I had a question for libertarians and instead of making a new thread I decided t post it here, hope that is ok for all.

What is the typical libertarian stance on conspiracy charges? No crime has been committed and no one has been harmed only planned to be harmed. What if it is a conspiracy charge where there is no physical evidence of the conspiracy only a witness testimony? Do you consider it "thought-crime" or "pre-crime".

Also I decide to add to this thread, companies even under a libertarian government should have strict restrictions on the exhast they put out since lead, mercury etc. harm all that breath the air, drink water etc.

Thought crime is ridiculous. However, if someone is conspiring to kill the president, it would make sense to take them down before their plan went into action. If they were actually going to commit the crime and took steps towards its completion, that would be considered a crime. If they just thought it out and planned it, but didn't take any steps towards actually doing it, then there was no crime.

I would consider that reasonable. I don't want to eat a fish that's been contaminated with mercury or formaldehyde. The limits would have to be founded in scientific fact about what levels would be acceptable (I'd consider less than one preventable death/injury/cancer/etc. per million to be acceptable), though, not just arbitrary limits set by some committee with no or few scientists on it.

__________________
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.

It's a fine line, but where do you draw the line? Also ph, do you know how much lower the taxes of a libertarian govt would be?

I don't know, it depends on the type of Libertarian. But, well, with my version, if you made $20,000 a year you'd pay virtually no taxes. If you made $80k a year, you'd pay maybe 9%. If you made $120k a year, you'd pay 15%. If you made $400k a year, you'd pay 29%. If you made $800k a year, you'd pay 30%.

Sales tax might go up a percentage point or two, but not a great deal.

__________________
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.

only a corrupt politician would allow that to happen .It is actually a very silly question
If you want an example of a Libertarian google Tom Paine and find out that America would not have come about without him.
It is the ignorant Americans that watch as their country sinks into the third world only a Libertarian can help the Americans now.

ViolaLee,
Just as you find with almost any political grouping, you will find that
Libertarian beliefs may vary considerably from person to person. You will find
libertarians who believe in minimal government as well as libertarians who are
anarchists or as some prefer to be called "anarcho-capitalists."

There is one defining characteristic that binds them together. That is the
belief it is immoral to initiate the use of force against other people. You must,
rather, persuade them to your viewpoint. This generally means a lack of
government regulation. However, it does not necessarily mean total lack of
government involvement. Courts are believed by most libertarians to be the
proper forum for correcting and preventing such problems as the dumping of
toxic waste. Dumping toxic waste is a clear violation of your neighbors' rights.
Although most libertarians oppose zoning, they do not oppose private
agreements which prohibit the dumping of toxic waste (or parking of junk
cars, or building a non-matching garage) within a particular community. These
are commonly referred to as restrictive covenants.

Many people who are opposed to the libertarian vision make the mistake of
comparing it to an impossible utopia. As if their own vision of government
regulations solving all the problems of the world is a real possibility.
Regulations solve some problems, they create other problems which are often
worse or equally as bad. Take for instance, the FDA. The FDA has arguably
matched the number of lives it has saved by deaths it has caused through
over regulation. Many very detailed scholarly studies are available to show the
net negative effect of government regulation in many areas.

In regards to education, it is most definitely not free. Although some people
are receiving it without paying, they are often getting exactly what they pay
for.

According to a recent column by Vin Suprynowicz, "The New York Times
reported Feb. 27 that fewer than half of American teenagers know when the
Civil War was fought, and one in four believe Columbus sailed to the New
World some time after 1750. About a quarter of the teenagers were unable to
correctly identify Hitler as Germany's chancellor in World War II, instead
identifying him in a multiple-choice test as a munitions maker or premier of
Austria."

