Thing you hate about the Libertarians the most

[Bono]

Dictionary.com search for theft:

Theft   Audio pronunciation of "theft" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (thft)
n.

   1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
   2. Obsolete. Something stolen.

Stealing:
teal   Audio pronunciation of "stealing" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.

   1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
   2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
   3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
   4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
   5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.


How is taxation not taking away property without permission?

Permission is given when the government received its mandate from the people to carry out its agenda.

So you're saying the government is stealing from YOU, so that YOUR kids can go to school? So that the roads and highways YOU drive on are paved?

Is the mother who demands child support from the father stealing from him? Does a baby require "permission" to receive her mother's milk?

Libertarians keep talking about "individual rights", but what about responsibility? Citzenship comes with rights and duties. They never talk about the needs of the community and contributions toward the common good. Is it fair to ask for representation without taxation? That's why I think libertarianism is a heartless ideology.

Can everyone benefit from taxation? No, some people, or in our case, most people, will be at a net loss, therefore taxation is immoral.

[opebo]

What I hate about the Libertarians is that so many of them vote Republican.  They prioritize economic issues over personal freedom issues - which is crazy in a country where even the 'left wing' party is right wing on economics.

Libertarians - pull your heads out of your asses - the Republican Party is the number one threat to freedom!

[A18]

yawn

[Richard]

What I hate about the Libertarians is that so many of them vote Republican.  They prioritize economic issues over personal freedom issues - which is crazy in a country where even the 'left wing' party is right wing on economics.

Libertarians - pull your heads out of your asses - the Republican Party is the number one threat to freedom!

Economics is SIGNIFICANTLY more important than social values.  Without an economy, we'd all die of starvation.  And then who is going to care abou smoking weed if they haven't eaten in 43 days?

[stry_cat]

If you can't even reform a major party in a Libertarian direction, what makes you think you'll ever be able to reform the country in a Libertarian direction?

The Republican party is full of RINOs that will forever support bigger more oppressive government.  There is also the fanatical religious right that wants to turn this country into some kind of theocracy.  At the moment the Republicans cannot win without the support of these two groups.  Until that changes they will never be purged from the party and the party will not move in a Libertarian direction.

The Democrats have a slightly different problem.  They're completely taken over by the big government socialists.  They have purged from their leadership most the people who oppose oppressive government.  Most of the Democrat voters have the live and let live outlook on life.  They see the fanatics in the Republican party and have no choice but to vote for the socialist who at least promises that the oppressive government will at least oppress everyone equally.

The LP needs to come along and draw off the libertarian Republicans and the average Democratic voter.  Neither of these groups in their own parties can accomplish much.  However I think together in the LP they'll be more effective.  If each group makes up a 1/3 of their own party and they vote for the LP then we cut D&R vote totals, The LP candidate will also bring in people who have given up on voting and the next thing you know the LP gets about 33-35% in a 3-way race.  In such a race that could be enough to win.  In any case it will be more effective than splitting the pro-freedom vote between two anti-freedom candidates.

So in short that's why I think it will be easier to use the LP to change the government rather than the corrupted old parties.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you can't even reform a major party in a Libertarian direction, what makes you think you'll ever be able to reform the country in a Libertarian direction?

The Republican party is full of RINOs that will forever support bigger more oppressive government.  There is also the fanatical religious right that wants to turn this country into some kind of theocracy.  At the moment the Republicans cannot win without the support of these two groups.  Until that changes they will never be purged from the party and the party will not move in a Libertarian direction.

The Democrats have a slightly different problem.  They're completely taken over by the big government socialists.  They have purged from their leadership most the people who oppose oppressive government.  Most of the Democrat voters have the live and let live outlook on life.  They see the fanatics in the Republican party and have no choice but to vote for the socialist who at least promises that the oppressive government will at least oppress everyone equally.

The LP needs to come along and draw off the libertarian Republicans and the average Democratic voter.  Neither of these groups in their own parties can accomplish much.  However I think together in the LP they'll be more effective.  If each group makes up a 1/3 of their own party and they vote for the LP then we cut D&R vote totals, The LP candidate will also bring in people who have given up on voting and the next thing you know the LP gets about 33-35% in a 3-way race.  In such a race that could be enough to win.  In any case it will be more effective than splitting the pro-freedom vote between two anti-freedom candidates.

