Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

JJLehto wrote: My biggest problem is that I am still too much of an idealist. I want so deeply to believe in what I do at my core, (especially since I DO think it's right) but for my hope to be true...we need a government that does serve the people as you said. A government that governs, primarily. Does its job! This, by nature, also means free from corruption. Be fairly efficient running. I do believe it is possible, and have seen the real life proof of, but will it ever happen here? That I don't forsee. Also the increasingly globalized world we are living in does present some challenges. Anton said my views are drifting but I'm ok with it!

 

Edited by manofmystery - January 28 2011 at 01:44

The T wrote: JJLehto wrote: And forgive me Teo if there's any confusion, I really need to go to bed  I AM in bed Oh damn Americans that switched the meaning of words. "Liberal" means not what it means in the rsst of the world (and in history).

Indeed we did.
I know better, (since I have filled my head with and studied every damn term) but it's just easier

It's why terms are so silly/annoying.

And can't say I disagree really with much of what you said.
I know I don't have to tell you how much I have grown to loathe the Democrats as of late, (well OK always have deep down just can finally admit it now) and am looking for more non governmental solutions to a lot of issues.

Some of which were provided by our friends in here




Edited by JJLehto - January 28 2011 at 01:15

The test mention was just a little picturesque detail that illustrates the incongruence, that's it. Of course I didn't need a test then or now, but it's a graphic way of showing you the contradiction.

The notion goes quite way back. In fact, not totally similar but even in Socrates view of society there had bo a group in charge of the rest (the rulers) and a group of ruled fools (farmers). And Greece was the cradle of democracy... I am seen with my own eyes in my very country democracy turning into tyranny, slowly, without most people realizing it, just one step here, one prohibition there, everything validated by the same people, including intelligent people (cousins I have) who sign their liberty away and defend it by saying "it's democracy. It's what the majority wants, even if I don't like it". I see it in history. I see it everywhere.

To achieve economic control, to be able to follow central planning of elements of the economic system, compulsion, force is necessary. Is necessary to ask, force people to behave in one way or another. That is a small but significant step. The common good first expressed in economic designs. Then the common good asks for activities and thoughts to be banned (you have seen it here). All gradual steps. It might not happen overnight. But the gradual loss of freedom is certain. And unavoidable...

...unless people become aware of it. The US still has a strong healthy system of preservation of freedoms and a fantastic constitution. Only a radical view of things can make sure that tyranny never takes over.

I still loathe republicans as the political arm of corporations. Democrats think they're helping the people by doing everything for the common good but, on one hand, many are also corporate tools, and in the other, those honest for-the-people democrats are unknowingly setting the foundation for the end of true liberty. They don't even realize it. They are playing the game of an abstract monster, the monster of Central Power. This monster, this system, which feeds on good intentions.

I'm independent. I still believe in a small government for roads, infraestructure, courts and justice, foreign representation and armed forces. Other than that, it has to start to go back. Become smaller, more manageable. Go to a point where it SERVES people, not controls people. You ask me if I consider myself a libertarian now. With this considerations in mind, knowing that I'm no anarcho-capitalist (yet), you can be damn sure I am.

Well while our libertarian friends may not think so, I also don't like people controlling my life. 
Certainly don't want to live in any type of a dictatorship. Democracy can indeed lead to tyranny.
Not sure if it's true or for fun historical hear say...but I remember being told even the founding fathers didn't think a democracy could last more than 300 years without it turning into tyranny.

Regardless, I believe the notion does go way back.

I don't need a test to know I am "libertarian" with personal freedom. "Liberal" whatever tag you want, I know what it is!

So what are you saying Teo? You seem to be echoing the sentiment of most in here that you can't segregate personal and economic freedom. ARE you on the libertarian boat?
Honest question now.
And no shame, just kinda curious.

Mentioned reading Rand, now Hayek?

Shown some maverickish....Teo I see we've lost you to the libertarians.

Soooo my economic analysis of "we're boned" is more or less accurate? 

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: 2008 Federal Budget under George W. Bush: Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $2.9 trillion (estimated) Deficit $239 billion (estimated) Debt $9.985 trillion (estimated) 2009 Federal Budget under George W. Bush: Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated) Deficit $407 billion (estimated) Debt $12.867455 trillion (estimated) 2010 federal budget under Barrack Obama: Total revenue $2.381 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (estimated) Deficit $1.171 trillion (estimated) Debt $14.078 trillion (estimated) 2011 federal budget under Barrack Obama pending senatorial approval: Total revenue $2.57 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.83 trillion (estimated) Deficit $1.267 trillion (estimated) How long can this continue? Forever according to everyone with the power to do anything about it. What would be the breaking point? When the country is in total economic ruins? Or can this be actually done forever (because it it's possible in practice -I'm not saying desirable or good, just physically possible- I'm sure they will do it forever, as long as people pay the bill)

Epignosis wrote: 2008 Federal Budget under George W. Bush: Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $2.9 trillion (estimated) Deficit $239 billion (estimated) Debt $9.985 trillion (estimated) 2009 Federal Budget under George W. Bush: Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated) Deficit $407 billion (estimated) Debt $12.867455 trillion (estimated) 2010 federal budget under Barrack Obama: Total revenue $2.381 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (estimated) Deficit $1.171 trillion (estimated) Debt $14.078 trillion (estimated) 2011 federal budget under Barrack Obama pending senatorial approval: Total revenue $2.57 trillion (estimated) Total expenditures $3.83 trillion (estimated) Deficit $1.267 trillion (estimated) How long can this continue?

2008 Federal Budget under George W. Bush:

Total revenue	$2.7 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures	$2.9 trillion (estimated)
Deficit	$239 billion (estimated)
Debt	$9.985 trillion (estimated)

2009 Federal Budget under George W. Bush:

Total revenue	$2.7 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures	$3.107 trillion (estimated)
Deficit	$407 billion (estimated)
Debt	$12.867455 trillion (estimated)

2010 federal budget under Barrack Obama:

Total revenue	$2.381 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures	$3.552 trillion (estimated)
Deficit	$1.171 trillion (estimated)
Debt	$14.078 trillion (estimated)

2011 federal budget under Barrack Obama pending senatorial approval:

Total revenue	$2.57 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures	$3.83 trillion (estimated)
Deficit	$1.267 trillion (estimated)

How long can this continue?

I'll drink some of it, but I can't sit around and sip it like it's water as I do with beer.