I encourage you to take a look at the work of John Taylor Gatto in order to
see a different viewpoint on the value of this free education. In particular, his
book "Dumbing Us Down". The public school system was specifically envisioned
by its creators as a system for keeping the masses under control. If you
doubt this, you have to look no further than the recent 2nd District Court of
Appeal decision in California where they effectively banned home schooling.
Not because of its results - which are indisputably better than the public
school's - but because "A primary purpose of the educational system is to
train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state
and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

True education wasn't even the primary goal. You will also find that levels of
illiteracy might actually be higher now than before the advent of public
education.

assuming it goes like that.

it may well go like this

1. wait for some company to dump toxic waste.

2. initiate civil proceedings against them in a civil court.

3. the company returns the favour with its own law suit. perhaps accusing you of libel, or saying your legal case has caused mental distress in their workplace, doesnt really matter.

4. you face millions of dollars in legal bills defending yourself against a ridiculous law suit fighting a company with lots of very experienced corporate lawyers and lots of money.

5. it is cheaper for the company to spend $10 million fighting you in court than spend $20 million disposing of waste properly. they have more money and more lawyers than you.

6. you go bankrupt, lose your house and career and have yet to see your civil case get to court.

7. the civil case finally makes it to court. you are absent or have no legal representation. the company wins in court.

8. the company sits around twiddling thumbs daring anyone else to give it a try.

there are some celebrated cases where the little guy has won a david-and-goliath case against a big polluter, but these are rare. court is not always a good way of dealing with a problem. the benefit of regulation is that it prevents it getting to court in the first place.

the problems of regulation are legion, but i think it is way too simplistic to think they would all be solved by using court instead.

That's the biggest philisophical difference, I have noticed on this and other political forums/discussions, I've encountered.

Where some see things with a liberty/freedom/rights viewpoint, I tend to see things from a responsibility/accountability one. In my experience, the ones who are the most vocal about the loss of rights or restrictions on freedoms tend to be the ones who feel the least connection to society, desiring to operate solely on their own.

I admire the independent spirit, yet I start to worry that we've become less a society than a motley collection of 350 million self-centered individuals with no responsibiities for the collective nation as a whole. It frightens me a little that so many dislike the poor and disadavantaged so much as to feel anger towards even the most basic and inadequate social programs, because it means they have to share, give back to the country.

"Me-me-me, mine-mine-mine" appears to be the heart of that philosophy, and I think that's a poor national motto. That seems to be the core argument for abandoning to public school system to rot, for resistance to a health care system, for railing against a taxation system, and a government that ultimately provides far more benefit than what we pay into it (just not directly).

I think people of a "libertarian" opinion need to remember what the whole point to society is, why people began banding together into villages in the first place. It's more efficient and powerful to do somethings collectively than individually. You are beholden to insure the well-being of others. When people slip through the cracks, fail to financially function well in society, or drop out of education, everybody loses.

With rights come responsibilities, and you can't claim one without acknowledging that. You've got to earn those rights, nothing's free. We cannot continue to enjoy the high acheivements of our society if we figuratively turn tribal.

All that said, I am not some kumbiya socialist, but I do think certain core things need to be handled by government independent of volatile market forces. Education, health care and national defense come to mind. Government should be more of a referee, insuring fair play and competitiveness, protecting and bolstering the weak, for the good of the whole.

Selfishness has never been an American value, and I am ashamed and surprised when I encounter it.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

So having a movement towards self Responsibilities instead of dictated Responsibility is bad? Is it not the goal to have a society which liberty/freedom/rights are at the forefront? But to do that the individual has to except the Responsibility for their actions. Which is the center platform to any Libertarian. To succeed, each person has to respect each other based on merits. It can not be forced by Governmental Laws.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Could that be because those who feel least connected to society are those whose rights are most often trampled by the most powerful and influential in society? Of course, those feeling most connected to society will be those who most benefit from it, and who have the greater advantage from that connection. The most connected will tend to have the most power and influence in society and to be most secure in both their privileges and rights. It is these who will be most accepted and tend to be able to exercise more power over those who are less connected, and therefore less accepted in society.