So in short that's why I think it will be easier to use the LP to change the government rather than the corrupted old parties.

What the hell are you talking about?
The whole country was socialist in 1936.
The Democratic party is not socialist today.
Since when was the Patriot Act "freedom"?

[stry_cat]

If you can't even reform a major party in a Libertarian direction, what makes you think you'll ever be able to reform the country in a Libertarian direction?

The Republican party is full of RINOs that will forever support bigger more oppressive government.  There is also the fanatical religious right that wants to turn this country into some kind of theocracy.  At the moment the Republicans cannot win without the support of these two groups.  Until that changes they will never be purged from the party and the party will not move in a Libertarian direction.

The Democrats have a slightly different problem.  They're completely taken over by the big government socialists.  They have purged from their leadership most the people who oppose oppressive government.  Most of the Democrat voters have the live and let live outlook on life.  They see the fanatics in the Republican party and have no choice but to vote for the socialist who at least promises that the oppressive government will at least oppress everyone equally.

The LP needs to come along and draw off the libertarian Republicans and the average Democratic voter.  Neither of these groups in their own parties can accomplish much.  However I think together in the LP they'll be more effective.  If each group makes up a 1/3 of their own party and they vote for the LP then we cut D&R vote totals, The LP candidate will also bring in people who have given up on voting and the next thing you know the LP gets about 33-35% in a 3-way race.  In such a race that could be enough to win.  In any case it will be more effective than splitting the pro-freedom vote between two anti-freedom candidates.

So in short that's why I think it will be easier to use the LP to change the government rather than the corrupted old parties.

What the hell are you talking about?
The whole country was socialist in 1936.
The Democratic party is not socialist today.
Since when was the Patriot Act "freedom"?

What are you talking about?  Did you even read the post?

Neither I nor the person I was responding to mentioned 1936.  We're talking about now, 2005.  Catch up with the times please.

The Democratic party is socialist. Clinton wanted socialized medicine.  Kerry is more left than Ted Kennedy.  Almost every leading Democrat wants government control over the economy.  I agree the average person who votes for Democrats is not socialist, but they're unable to take back their party and the Republicans don't offer them any good options.

Where did I mention the Patriot Act and where did I say it was freedom?  The Patriot Act just proves my theory about the big government types have control over the Republican party. 

I suggest you start reading more carefully.  You're fast becoming the next nomo and that isn't a good thing.

[phk]

Clinton was by no means a Socialist.

[ATFFL]

Clinton was by no means a Socialist.

Clinton had zero political base or core ideas.  He was a socialist, when he thought that would be popular.  When the Republicans smacked down his health care plan and the voting public was happy Clinton stopped being a socialist.

[YRABNNRM]

Their weakness on terrorism an foreign policy. If it wasn't for that my avatar would probably be yellow.

[semissou]

I dislike the anti-government-at-all libertarians.

[Defarge]

They're crazy.  Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you agree with them on exactly half of the issues, while on everything else they're just plain crazy

[John Dibble]

They're crazy.  Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you agree with them on exactly half of the issues, while on everything else they're just plain crazy

It's funny, that crazy half tends to be what the other party members agree with.


Now, what do I dislike about the Libertarians? I have a number of criticisms about my own party.

1. Many are unwilling to do what it necessary to really get the party going. We have to be active. Our membership is much smaller than the other parties - each member will need to work more if they actually want to make the difference.

2. The Purists. Even with our smaller membership, we have this one subgroup commonly referred to as the 'purists'. These are the Libertarians who want to keep the party pure of anyone who deviates from even one issue on the party platform. If you aren't Libertarian enough they don't want you. This group prevents many little L libertarians from becoming dues paying members of the party. This group also scares a lot of people who might otherwise become Libertarians, because they advocate radical change within a radically short time period. Mention the word 'incrementalism' and they become rabid, screaming wombats. They fail to realize that if libertarianism is going to suceed, it needs to be implemented over time, step by step. Society is scared of fast change, and for good reason - fast change usually causes great harm. This group just can't accept that other people think differently, and you have to talk in their terms to change them into libertarians. Unfortunately, the leadership of the party is much infested with these types.

