[Sage]

After doing a quick search, it looks like there are at least a few Libertarians around here, so hello to you!

Anyway, I don't have an exact direction for this thread; it just gets boring seeing every topic being split right down the middle between Republican/Democrat, when there are plenty of us who feel that each party has about half of the equation right (seeing as how most Libertarians I've talked to like the Republican's fiscal freedom policies and the Democrat's social freedom policies).

[Mac Guru]

Hello back! I'm fine thank you.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Sage:
(seeing as how most Libertarians I've talked to like the Republican's fiscal freedom policies and the Democrat's social freedom policies).

Most Libertarians I know disagree with Democrat social policies on the basis that they require taxation to pay for said policies.

(The difference between a Freedom of Speech that requires nothing from anyone else, versus a Right to Healthcare that requires everyone else to pay for it- if such requirement were placed on the former, we'd all have to be a captive audience and pay for public address systems for everyone on the streetcorner to use.)

[Mac Guru]

We have no RIGHT to free healthcare because said healthcare would NOT be free. You'd be paying for it in the form of exctremly high Taxes. BS

Mac Guru

[Millennium]

The problem I see with a true libertarian economy is that it requires three things to work as theorized, and right now the US has only one of these. Then again, I can't think of any nation that has all three right now.

The first is a capitalist economic system, either laissez-faire or minimally regulated. The US has this, more or less. Either way, it's necessary because of the economic freedom which comes with it.

The second is a highly-informed populace. The theory behind libertarian economics is that people will not patronize businesses which act dishonorably. For that to happen, however, the people must be able to know how businesses are acting, so they know which ones act honorably and which do not. There are two problems here. One, the current educational system is a joke, barely even teaching basic life skills, and not even really teaching researching skills at all. Two, the current legislation surrounding trade secrets and corporate privacy does not allow for the necessary transparency that people can get at all the information needed. Although our educational system was better in the past, our corporate transparency has never been very good. Both of these, however, might be solvable through legal reform.

The third necessity is a cultural sense of honor and a corresponding sense of shame. This is needed to act as a motive for people to not patronize businesses which act dishonorably, and in particular it needs to be strong enough to counteract the lure of lower prices which often come with dishonorable business actions.

However, if an American ideal of honor ever existed, then it has been under attack for decades by people who believe that shame equals oppression. Worse, this third necessity cannot be obtained through law. It is said that legislating morality is impossible, but legislating honor is even harder than that. This requires not legal change, but cultural change, and that is not the province of government. That also means overcoming the growing attitude that shame equals oppression, and this would face fierce resistance not only in the US but also abroad.

Do I believe that the a true libertarian system would be good? Yes. If I were to sign up with any political party, I would probably sign up with them. But the US is not ready for such a system, and will not be for years to come. My biggest problem with the Libertarian Party right now is that it doesn't seem to realize this; it thinks that it can simply waltz in, make the needed legal reforms, and everything will magically work. Libertarianism isn't Communism; it can work under the proper conditions. But those conditions are not there yet, and if they really want to make things work out then they'd best focus their attention there first.

[Mac Guru]

I couldn't agree with you more. BUT

you can't just JUMP into a Libertarian America anyway so why theorize it? The way to GET close is to first have Libertarian representation in the govt. Of which we have close to 0%. Sure there's your occasional win here and there but I'm talkin Senators, Congressmen, PRESIDENT...

Until we as a party have a better grasp on how the country is run, then one CAN only thoerize. It's possible to acheive it just doesn't happen overnight.

[Sage]

Originally posted by vmarks:
(The difference between a Freedom of Speech that requires nothing from anyone else, versus a Right to Healthcare that requires everyone else to pay for it- if such requirement were placed on the former, we'd all have to be a captive audience and pay for public address systems for everyone on the streetcorner to use.)

Sorry, by "social freedom", I meant things like gay rights, less religion in government... Healthcare is a financial issue to me, as is Social Security, since both involve taxes.

[vmarks]

Sure, but when you speak with Democrats, you'll find they are Social Issues, if not Rights.

Nevermind that a right is something which you can exercise without imposing or requiring any other person to do something...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sure, but when you speak with Democrats, you'll find they are Social Issues, if not Rights.

Oh, they are social issues; that's not the problem I have with the Democrat ideology. My problem with it is that rather than letting social problems be solved through social means, they want to solve them through law; they have no concept of separation of a society and state.

[Sven G]

Maybe social issues should primarily be solved by individual means (see personal good-will), and individual issues, conversely, be solved by social means (see human solidarity)...?

Hmmm, hmmm... Why not? Seems self-evident, after all.

That said, personally I don't trust any political parties anymore. BTW, your situation in the US is really stuck - but it's not that in Europe it's all that better. Especially in some more years: one (economic/financial/monolithic) world, one way of "thinking".

Anyway, some well-known pseudo-Lbertarians (even if others would define them as true anarchists), such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, once said some really interesting things: not at all lunatics - especially in today's nonsensical situation.

Right vs. left, left vs. right; centre-right vs. centre left, centre-left vs. centre-right; centre-centre vs. centre-centre; hey, even one-party vs. one-party (not all that difference!); and so on - well... maybe it's time to go beyond these absurd dichotomies...?