I noticed we have a lot of Libertarians on the forum.

So, I ask you all, how much control do you think the government is allowed to have?

How much tax should there be, what should it go to, what shouldn't it go to, and so on?

If government is to be Laissez-faire, how much regulatory control is it allowed to have?

Just a few things to think about:
- During Laissez-faire America, we had child labor, civil rights amounting to white people are awesome, massive, massive monopolies, and places like the meat packaging companies could essentially strip rotten pigs for meat and package them, killing thousands. A basic understanding of history can tell you what came of these.

- While the public school system may be flawed in many places, it still runs on tax money and we still need some system of basic education within the country. In your world, would public schooling even exist and, if not, what would be your replacement?

- Socialist or not, the firehouse, police, and much of the roads/libraries/etc are paid and run by tax money. If we are to be Laissez-faire, would these be privatized? Would you trust a private police force more than what we have? Privately owned fire houses? If government were to not conscript roads, who would and where would the money come from?

- With bailouts and nets have been all the rage in the last few presidencies, to what extent would you remove these nets? Keep in mind that bank nets are in place so that money doesn't just disappear like it did in the great depression, and the agriculture industry has a net under it in case of another heavy drought since, well, we sorta need food. While these could indeed and have rolled into avalanches, would we be better off without them and, in that case, what if we hit another recession and the banks go down, and, with it, millions of American's money?

- Taxes pay for a lot, like social security, child health care, and our military. Should the Military have its budget held until war time? Should parents pay for their own children and receive the consequences if they cannot?

- Should civil rights laws be in the hands of the voting population, or the government? Does the government have the right to step in and, say, extending voting to women through their power or should it be entirely decided by voters? This could also extend to Africa American rights, Same-Sex rights, and so on.

- Should prisons/jails be business owned, or tax payer owned? If not run by taxes, do the prisoners work, build, etc to pay for upkeep? Is that not against the rights of prisoners as people, or do they give up those rights when convicted? Speaking of conviction, how much control should the government have over local affairs? Do they uphold state laws, or merely federal laws?

So, sell me on Libertarianism; AKA: Why should I vote for Ron Paul instead of viewing him as a nutcase who wants to kill me with rotten meat?

So, I ask you all, how much control do you think the government is allowed to have?

I personally think they should allow people to make bad choices, so I'd be in favor of the government if they legalized marijuana and prostitution, for example, though that's about as liberatarian I get.

An ideal government should provide liberty and security to its citizenry. I's a rather vague concept, but it essentially equates to a balanced mix of socialism and capitalism within society that is sustained through direct and indirect government. Realistically, it's an impossibility, but should instead be considered a fundamental figurehead of all government action and politicking.

An ideal government should provide liberty and security to its citizenry. I's a rather vague concept, but it essentially equates to a balanced mix of socialism and capitalism within society that is sustained through direct and indirect government. Realistically, it's an impossibility, but should instead be considered a fundamental figurehead of all government action and politicking.

I believe the Scandinavian countries were able to use a little bit of both socialism and capitalism during the Depression, which made them the countries that dealt with the Depression the best (or one of the best, forget which), and I think they still combine the two today. Makes me wonder why nobody learned from their accomplishments. :¬:

- During Laissez-faire America, we had child labor, civil rights amounting to white people are awesome, massive, massive monopolies, and places like the meat packaging companies could essentially strip rotten pigs for meat and package them, killing thousands. A basic understanding of history can tell you what came of these.

Companies are still bound to how they're viewed by people. For example, let's say that bic starts giving us sub-standard product along with using child labor, other pen manufacturers would swoop in and try to claim the market share that Bic will lose once those facts come to light. It's not a perfect system -far from- but it sits with me more comfortably than massive hamfisted regulation.

And, as an aside, factories -from what I've read (not a huge amount, but some) were safer for Children than the farms they would've otherwise worked at.

- While the public school system may be flawed in many places, it still runs on tax money and we still need some system of basic education within the country. In your world, would public schooling even exist and, if not, what would be your replacement?

Totally agree, public schools are a must, if they actually maintain a politically free classroom, having had some _very_ bad teachers that can't help but get political and grade based upon it -and an administration that doesn't give a damn- I am suspicious of any public schooling. However, provided you can keep it politically free, I have nil issues, a well educated populous is a must.

- Socialist or not, the firehouse, police, and much of the roads/libraries/etc are paid and run by tax money. If we are to be Laissez-faire, would these be privatized? Would you trust a private police force more than what we have? Privately owned fire houses? If government were to not conscript roads, who would and where would the money come from?