3. Foreign policy - I think our foreign policy needs strengthening. First off, we need more emphasis placed on our support of defense - we must show we are willing to do what it takes to defend the country. It's not that we aren't, it's just that our message is not packaged right. Heck, our stance on guns should tell you we aren't pushovers. I'm a non-interventionist for the most part, with the exception of when one country attacks another unprovoked(this mainly applies to 'conquest' type attacks) - when a country attacks another simply to conquer it, it shows that it does not respect sovereign borders. Any sovereign borders - even ours, which means allowing them to continue conquest would eventually make them powerful enough to attack us. Happened in WWII, would be no different now I would think.

[Platypus]

Womby is deeply offended

[John Dibble]

Well too bad. You have freedom of speech, not the freedom to never be offended.

[Serenity Now]

Can everyone benefit from taxation? No, some people, or in our case, most people, will be at a net loss, 

It's going to take a lot of maths for you to even begin to prove that, It's  probably almost impossible to work out whether it's true or not. Maybe you should just look at whether you gain or not.

If you find yourself to be making a net loss from taxation (Because I just can't help but think that this is in the least some kind of a motivation) then you can justify all the baseless assertions you like!

And by the way, if you're really are right that perhaps a (narrow) majority makes a loss from taxation, if we were to do a away with taxes and the services they provide - What would happen to that narrow (or even small or tiny) minority who stand to lose out? Do they matter?

[The Vorlon]

As a fairly "moderate" Libertarian, I think I need to defend my party a bit here...

The War on Drugs

The purpose of law enforcement is not only to punish the offender, but also, and this is perhaps even more important, defend the best interests of society.

An 18 year old black kid gets caught with half a key, and we send him away to jail for 2o years:

Cost => +/-  $1.2 million +++++

When this kid gets out when his is 40 years old, he has no education, no job skills and a 20 year prison record hanging around his neck for the rest of his life. 

What are his chances of becoming a productive, useful member of society when he gets out?   (Hint... you have better odds at "powerball")

The BEST possible scenario is he hangs around on Welfare till he dies (cost to society till he dies +/- $400K), the more likely scenario is he goes back to crime.

The Punishment to SOCIETY ($1.6 million plus what lost productivity this kid could have contributed) vastly exceeds the crime this kid committed.

The mandated minimum sentences for drug crimes, while absurdly long ffor the criminal, are also absurdly punative to the SOCIETY. 

Somebody once joked that any kid caught with half a key should be sentenced to a 4 year full scholarship at Princton.

Guess what?, the 4 year plan at Princton costs barely 20% of the current system and is likely to produce a productive member of society not a permanent drain the keeps punishing SOCIETY for the crime..

[John Dibble]

Wow, never heard that argument against the WoD before. I'll have to keep that one in mind for future debate. Good work Vorlon.

[The Vorlon]

Their belief that government is being "oppressive" simply for taxing people to deliver the greater good. It just seems like a very heartless ideology.

The problem with government is that it has become unresponsive, and has become it's own self sustaining ceneter of power.

I am an advocate of what is called philanthropic capitalism, when money is allocated for good works, but continued funding is tied to actual results.

A small example:

Back in 1999 myself and a few of my business partners collapsed one of our companies and realized a fairly nice profit.  We decided to set up a small foundation with some of the proceeds.  It's a very small foundation but we are able to give out annual grants totalling about +/-$70,000 per year.

We are all big advocates of basic educational skills, mainly Math which we happen to think is very badly taught by and large in the schools.

We annully request grant applications where we require applicants to spell out two things:

1)  What do you hope to accomplish?
2)  How will you measure what you have achieved?

While most of the grant applications are great at #1, they are almost always wretchedly bad at #2.

A couple years back we pulled a grant from one group because they simply could provide absolutely no evidence that ther project they ran made kids better at math...

That almost never happens in Government.

In Government, when a school fails badly, we give them more money, not less and this is just morally wrong.

If as a society we decide to spend X dollars to educate children is it not a moral imperative that we "buy" as much education as we possible can for than money? -

Is it nor morally wrong to give that money to bad teachers and bad schools, when for the same money we could get better results giving it to good teachers and good schools?

Everybody is (correctly) shocked when the Pentagon buys $4000 hammers.  $4000 hammers are a lousy way to defend a nation.

