NOTE: Scroll down to the last sentence if you want to get to the main point of this post. The following is a post of mine on the Ron Paul Appreciation thread: Here's my view of Ron Paul: He wants to shrink the federal government down as much as possible. Leaving most of its functions to enforcing contracts and defending our borders. He also seems to advocate deregulation of the private sector to its fullest extent in order to preserve individual freedoms, relying on free market capitalism to ensure that private interests and the interest of the public remain codependent. Thoughts? The statement above was affirmed by a couple of the posters there. I've also had the opportunity to talk to quite a few libertarians/Ron Paul supporters through my involvement with the Occupy movement. Typical of most libertarians (not an insult, just an observation), they referred me to essay after essay explaining the libertarian view. I take issue with the libertarian mindset that every action taken by the government is some form of "violence" or force against our individual freedoms. I think that as long as a government truly receives its power and authority from the people, then those actions represent the will of the people and can't be seen as oppression. That's as long as there is a system of law that protects the rights of all individuals against an oppressive majority, of course. Also, a huge issue I have with Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism is that it would lead to a HUGE shift in power from the government to the corporations. If the government's role is diminished to enforcing contracts and protecting us from the force of others, that will leave a huge power vacuum in this country. One which would inevitably filled by the already powerful. Understanding American politics - we're going to want someone else to pick up the slack on our behalf. Now, libertarians will argue that "competition" will keep corporations from inflicting harm on the people, because then people will just stop giving those businesses their money. I think this is a ridiculous assumption. More wishful thinking than anything. Please don't refer me to some journal/article/essay/book to prove your point. I'm knowledgeable about free market economic theory and have probably spent more time researching libertarian principles than most actual libertarians. I'd like to hear what YOU have to say about it, not some dead guy. Now, I'm more of a progressive. I believe in democracy. I believe that both corporations and the government have a role in our society that should be valued. I completely dig the social liberties aspect of the libertarian view. I also think it's important for us to continuously review how we're doing on the individual liberties front. And, as long as it proves to work better than at the federal level, I think most progressives would support a shift in the role of government to more of a local/community system. All that to say this: It seems to me that the country would benefit from a mixed libertarian/progressive approach. Any thoughts on this?
How about we just stick to the constitutional and let states go whichever way they want, whether that be "progressive" social degradation, social conservatism, libertarianism, whatever. Let's go back to the constitution America.
progressive policies is codeword for robbing those with money. You honestly cant be a libertarian and push progressive policy.
Libertarianism allows for voluntary progressivism, progressivism does not allow for voluntary libertarianism. Thus, Libertarianism should be large scale, and within that open field of freedom , we could see a lot of progressive scenarios play out. just without force
I totally agree with Atman's Path on this one. Although I will add that progressives and Libertarians agree on a lot of social issues and basically the big difference is that while Progressives believe in social freedom they do not believe in economic freedom while Libertarians believe in both. In a lot of ways Progressives and Libertarians have more in common then Libertarians and say a social conservative.
I mean, I would like a libertarian type of freedom, but i want to see socialism (voluntary) in communities. Taking care of each other, helping the poor. Safety nets maybe. So me and progressives have similar ideals, I just don't want to force people into it.
i really disagree with mixing the two. Is it still a progressive society when its done by voluntary means?? Unless you had every single person who was missed or skipped by society being dragged back in by donations made, it wouldnt really be progressive society. Meaning, unless you had 100 percent of welfare covered by donations, you would still have a gap in society where the poor arent getting by. Unless of course you charged everyone a tax or fee that went towards the needy, killing the libertarian aspect. So for the two to co-exist, you would need 100 percent of the poors tab to be picked up by the rich, all by choice. Furthermore, if a contract is struck between the two ( poor and the rich ) were this does happen, you would have to ensure strict immigration policies to make this contract lasting. If you let all the poor people in from everywhere, the rich couldnt continue to pay for them..... Putting you back in the scenario of taxes or poor people dieing.
I think maybe if you grouped according to likes/dislikes rather then area then it might have a slight slight slight slight chance. This is the only scenario which i think it would have a plausible chance. You and a group of star trek obbsessed fans want to start your own colony, so you buy a giant cruiseship and set anchor in the middle of no where. People are free to come and go as they wish, but not many would come because they wouldnt want to be surrounded by star trek 24/7. This would also help maintain a good social order on the ship, as everyone has star trek in common and loves it shaping their life. You could have your own currency, and everyone there would want to help each other because of the same vested interest. Occasionally you will have to fight off some somilia pirates, and that will bring the group even closer. You would have a set list of punishments and deeds, so everyone would know whats allowed and what is not allowed. if you dont like rules and punishments, you can simply leave.
that sounds awesome but no way would i live in trekanistan maybe ganjastine or buddhaville but it would be boss if we were made up of little colonies rather than states.