Again, I am forced to concede this point. I'll trust a government police officer that follows the rules more than I would trust a private company's police officer. However, I have no problems with both existing and a possible fading out of the public sector on both parts. Provided, of course, that they can deliver the same or better services than their counterparts.

- With bailouts and nets have been all the rage in the last few presidencies, to what extent would you remove these nets? Keep in mind that bank nets are in place so that money doesn't just disappear like it did in the great depression, and the agriculture industry has a net under it in case of another heavy drought since, well, we sorta need food. While these could indeed and have rolled into avalanches, would we be better off without them and, in that case, what if we hit another recession and the banks go down, and, with it, millions of American's money?

Bailouts aren't the government's job imho, I think that the banking net makes sense -for the reasons stated, and I'm split on the agriculture side. I can see both sides of that one... somebody please convince me here?

- Taxes pay for a lot, like social security, child health care, and our military. Should the Military have its budget held until war time? Should parents pay for their own children and receive the consequences if they cannot?

Social Security: I'm again in favor of a two party setup here, such as suggested with fire and police. Entertain both a public and a private, and eventually phase out the public if and only if that private does a better job, otherwise keep it.

Child Health-Care: Damn straight the parents are going to have to pay for it. Having a child is an important proposition, and I feel that parents should definitely pay for their child's health-care and medical insurance.

Military: I'm definitely in favor of a larger military budget than I expect most libertarians are, I'm totally against the pentagon wastebasket effect and disagree with the idea of 'preferred sellers' as it encourages price gouging... seriously, a $600 wastebasket?!

- Should civil rights laws be in the hands of the voting population, or the government? Does the government have the right to step in and, say, extending voting to women through their power or should it be entirely decided by voters? This could also extend to Africa American rights, Same-Sex rights, and so on.

Voting Population. The government doesn't have the right to step in and say, "no, you really want this". Especially when the government is Of the People, For the People and By the People. This is one area I cannot compromise upon.

- Should prisons/jails be business owned, or tax payer owned? If not run by taxes, do the prisoners work, build, etc to pay for upkeep? Is that not against the rights of prisoners as people, or do they give up those rights when convicted? Speaking of conviction, how much control should the government have over local affairs? Do they uphold state laws, or merely federal laws?

Federal Government == Federal Laws, State Government == State Laws.

I feel that private prisons rub me the wrong way, however, I've not actually seen an application of them, especially since Minnesota isn't exactly known for them ;) however, based off of what little reading I've done, I would say that, again, provide both -much like now- and eventually phase out the one that works best...

I guess you could call me a 'semi-realistic' libertarian :|

Libertarianism is actually quite simple. We have three very clear, concise goals:

1) Watch the DP self-destruct.

2) Watch the RP self-destruct (we consider this goal complete)

3) Take over.

2018, That's the year.

I think the government's influence was more necessary before we had instant access to information. We can check on a company to see how reputable they are on the internet. I mean think about it, if a manufacturer is using slave or child labor to produce something in a country where it's legal to do so even now, we would boycott that company instantly. Some companies would do it anyway(as is the case now, they just do it in other countries).

Police and fire: well to a degree we have privatized forms of this... At least private police, they protect the paying customers very well... I could see companies like Broadview and ADT offering the "Fire and Security" package on all their security contracts... though honestly that would only cover the paying customers, so to a degree we need that. Did you know that we have more private security guards than police officers? Sounds a bit like private police are already in place(and many are actually off duty cops because the police force can't afford to pay them what they are worth)... Fire on the other hand...

Prisons: Several prisons are already privately owned. most produce goods that offset the cost of running the prison. There are I believe 8 prison companies in Texas(running many prisons), there are 5 in Florida. Most states have some level of private prison.

Military: To a degree we need to cut the military spending back... More appropriately, we need to cut the "Use it or lose it" mentality for the budgeting of bases and departments. If an office in the military doesn't use every penny of their budget, they lose that budget(My Chop spent a lot of time ordering supplies for the boat we didn't need just to keep our budget available for us should we deploy). They get cut. well that to me seems to reward wasteful spending. Actually encouraging wasteful spending is not the best way to cut spending(geeee REALLY!). Perhaps there needs to be a method of rewarding the ones that save money.

Ya know Social Security has really grown wildly out of control. Part of the problem is that people quit saving for retirement. Instead they just relied on SS to pay for their needs. Then realized that SS didn't cover everything, and it got raised. then raised again. SS is one of the biggest pyramid schemes out there. and it's going broke. I know it's been on life support for a while and it won't last forever. especially not with it getting raided to fund other things...

