Moxie

Yeah, according to the pdf it is not "across the board." Not surprisingly, that is the way I've seen it reported in more than one place.


Ron Paul Announces Plan to Cut Government Spending by $1 Trillion - NYTimes.com

The federal work force would be cut by 10 percent across the board.

__________________

SUP3RNOVA

One with morality and decency, and one where people accept the fact that not everybody is created equal. Low-intelligence laborers with families do exist, and often they do need financial help while transitioning between jobs after a layoff.

Again, if pure capitalism stimulates the economy enough to solve the unemployment issue AND the world constantly has Buffet's in it, welfare is unnecessary. Welfare now is ludicrous.

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

lukep

You are either Trolling or are a Socialist. There are no other options for someone who responds this way.

You have asserted that it is "Moral" and "Decent" to TAKE wealth (at gunpoint) from those that have rightfully earned it... These are obviously definitions for morality and decency that I was somehow unaware of...

I'm very surprised that you would vote for Paul after saying this. Are you sure you're not an Obama supporter in disguise?

What does their intelligence have to do with anything? In a free market without socialism, the jobs for people with low intelligence (flipping burgers and digging ditches, I'd think) would earn enough to fully support those stupid families... Because no one else wants to do the jobs while everyone needs those jobs done for them.

(I'll concede that the Mexican border situation may need to be solved first however.)

__________________

lukep

G will probably drop a few better ones for you but off the top of my my head:

Daily Paul - More a community than a blog, but lots of good, recent news.

The Cato Institute - Top notch

Mises - The authority on pretty much all proper economics, libertarianism, and Anarchy. A bit deep at times, not for beginners.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Useful as a list of resources.

The Humble Libertarian - Just learned about this one, looks useful. I bet it's Guerilla's 'other' site.

__________________

SUP3RNOVA

Wow, not sure where I said it's moral to take wealth from people at gunpoint. Sorry but I can't take you seriously if you're going to act like a troll.

Paul is by far and away the best candidate.

Your position is pretentious and comes from somebody who sounds like they spend every day and night alone in their home, stammering away at the keyboard about the lowly society below them and how it's preventing them from making more money from their useless, shitty, invaluable MFA sites. Garbagemen contribute more to society than you do.

Social interaction is fulfilling, you should try it.

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

lukep

Then you're just too stupid to see the ramifications of your previous statement. Allow me to enlighten you:

You stated that wealth redistribution is a moral and decent world's answer. (Paraphrased, but accurate)

Wealth redistribution is defined as taking wealth from some people to give to others. Unless you know of another practical way to do this, the primary means of wealth redistribution is to have the government run & enforce it.

However the government does this, via taxes or otherwise, the enforcement is the same: They must threaten with imprisonment the people that they are taking wealth from. Innocent people that are guilty of nothing but being successful and building wealth. (At least I've never heard of a different model, such as taking it from prisoners to give to society, but I don't think you're arguing for those oddball scenarios.)

If the wealthy people don't want to give it up or go to prison? Yup, that just leaves guns. Every state has used guns to enforce taxes since the introduction of the gun there.

Therefore, if you feel wealth redistribution is moral and decent, then you must by default feel that taking wealth from innocent people by gunpoint is included in that moral and decent judgement. There is simply no other way around this fact.


Wow, baseless insults. You're not building your case at all here.

Argue the logic. Is there another way to redistribute the wealth that is "moral and Decent?" I can't imagine one... Not without perfecting the justice system first.

__________________

guerilla

There are two ways to libertarianism I have seen. One is from an ethics/rights perspective and the other from an economic perspective.

I recommend the latter, because then ethics and rights align with economics. The other way around, people never seem to understand the economic arguments, and end up without any principles to work from, undermining their rights perspectives.

Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
The Law - Frederic Bastiat

From there, you have dozens of choices of authors and variations on ideas to choose from. Stay in touch.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

SUP3RNOVA

But I don't. If you truly believed in the principles you do, you would either not pay any taxes, or give up your US citizenship. You do neither.