I think it'd work better on a local level simply because people could be held more accountable to their communities, regardless of what the ideologies implemented are.
Atman, that is a great idea with wonderful intentions. The major problem with it is implementation. Using a mixture of history and logic the result is usually very similar no matter where it is put into practice. Focusing here in America you have a representative republic where elected officials are given the power of money and taxation. Say the people want a social program that helps the poor find housing. The person in power acquiesces and comes up with a program to help. Thus, the result is that the people support that politician. Great result! However, next election cycle comes up and the elected official wishes to remain in power. What is the answer? "Well, hell, last time I gave them a social program they loved me! And I have the power to make them..." Now, social programs are developed regardless of request by the people "for the sake of the poor" or "for the children." The elected official is so concerned with getting reelected they quit paying attention to how much money is in the budget and focus on making more reelection social programs to help someone. Eventually, you arrive at a place where there is overspending on programs with not enough money to pay for them. So the elected official riles up the people and begins using language such as, "if we don't tax the rich you will lose your social programs." "The rich can afford it!" "The rich have too much money and because of that, your social program is going to disappear unless we raise their taxes to pay for the program." Any of this sound familiar? How about the last 4 administrations at a minimum? So, it is a great idea but the problem is that greed and elected official self-preservation becomes at stake and the programs become abused. And what happens when a program is either corrupted or no longer necessary? They never go away. They either get renamed or "reformed" (which means they get more funding but no change to improve it...i.e. welfare). I am not anti-helping the poor as I am quite poor myself right now. I would love to have help. The problem for me right now is that I am at the bottom of the priority list. I am not eligible to get on medicare because "I make too much" (I actually make about $21,000 a year at the moment). And not to inject any racial issues but I am also a white male. And no, I am not having a poor me complex, I have tried to get on some of the social programs. I simply do not qualify under the current requirements. So, a voluntary social program is great, it is just unrealistic when the government is involved. My solution is to get the government out of the way and go back to charitable contributions. Prior to every government intervention charitable contributions are through the roof. When the government steps in and raises taxes, charity goes down. It is simple logic. If I have $1000 to give to charity, I may give $1000. If the government comes in and raises taxes to take $400 from that $1000 to help the poor I was already helping (yes, I used to give that much each year at least), I now resent the social program and want to give less and have less to give due to taxes. My point is, government intervention is the killer of charity. And the money the government takes away is used in ways that are not originally intended. Read on some of the social program bills and look at the bullshit that is shoved into it. Somethings have absolutely nothing to do with helping the poor (i.e. pork programs). Thoughts?
Yes government is often extremely inefficient with money, though i think at more local levels it would work better. I think though, in terms of social programs and such, term limits could lessen that greed of re-election. Also, I definitely think that they should in fact be remade and thoroughly reviewed every few years. With these two things, at a local level, in a voluntary society, i believe it would be workable. I think a lot of bullshit that gets thrown in bills in congress would go away at more local and accountable levels. And, on a more.. spiritual?... level, I think that humanity needs to evolve it's conscience to a higher level where greed is less and love is more. THEN my ideals can work, maybe.
Do you have any examples of social programs that were conjured up without popular demand? Most of the ones I know of were brought about because of the New Deal, which was a popular plan (though not overwhelming), enacted by a popular president during a time of economic crisis. I can definitely see where our government's spending habits have become bloated. You and I agree on bullshit pork programs, but it seems that a more informed electorate would take care of things like that. I'll also have to disagree with you that government intervention "kills charity." Charitable donations totaled 307 billions dollars in 2008, and have always had a steady trend in the U.S., according to the GivingUSA foundation. And actually, 2008 was a dip in the trend. This was due to failed economic policies which led to the crash and had nothing to do with government taxes.
When was the social safety net EVER ran by non profit charitable donations? It wasn't, and it won't be.
But why is this idea of "force" so hated by libertarians? If the government TRULY represents the will of the people (it doesn't, yet, but through reforms it could), why would a government solution be so bad? I'd like to point out that progressivism is not some stepping stone for a socialist state. Progressives and libertarians agree on so many things. The only difference is that progressives believe that social improvements CAN happen through the state. A more localized, less intrusive form of government could absolutely happen through a progressive approach. It would just take a popular call and a responsive government to happen.
umm... people are individuals. why are people opposed to slavery? it's a self ownership at it's core, no one can make you do things. the government does not represent the people's will, and, at it's best, it would represent only a fraction of the people's will. but you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do, it's wrong. do you support the draft? same concept.