of system to keep those who are unable to work from falling into a downward spiral, and to keep people out of abject poverty (something which, by the way, is essentially nonexistant in the US), but this should not come from an income tax. The money passed out by this system (essentially a stripped-down Social Security) must be non-taxable in any way, state or federal, and it must be immune from having "loans" taken out of it like Congress is using the current Social Security system.

There must be anti-monopoly and cartel laws, and they must be better enforced than they are now.

There must also be some restriction on things to preserve peoples' safety. If something is potentially damaging to your health, it must be displayed extremely visibly and in easy to read font. For example, you could sell or use Heroin, but there would be a big "TOXIC" symbol on it, and under it a list of side-effects. Ditto for Marijuana, tobacco, and other drugs. It's your choice if you use them or not, but you will be provided with lots of warnings of what it will do to you. If you use drugs and they **** you up, that's your fault.

There would also be safety restrictions on things that are essential to common living. For example, laws to keep meat clean, laws to keep water safe, laws to keep factories from dumping pollutants into rivers, laws against false advertising and libel, etc.

Education would be free and mandatory to 8th grade, and free but non-mandatory to 12th grade. You'd have to pay for college, but scholarships would be available. You can legally work starting at age 16.

Sales tax won't supply all the money needed for this. There must be an income tax. However, I think the current system won't work. I think the tax curve should follow a logistic equation, with a maximum of 30% of your income and the inflection point at an annual income of $100,000.

As for the societal part, "An it harm none, do as ye' will."


I'm pointing all this about because most of the arguments against Libertarianism focus on the free market, and there's lots of stuff wrong with a completely free market. Free enterprise is essential, but you must protect the populace from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals and corporations. Monopolies destroy a free market economy.

Between Keynesian and Free Market. Maybe even a little closer to Keynesian, but still neither.


Out of curiosity, what would this make me in British politics?

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

In a strictly free market, there would be no government involvement. Ergo, corporations would not be recognized as autonomous "Persons" in the eyes of the law. Also, you could argue that intellectual property would have no protection in a strictly free market.

I'm talking about the traditional free market; not anarchy.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

White Rabbit hit the nail on the head; Socialism is incompatible with liberty.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Wow. It's like a libertarian hugfest up in here. Can I join, too?

You are free to exercise your right to hug so long as you do not infringe upon the hugging rights of others.


Had to go there.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Sir Rabbit, I believe you have rendered the host of this thread speechless.

I'm not entirely sure, probably in the left of the conservative party, although I wouldn't rule out someone with your views being in any of the main parties.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

Rightwing Libertarians (US variety) believe in liberty for capital as the highest value. Liberty for humans is only important insofar that it is secondary to, and support of, liberty for capital.

Leftwing libertarians believe in liberty for humans as the highest value. Liberty for capital is only important insofar as it is secondary to, or supportive of, liberty for humans.

That's the distinction out there. My terms do not flatter the 'rightwing' types, but that's the reality of their views - individual liberty is always sacrificable for capital's liberty, never the other way around. That tells who is boss.