I pay roughly 50% in taxes and it's absolutely absurd, because most of it goes where it's not deserved. With proper policies you could lower taxes to 15-20% and redistribute that into areas that actually do need it. I do not have a problem with being a taxpayer in a country that's known for it's freedom and enterprise.

My case (here) is built on your character.

Reform the welfare state, establish a flat tax, cut overseas spending by trillions, and lessen regulations on businesses.

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

lukep

So illogical. I wonder, does your world look like an Escher painting?


I do pay taxes because I am held at gunpoint to do so, until the day I escape. I believe I have made my stance clear on how I might feel about doing just that if Paul isn't elected.


You could do that, sure, but wouldn't it be far better for all involved, and even make it a moral and decent system for you to spend that money on voluntary SERVICES instead of being taxed?

And you'd know my character how? You're assumptions were laughably wrong.


Allowing the welfare state to exist at all is an unjust, immoral, and indecent solution. It rewards failure by stealing from successful people. Of course we can't make the change overnight without starting another civil war, but it must be the goal to remove it altogether eventually or your system is forever immoral and is just going to go back the way it was eventually.

__________________

cheeseman

lukep, george ought to help is a useful tool to explain the non aggression principle with gool ol' animation. the next in the series covers minimum wage if anyone wanted to touch that.

SUP3RNOVA

What a perversion of the word 'escape'. It is incredibly easy for you to leave the US and move to another country. The 'establishment' hasn't changed in decades, yet you live in it like a pussy too scared to leave and you still will because the US is still a good place to live.

You hide behind your monitor and complain, nothing more. Go back to producing pure garbage that contributes to the American downfall you hate, hypocrite.

This isn't realistic when tens of millions of Americans are bred in a philosophy to receive these voluntary services. I'm not saying moving towards that society is wrong, but you can't instantaneously go from 120mph to 0mph without an accident.

I think you mean to say "Your assumptions are laughably wrong."

And once again you're misinterpreting my position because you're attempting to deal in absolutes. That only works when you type it on a screen or think about it with your own biased mind. The real world is a dynamic, breathing membrane that fluctuates based on societal tendencies and not on what any one individual thinks is absolutely right. The welfare state as it currently exists is 1321098234% wrong, and you can't seem to distinguish that from my own position.

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

lukep

Thanks Cheeseman! You're officially on my good list now.

LOLOL! Ironically I'm in Bangkok right now but I still haven't escaped yet. Just yesterday I was talking with a banker here about the rules for moving money over and you know, It just isn't as painless as most people would think.

Not only does the USA keep taxing you for ten years after you turn in paperwork requesting expatriation, but there is not likely to be a time in the foreseeable future when Uncle Sam can't get into your bank account anyway. Not for any country I'd want to live in, at least.

In short, there really is no escape, but I'm far further along at the attempt than 99% of the Americans on wickedfire.

Being a "good place to live" is relative. Seems like every day I'm teetering though. Paul seems like a last chance to me because I don't think the US can hold out for Rand... (Nor am I sure about Rand yet since he lacks the 30-year voting record.)

Clearly I am not. Ask any mod which country my current IP is in. I invest and I travel. This complaining you see me do is simply how I use a crucible on the news to decide what's going to happen.

I covered that below. We're essentially agreed here but it's vital that the system moves towards phasing out all wealth redistribution or the cycle will repeat.

Wow; thanks for the free lesson, unnecessary grammar nazi!

And once again, you have interpreted your statement as something that can exist WITHOUT absolutes. Watch Cheeseman's film above to see exactly why there is no other way to interpret it.

I'll look beyond how you came up with that silly number and just remind you that I don't have a problem with most of your original point; I only called you out on the part where you supported the existence of wealth redistribution.

You're not as bad as a full-blown liberal or the like, but when you called wealth redistribution a "moral and decent" world's answer you were simply wrong. Admit that much and we can be in agreement. There is nothing moral or decent about taking wealth from people by force.