Look at the FLDS situation in Texas. An entire community was rounded up; women separated from their children; their cell phones confiscated, they were denied access to attornies; they were denied the right to pray in private with their children, unless government officials were present to "monitor" their prayers; their temple, a sacred place of religious worship to them was invaded by government officials; the state kidnapped 437 children and is trying to send them off to foster homes. All on the strength of a prank phone call from some nut in Colorado, who made false allegations that she was being abused and held against her will at the compound in Texas! There was no probable cause for the warrant; the warrant was overbroad; the alleged suspect wasn't even in Texas, and hadn't been for over 20 years. He was in Arizona serving a probation sentence! Why didn't the authorities go to Arizona and start locking up entire families there, separating them from their children?

Now, whatever one may think of this group, of their beliefs, teachings, and desire to be independent, separate from the larger "connected" community, you tell me why it is that they were subjected to a loss of their due process and civil rights. What other community of "connected" people in society would tolerate a government which came into a neighborhood on the strength of a false allegation against ONE MAN, and began rounding up all the families in that neighborhood and treating them as they have treated the FLDS community?

Why has the government in Texas continued on in their thuggery? Why haven't the people of Texas risen up in rebellion and demanded the Texas authorities stop their outrageous violation of the FLDS community's civil and due process rights? It is because the FLDS are not "connected" with the larger society; they are not accepted. So, it is perfectly permissible for the Texas authorities to carry out these outrages.

It is no wonder, then, that those who feel less connected to society are the most vocal about their losses of rights and freedoms. It is these people who tend to be the ones whose rights and freedoms are most trampled by the "connected" in society. It is acceptable to trample on them because they are not liked.

What are these collective responsibilities? All rights are individual rights. My responsibility to the collective nation as a whole is that I do not invade the equal rights of any other member of society. That's it!

People don't mind sharing. What people do mind is being plundered and having their property forcibly taken from them and given to someone who has no right to it. Should we admire the common thief or robber on the street who beats down a woman and steals her money because he uses the money to buy some object he really, really wants but didn't have the money to buy it with? I don't think so! Then why is it any less a criminal act for the government to rob one man of income he earned through his own labour and to give it to some other man, who did no work for it? Why should we admire government for doing something that if we were to do would land us in prison as loathsome and despicable criminals?

The American people are a giving people! It has been shown, that despite being taxed (robbed) to death so that the government can redistribute the property to others, the American people still give massive amounts of their income to charitable causes both inside the U.S. and abroad. And even more amazing, these "selfish" people, rather than acting the miser and hoarding their money, give even more when their taxes are diminished!

And what do I or anyone else have to "give back" to this country? What is it that we have taken?


"what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" is even a poorer national motto, IMO.

The core argument for abandoning the public school system is that it is already rotten! When the public schools hold a monopoly there is no incentive for them to provide quality education. With the private schools competing by providing a better product--education--the public schools will be forced to either improve or to lose their place to those schools which get good results.

We have a health care system. What you mean is resistance to a government controlled health care system. Government does more harm to the health care system than good. Look at socialised medicine in Canada, and the harm that government regulation and Medicare does to the health care system within the U.S. in terms of cost and quality. Beside these points is the fatal one: the federal government has no authority under the constitution to run a healthcare system!

As for taxation, add up all the state, local, federal, gas, car registration, phone, property, sales and any other tax or government fee (a tax by any other name is still a tax) you can think of and deduct the sum from your paycheck. Next, count every government blessing you personally get and see just how much you get for your money taken from you in taxation! The federal government has limited functions which it is, under the constitution, permitted to do. If the federal government were to do just those things taxation would be very, very low and the incomes of all those who pay taxes would rise considerably, as would their standards of living.

No, my friend, taxation is not a blessing. A far greater number of people would be benefited from lower taxation than the number of those who benefit by high taxation. It has been shown that even the poor would fare well when people are taxed less, as charitable giving increases when household incomes increase. And the people would not be angry, because they would be giving from their hearts, not because they had been robbed, their property given to others at the point of a gun!