Yet we have $60K teachers, many of whom are no brighter than that $4000 hammer, yet we reward them with more money for failure...

As a libertarian what I hate about Government is the disconnect between money in and value out.

There is no connection and no accountability, and no incentive for economy.

The entire Budget of the US Salvation army is under a 1/4 billion a year.

Think of all the Salvation army does in a year.

Think how little  the government can do with a quarter Billion.

Here is a question for all you honest Liberals out there.....

The US spent about 1.1 trillion on welfare last year. 

If we totally abolished Welfare and gave the whole $1.1 Trillion to the Salvation Army, would the poor be better or worse off...?

If you answered "Better" you have seen the obvious and are one step along the path to becoming a libertarian...

[cabville]

The way they blame government for all our problems, deserving or not, as though  the problems would disappear once we got rid of government.

Their belief that government is being "oppressive" simply for taxing people to deliver the greater good. It just seems like a very heartless ideology.

And right there lies one of the great problems of liberalism.  It depends upon emotion and not facts.

The government is not capable in most cases of effectively delivering the greater good.  There is ample history to support this.  Just take all look at some of the other countries who have adopted your philosophy.  Take France for example, they haven't won a war in two centuries.  While that may sound good to the anti-war nuts, it's not good for your long-term survival.  France exists as a nation today because of the generosity of others.  Their unemployment rate is around 9% which would never be tolerated in the United States.  Their medical and technical development has slowed to a crawl as private industry has been weighed down by the social programs.  A couple of years ago, 15,000 people died in a heat wave and hospitals were reportedly running out of ice to deal with the dead bodies.  Evidence is mounting that they took payoffs from Saddom to protect Iraq from United Nations Security Council action.  The list goes on and on.

The more socialist the nation becomes, the weaker the become militarily, economically, scientifically, and morally. And right there lies one of the great problems of liberalism.  It depends upon emotion and not facts.

The government is not capable in most cases of effectively delivering the greater good.  There is ample history to support this.  Just take all look at some of the other countries who have adopted your philosophy.  Take France for example, they haven't won a war in two centuries.  While that may sound good to the anti-war nuts, it's not good for your long-term survival.  France exists as a nation today because of the generosity of others.  Their unemployment rate is around 9% which would never be tolerated in the United States.  Their medical and technical development has slowed to a crawl as private industry has been weighed down by the social programs.  A couple of years ago, 15,000 people died in a heat wave and hospitals were reportedly running out of ice to deal with the dead bodies.  Evidence is mounting that they took payoffs from Saddom to protect Iraq from United Nations Security Council action.  The list goes on and on.

The more socialist the nation becomes, the weaker they become militarily, economically, scientifically, and morally.  And what is the pay off again? Waiting a year-and-a-half for a medical procedure.  A government retirement home.  Fewer freedoms.  I'm not even remotely interested in that deal.  There is any reason the United States is a superpower that leads the world in virtually every meaningful category.

[Bono]

Can everyone benefit from taxation? No, some people, or in our case, most people, will be at a net loss, 

It's going to take a lot of maths for you to even begin to prove that, It's  probably almost impossible to work out whether it's true or not. Maybe you should just look at whether you gain or not.

If you find yourself to be making a net loss from taxation (Because I just can't help but think that this is in the least some kind of a motivation) then you can justify all the baseless assertions you like!

And by the way, if you're really are right that perhaps a (narrow) majority makes a loss from taxation, if we were to do a away with taxes and the services they provide - What would happen to that narrow (or even small or tiny) minority who stand to lose out? Do they matter?

That isn't the point. I'm applying the categorical imperative here. If People can't all benefit from taxation then taxation is immoral.

[Frodo]

here is the bottom-line: libertarians (both those of the philosophical persuasion, as well as those who are actually members of the Libertarian Party or some other business-friendly entity like the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform) do not have the numbers to influence either major party -it is a fact that it is only the Christian evangelicals on the right, and economic populists (or socialists, if you prefer) on the left who compose the vast majority of their parties' grassroots.  when it comes down to it, outside this forum, the vast majority of this country are in fact liberals with regard to economic issues like health care, social security, and so forth.  they just happen to be more socially conservative.

let's face it, you guys may talk the good talk, but frankly, when it comes down to electoral math, you would be all but irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that your natural allies, the corporations, bankroll both political parties.  in short, it is your deep pockets that make up for your small numbers.....   