__________________

SUP3RNOVA

If you really hate the US that much, just don't pay US taxes when you move away. You won't be allowed back but, you wouldn't want to come back right?

I agree that Rand isn't a viable alternative.

Your geographic location doesn't really have anything to do with where you're typing from. Being behind a monitor is being behind a monitor.

I base my experience and opinion not only on what I think is principally right on paper, but based on my interaction with the hundreds of people around me that I talk to in person.

Again, it's not an absolute abstract like you propose it. You can scale down the redistribution of wealth to a point where it's not entirely corrupt, but also functions. It's not "all or nothing".

A dumbass, poor redneck woman has 10 babies. She works at McDonalds and expects food stamps to pay for most of her babies. A libertarian comes into office and drastically cuts food stamps, because we should not encourage stupid people to breed and have 10 babies.

Do you let these babies starve to death? Does the government take them from the mother and throw them in orphanages? The mother is stupid and can't make enough money to support her children, how does a minimalistic government deal with this?

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

guerilla

Maybe the founding fathers shouldn't have fought the revolution and just left the British colonies since they didn't like how the King did things?

Maybe black Americans should have left the US rather than have the civil rights movement?

The love it or leave it argument is quite frankly, idiotic.

I would respond to more of your posts, but it's going to take a long time for you to get up to speed on an economic or ethical argument worth having, that I would rather you do it on your time and at your pace, and we can pick it up when we're able to deal with the higher level ideas rather than me spend much time having to refute stuff that, from my perspective at least, is pretty basic.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

Moxie

There already are charitable organizations in place that would help them. With less taxes, and with media coverage of government programs being cut, these charities would no doubt get a HUGE increase in donations.

$1.3 billion to Haiti relief... That's 1.3 billion for people in another country, donated despite paying taxes and despite a down economy.

__________________

lukep

There are certainly other factors... Family, friends, large objects I can't ship, my favorite restaurant. etc... I'd honestly rather not move but the decline of liberty here is rapidly making it all not worthwhile.

I don't hate America itself; America IS the constitution that the assholes in charge are trampling all over. I hate the assholes like lobbyists, the politicians they control, the central banks, and of course the MIC. As for the Libtards/Socialists, I feel they are just under-educated, and think of them as potentially good neighbors if they are forced to learn about liberty one day.

And PS; if you don't pay your taxes when you move away bad things can happen to you. Depending on your wealth you can find it all sucked out of your bank account from afar. The Uncle Sam's central bank controls it all.


Wow, you still don't get it! You just said: "scale down the redistribution of wealth to a point where it's not entirely corrupt" - Meaning that you feel there is some point when wealth redistribution is justified.

Did you watch the film about george above? I just don't see how you can think like that. It is simply NEVER justified, it's always been unjust.


Alright, I'll play your game here.

Since we aren't starting from scratch and don't want to start a civil war or watch thousands go die in the street painfully, obviously there must be a transitional period.

Any Libertarian that comes in the office and gets enough support from congress to do something about this must have a damn good plan to EDUCATE and then WEAN OFF these bloodsuckers.

I think under the circumstances it would take a whole decade. Sadly foodstamps would continue until each individually 'graduates' within that decade.

Such a president should come in with a funding package bill to get passed that basically pays for the education (one time only) of everyone who is currently on welfare... And no I'm not talking about a GED equivalent or any such shit... I'm talking about a "why this is wrong and why it will cease to exist" education followed by legitimate job skills training.

Then this president must have a plan for what happens in 10 years when all these workers flood the market... The jobs need to be there. So it's going to be a very tough (but possible) task of matching demand to jobs with proper timing.

Sure there will be holdouts, but they've been given more than ample warning and everything else they need. If they still aren't getting with the program than these poor fools will be in the exact same boat as our chronically homeless people today are. Homeless shelters may swell for a while at that point; a whole different plan should probably be instituted for the homeless to give them some new type of therapy for their mental disorder. (Including the holdouts.)