I think you misunderstand, and therefore misrepresent, the "libertarian" opinion. Libertarians recognize the need for society and that people are better off living and functioning in a community. They recognize that because of the principle of specialization that man can only really prosper and thrive within a larger society, through the means of voluntary exchange .

One man, living in isolation with his family, cannot possibly produce every thing he would need to prosper. Such a man would be reduced to a meager life of hard labour, by which he would only be able to produce the very basic requirements of life. No libertarian thinks this state is the ideal; they advocate for civil society, in which all are free to do as they will, on the condition they do not trespass the equal rights of their fellows.

There are some who will fail; who will fall through the cracks. But, it will not be the force of government which leads society to come to their aid. It will be the consciences and inherent humanity of man which leads his fellows to come to his aid...not the threat of imprisonment or death! And his fellows will come to his aid not to win votes and secure elections for themselves, but because they love their fellow man. And their purpose will not be to give the poor a permanent lifetime dole, by which the man learns helplessness and does not improve his condition by his own effort. Their purpose will be to give temporary aid to the man and to encourage him to take opportunities to improve himself and his condition, such that he will have the dignity and self-esteem a man who provides for himself may possess. Rather than being a perpetual drain on the society, the man will become a productive and contributing member of society. ALL society will be benefited by this course of things...the man, the givers, the mentors, those who receive the man's labor, the man's wife and children.

I am not beholden to ensure the well-being of others, not by the laws of man in any case. I am beholden to not infringe the rights of others. When everyone respects the rights of others and refrain employing violence or coercion against others, when all exchange voluntarily, there is a sense of community and peaceful co-existence which awakens in their hearts a care and concern for others. Such a people care for each other voluntarily, devoid of resentment, jealousy, or strife because they give willingly from the heart, bearing nothing other than goodwill and a desire to see others enjoy happiness as they themselves enjoy. No government edict is required for people to care. And when such a state of caring, mutual respect and cooperation, and voluntary giving and exchange exists all benefit thereby.

No libertarian I know has ever denied that with rights come responsibilities. What is left out of your slogan is the definition of just what those rights are and in what way we are responsible to others in our exercise of those rights. I have a right to life, liberty, happiness, and property, among others. I have the responsibility to respect those equal rights in others and to not trespass on them. I have the responsibility to not take another's life, except in self-defense; to not deprive another of his liberty; to not infringe on his happiness in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; to not take his property by force or by fraud, but only by his consent and through voluntary exchange.

Rights are not earned, privileges are. I have a right to my life, liberty, and property merely because I exist. I can only be deprived of my rights under law if I trespass against the equal rights of others. Libertarians do not advocate "going tribal".

It is only government's duty to safeguard the equal rights of all. When one member of society trespasses on the rights of another it is government's duty to administer justice. It is not the duty of government to use force to deprive one person of his property to give to another person who has no right to that property, unless he has acquired the right to that property lawfully...that is through purchase, contract, or some other lawful means.

Government is formed by society and can only be granted such powers as the individual members of society themselves enjoy. That is, government can possess no power granted to it but the powers that the people themselves possess. No man has the right to rob another and, absent having purchased that property or otherwise having rightfully acquired title to it, take that property by force. If an individual possesses no right to rob another he has no right to grant that power to the government. And if the government has not been granted a power by the consent of the people it does not have that power. And since no person ever has the right to use force against another to take his property the government can never exercise such a power either.

Education and health care are not areas that the government has been given power by the people to administer...at least not on the federal level. National defense is a legitimate function of the federal government, which the people have rightly consented to give over to the federal government. Other areas of legitimate government exercise of administration are of treasury, international affairs, bankruptcy, coining money, and immigration.

Unfortunately, government tends not to act the referee, nor does it ensure fair play, nor competitiveness. Rather than protecting and bolstering the weak, government tends to exacerbate their state of weakness and establish a perennial state of impoverishment for them.

If selfishness has never been an American value then there is no need for the government to meddle in the affairs of the American people. People will care for people absent government force and interference precisely because they are not selfish, as you admit.