Bailouts? REALLY! you want to defend the bailouts? you want to use them as a positive thing? SCREW those shady lenders who got people into houses they couldn't afford. I lost my house once the BANK raised my rate to 12%! I was late on ONE payment. You just wait until next year when you see a ton of ARM's being adjusted and people see their "low" rate become a HIGH rate mortgage. I think there needs to be some level of the banks taking the hit for their shady practices. Oh I could rant on and on about the bailouts. This market correction was coming from the start. nobody can pretend they didn't see it coming.

As for how much of a Libertarian I am, I'm probably just a conservative for States' rights taking precedence over the Fed coming in and telling everyone what to do. Many things that I would not allow for the Fed to do I would accept the state doing(police, fire, school, healthcare). How about we actually have the fed only for inter-state issues.

Bailouts? REALLY! you want to defend the bailouts? you want to use them as a positive thing?
Did not say one way or another. I merely brought up the fact that a lack of them outright is what caused the agriculture collapse and a great deal of the banks to fall out and take everyone's money with it.

That isn't a for or against, just predominant theories for much of the Great Depressions damage and then lack of food. Currently, I believe if your bank goes down and your money with it, you are entitled to $10,000 in safety net. My question being, at what level do we need these "bailouts" and nets and when do we not.

As for the current bailouts... We have the agriculture net there and a net for people who may lose their money, so saving the current banks did nothing but make an infected scab bleed more. I'm quite well aware of what the Banks have been doing and the reasons for their near destruction.

Watch the RP self-destruct (we consider this goal complete)
Not quite. Sarah Palin has yet to run for president. :roleyess:

I'm quite well aware of what the Banks have been doing and the reasons for their near destruction.

Then you're probably also aware of what the govt has been doing and the road it is going down toward fiscal and probably national economic ruin. And the fault has crossed party lines, so there's enough blame to go around. We may ultimately prove that there really is no such thing as "too big to fail".

Not quite. Sarah Palin has yet to run for president. :roleyess:

Hehe. We need to pick a running mate for her. That could be a whole nuther thread......

Palin/Chumlee '12...No, let's not go there....

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs240.snc3/22777_248195507496_248193047496_3161258_852405_n.j) pg

On the topic of platform, I like to believe that localized government works much better than broad-spectrum government. What works for NY is fundamentally different than what works for LA or AZ or FL. Plus, if the blast radii of our elected officials are confined to localized areas, the damage is so much easier to mitigate.

I think the government's influence was more necessary before we had instant access to information. We can check on a company to see how reputable they are on the internet. I mean think about it, if a manufacturer is using slave or child labor to produce something in a country where it's legal to do so even now, we would boycott that company instantly. Some companies would do it anyway(as is the case now, they just do it in other countries).

You mean internet we have to pay for from a company? On computer hardware we have to buy from another company or rent from another company? Powered by electricity we buy from another company, in a home we purchased with a loan through a corporate bank? Companies which are often known to work together in order to fix prices and stifle competition?

Libertarianism can never exist so long as corporations have you by the balls. There's no such thing as free enterprise when the market is not inherently free, and yes, that includes government overt restriction as well as corporate covert restriction.

This is why libertarianism has always been insulting to my intelligence whenever someone offers the argument: "Well you can just go somewhere else or do it yourself." That isn't the case, it just does not work that way.

Ummm... yes? Am I being lectured or are you just repeating what I've already said? Also, you're calling economic "ruin" a little early considering this country has had no concept of true poverty for almost 100 years. Our economic situation is still a damn good day in most countries, and I'm still seeing plenty of new cars make it onto the roads. When agriculture collapses, we run out of food, and the 3 monopolies we have running everything fail and take all our money with it... then you can talk economic ruin, but, funnily enough, we have stop gaps to keep all of that from happening to a certain degree, so....