[John Dibble]

here is the bottom-line: libertarians (both those of the philosophical persuasion, as well as those who are actually members of the Libertarian Party or some other business-friendly entity like the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform) do not have the numbers to influence either major party -it is a fact that it is only the Christian evangelicals on the right, and economic populists (or socialists, if you prefer) on the left who compose the vast majority of their parties' grassroots.  when it comes down to it, outside this forum, the vast majority of this country are in fact liberals with regard to economic issues like health care, social security, and so forth.  they just happen to be more socially conservative.

let's face it, you guys may talk the good talk, but frankly, when it comes down to electoral math, you would be all but irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that your natural allies, the corporations, bankroll both political parties.  in short, it is your deep pockets that make up for your small numbers.....   

Back it up. Your opinion is just that as far as I'm concerned - opinion, and opinion not founded on any scientific basis. And most people are not economic liberals - most are centrists, aka moderates.

This article is a few years old, but the results are probably similar to today's electorate: http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=145

[Frodo]

here is the bottom-line: libertarians (both those of the philosophical persuasion, as well as those who are actually members of the Libertarian Party or some other business-friendly entity like the Club for Growth or Americans for Tax Reform) do not have the numbers to influence either major party -it is a fact that it is only the Christian evangelicals on the right, and economic populists (or socialists, if you prefer) on the left who compose the vast majority of their parties' grassroots.  when it comes down to it, outside this forum, the vast majority of this country are in fact liberals with regard to economic issues like health care, social security, and so forth.  they just happen to be more socially conservative.

let's face it, you guys may talk the good talk, but frankly, when it comes down to electoral math, you would be all but irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that your natural allies, the corporations, bankroll both political parties.  in short, it is your deep pockets that make up for your small numbers.....   

Back it up. Your opinion is just that as far as I'm concerned - opinion, and opinion not founded on any scientific basis. And most people are not economic liberals - most are centrists, aka moderates.

This article is a few years old, but the results are probably similar to today's electorate: http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=145

most people now consider themselves conservatives rather than liberals, but when you really pin them down on the issues, they are often more liberal than they are conservative -it is all about the brand name.  you should really read Naomi Klein's 'No Logo' to get a feel for what i am trying to say.

with regard to proof, well, i'll just pick an example -health care.  most Americans would favor single-payer health care over the system we have now according to this poll:

 "Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?"  Options rotated
    
             Coverage For All    Holding Down Taxes   Unsure       
        %                          %                        %       
10/03    79                      17                             4       
12/99    71                      26                             3       
                  
"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?" Options rotated
      
            Current System   Universal Program  Unsure       
        %                         %                            %       
10/03    33                     62                         6       
                  
Asked of respondents who answered "universal program":
"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it limited your own choice of doctors?"
      
               Support Oppose    Unsure       
      %       %         %       
10/03       57           41      2       
                  
Asked of respondents who answered "universal program":
"Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it meant there were waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments?"
      
               Support    Oppose    Unsure       
      %       %         %       
10/03        62           33      5

http://www.pollingreport.com/health1.htm#Delivery
   

[Frodo]

and here is yet another example:

Two Thirds of U.S. Public Willing to Pay to Fight Global Warming
Jim Lobe
OneWorld US
28 June 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jun 28 (OneWorld) - More than 80 percent of the U.S. public supports pending legislation to cut the emission of greenhouse gases, while two thirds said they are willing to pay the U.S.$15 a month - or nearly $200 a year - that experts believe the legislation, the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), will cost the average household, according to a nationwide poll released Friday.

Public support is also strong for using tax incentives to encourage utility companies to use cleaner energy technologies and car-buyers to purchase more energy-efficient cars, according to the survey, which was conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Moreover, slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said a candidate's support for the cutting emissions would incline them more to vote for him in November, while only 14 percent said that such support would make them less inclined to vote for him. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has endorsed the bill, officially known as the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), while President George W. Bush opposes it.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 percent) said they would want their member of Congress to support the Kyoto Protocol, which is also supported by Kerry but opposed by Bush.

http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/88920/1/

now before you roll your eyes at the article's source, not that the info comes from a mainstream polling entity.