Clear enough? Major problems require major solutions, but the endgame is to get rid of all entitlements and wealth redistribution. If you can't strive for that you can't strive for fairness at all.

__________________

Moxie

^ There's already a five year limit on food stamps, work requirements after two years, and worker development programs.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

lukep

Good, then perhaps a 5-year interim period would work. (Seems too fast but hey, why not?)

I neglected to mention before that this would all need to go hand-in-hand with educational system upgrades too, since of course the current edu system will pump out more new welfare queens next year. Then again, what real solutions to ANYTHING don't require major educational system upgrades? Our schools are such a joke I can't wait for Paul to get in and scrap them all down to the foundations...

__________________

cheshire

Sometimes I wish Texas would secede from the Union (which is our right) and declare independence from the United States. Then instill a completely libertarian government. America can send reporters and they can write about the "great experiment."

__________________

cheeseman

How about The Seasteading Institute | Our mission: To further the establishment and growth of permanent, autonomous ocean communities, enabling innovation with new political and social systems. or Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime ?

lukep/guerilla. just out of curiosity, have most of the arguments you've encountered against libertarianism looked like this? http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

lukep

Wow what a misguided individual with way too much time on his hands!

I couldn't read any further than: " The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments"...

Tears started to form, halfway in laughter but also halfway im true sadness as I realized that it's possible to learn that much about the cause and yet still be so naive about the world we live in..

__________________

Crynos

It's sad. Unfortunately, there's no way to get through to those people, and many people believe that..

PS. To the guy looking for books, the Literature section at Mises is awesome: http://mises.org/Literature . I just bought a Kindle pretty much for the sole purpose of taking advantage of it. I currently have about 25 (free) books to read.

guerilla

That one is famous for being a joke.

If you have any concerns with libertarianism, PM me and I'll try to answer them as best I can.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

lukep

^Really? They must have spent hundreds of hours writing that 'joke.' -Are you sure it wasn't at least started by someone with a hatred of libertarianism and made funnier later?

Another thought is that it could be a giant set of reverse-libertarian-promotional material... i.e. a true libertarian could have thought that presenting it as anti-libertarian with gaping holes in it like the one above might grab skeptics from google and convince these readers to actually become libertarian even if they arrived to find ammo against us... Not a bad idea, that.

__________________

SUP3RNOVA

In effect, this is all I've been arguing this entire time. Ron Paul will most likely not be our next President, so realistically what is the next major step for the grassroots movement? To start the transition.

Taxes will not go from 50% to 0% in a term. Welfare will not be completely cut off in a term (or two). What we should realistically fight for right now is to begin this "transitional phase" by lowering taxes to a much lower rate as well as giving welfare major reforms. You can still fight for the principles while being realistic about the policies.

If that process goes through successfully, we'll be much more capitalistic and have a healthier economy. When that happens, it will make sense to people that taxes and welfare should be eliminated altogether.

__________________
am I allowed to link to my forum here?

lukep

So you did all of that arguing because you couldn't conceive my point including an a transitional period? Hmm. Seems like a given to me.

The problem with phasing down things like taxes and welfare over the long term is two fold:

Firstly, of course, the different politicians during that time period will have different ideas about how to achieve those ends. (Or if they still want to.) So you can't count on them to continue the plan.

Secondly, the major need here is to get the education out FIRST. All americans need to know why welfare is bad, why it __IS__ coming to an end in the year 201X, and then start ASAP training for their new jobs which are now in progress of being created. -These are big, resource-heavy plans, and all need to be put in place well before the end of the transition.

So honestly, I can't see it happening without a rallying figure like Paul to bring it in and force it to happen during his term.

Just starting to lower taxes gradually without spending the big bucks on education and awareness ignores the bulk of the problem and worse, sends out the message that it's business as usual... Taxes go down a bit, you know, like when a republican takes office... Same shit different day.

You can't solve it that way. Christ himself couldn't.

__________________