No, no more lecturing you than you're pontificating the same basic mssg over and over again yourself. But I do agree w/your point that we do in part have our own selves to blame collectively. We've been promised cheap stuff by our govt and it's by and large catered to by the private sector that (barring govt sanctioned monopolies of sorts...telecom, insurance, energy, etc) have to work w/in those boundaries to stay alive. But it does no good to point the finger at your fellow citizenry b/c it's not a monolith. There are many people who would pay more willingly, many who won't and then the rest that don't really care as long as they can afford stuff. In the end, though, as greedy as you damn the population and corporations for being, it's govt that has the power. The problem with govt, especially the current one, is that it is creating roadblocks to economic growth...the very thing that will be needed to feed it's profligate creation of yet more entitlements. Things seem ok to some now, but only b/c they aren't looking a little farther down the road. But it's ultimately govt, not "big business" that sets national economic policy. Being "comparatively rich" to the rest of the world isn't much different from Stewart's jibe to O'reilly about being the skinniest kid at fat camp. We just look really stable only by comparison. America hasn't always been on top of the world and there's no reason to believe it shall remain there indefinitely. I'd prefer at least for the duration of my lifetime, but...

This is why libertarianism has always been insulting to my intelligence whenever someone offers the argument: "Well you can just go somewhere else or do it yourself." That isn't the case, it just does not work that way.
I think you mean Anarchy. As I and many others agree there MUST be some form of government. The level of involvement however needs to be scaled appropriately. Like with the EPA and cars. Yes we need them for things that would affect large areas(dumping toxic waste in aquifer zones) and setting emissions requirements on cars, BUT to tell the auto manufacturers what they HAVE to have in the engine bay... That's a bit much. Ask Bimmerman if he'd rather have an American BMW or an European BMW.

@ Original Post:

"How much control do you think government is allowed to have?"

You assume we have a fully functional government to work with, and I don't think that exists. However, we do have a fully functional military industrial complex and two corrupt-to-the-bone political parties (is that redundant? :D ). Does that count?

Honestly, whether you are a tea partier or a radical leftist, we can all at least agree that our founding fathers would be ashamed of the US Federal Government.

Then you're probably also aware of what the govt has been doing and the road it is going down toward fiscal and probably national economic ruin. And the fault has crossed party lines, so there's enough blame to go around. We may ultimately prove that there really is no such thing as "too big to fail".
It's as if it were being done on purpose. :¬:

I think you mean Anarchy. As I and many others agree there MUST be some form of government. The level of involvement however needs to be scaled appropriately. Like with the EPA and cars. Yes we need them for things that would affect large areas(dumping toxic waste in aquifer zones) and setting emissions requirements on cars, BUT to tell the auto manufacturers what they HAVE to have in the engine bay... That's a bit much. Ask Bimmerman if he'd rather have an American BMW or an European BMW.

No, that previous statement was the argument I have received from many upon many libertarians. Reduce the government to just the national defense and let the market take care of everything else.

No, that previous statement was the argument I have received from many upon many libertarians. Reduce the government to just the national defense and let the market take care of everything else.
Wow, Really? Sounds a bit scary to me. To some degree I would say we need to reduce the massively bloated size of government. I think most people would agree to that. except those in the jobs that should be cut obviously. Possibly remove a few dozen levels of middle management(Part of the reason for the VA's inefficiency). and streamline the whole of the government. It's funny, in rough times, businesses bring in outside consultants to see where they need to cut. The government creates a new agency to monitor the efficiency of the previous agency who's task was to audit the efficiency of another agency, who audited another agency, who monitored a defense contractor that went out of business years ago(I laughed when I was brought in as a contractor to replace the laptops for one such agency).

Wow, Really? Sounds a bit scary to me. To some degree I would say we need to reduce the massively bloated size of government. I think most people would agree to that. except those in the jobs that should be cut obviously. Possibly remove a few dozen levels of middle management(Part of the reason for the VA's inefficiency). and streamline the whole of the government. It's funny, in rough times, businesses bring in outside consultants to see where they need to cut. The government creates a new agency to monitor the efficiency of the previous agency who's task was to audit the efficiency of another agency, who audited another agency, who monitored a defense contractor that went out of business years ago(I laughed when I was brought in as a contractor to replace the laptops for one such agency).

The worst part of it is that none of them seen to understand that the only reason 9/10 of our social programs exist is because of "national defense". Highways were built to more easily transport military weapons. Education was promoted so that americans would be better than their enemies not only in fighting, but in smarts as well. The government maintains these services not because they're profitable, but because they're necessary in order to be able to beat our enemies. If we're a bunch of idiots living isolated from each other who can't afford to pay the tolls on roads because we've got no government service helping us find jobs or go to school, how can anyone possibly expect us to defend our country.

The problem with independent agencies is the one brought up on the Daily Show. There is absolutist no reason that "Independent Agency #5" is actually not just an extension of the business they were brought in to examine. The relationship is equally as incestuous in business as it is in government.