Show us your leanings!

[Drunkard]

50 minutes ago, LTS said:

As to your second point... a business doesn't build barriers, a government does.  What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation?  The business is beholden to its customers.  If people don't support the business, it doesn't succeed.  If people support a business, then they give up their right to complain about how the business operates. 

This paragraph stuck out to me as inherently wrong, although I see your point somewhat. Sure if I don't like the way Walmart underpays it's workers and encourages them to suck of the government teet because it makes their own books look better than paying above poverty wages I can take my business elsewhere, but that doesn't mean shopping there means I have no right to complain about their practices. Depending on where you may live you may also not have many other options.

Being a Sabres fan and spending money on tickets, merchandise, and things like Center Ice certainly doesn't mean that I give up my right to complain about the team either.

High speed internet is another example. These private businesses colluded with each other and sliced up the customer pie geographically (an example of private enterprise building barriers not the government) so if I happen to live in a TWC/Spectrum area then the only choice I have is to put up with them, go completely without, or give my money to a lower quality substitute like dial up, dsl, or satellite internet.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Alkoholist

[5th line wingnutt]

Stepping back from the fray, here are my political leanings...

I am a libertarian but not a Libertarian.
I am a republican but not a Republican.

I am neither a democrat nor a Democrat.
I am neither a socialist nor a Socialist.

[The Dominator]

19 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

You're closer to that line than me. Libertarianism is the greatest evil this planet has had to deal with.  Congrats, White guy who loves Elon Musk.. it's a perfect circle...(not anyone specifically, even though, yeah, it's a few of you...

 

9 hours ago, darksabre said:

No, but when you take all of the coercive social structure out of the mix, it becomes hugely problematic because people will ultimately resort to just worrying about themselves over anyone else. Greed is a trait everyone has, Libertarianism just enables it most effectively. 

Every liberertarian I've ever met is just mad that they have to pay taxes. So they say "if I didn't have to pay all these taxes, I could be more involved in my community! I would donate more to charity! The Gospel!" 

But they're full of shite. They really just want to build a 12 foot wall around their property and stuff their money under the mattress. 

I should add that I am sure I have Libertarian views. But I would never identify as Libertarian. Anyone who comes before me and says "I'm a Libertarian!" immediately tells me that they're only worried about themselves. They may talk a lot of talk otherwise, but I don't believe them. 

Sabel, looking at your chart, your point is further south than mine is. Which means your views are closer to Libertarian than mine are! ? Want to walk back any of those comments about child cage fights or nah? 

Dark, I remember we had a few good conversations in the old political thread about some of these topics. You probably don't remember because there were a ton of conversations and you post a lot more than me. But my libertarian views are weighed way more towards the social side of issues 

[Sabel79]

27 minutes ago, The Dominator said:

 

Sabel, looking at your chart, your point is further south than mine is. Which means your views are closer to Libertarian than mine are! ? Want to walk back any of those comments about child cage fights or nah? 

The child cage fights thing was, at all times, hyperbole.  If it makes you feel better: no, I do not believe Libertarians want to have child cage fights.  Just freedom from the interference of authority sufficient enough to allow them to get away with it if in fact they did.  ?

I’m personally quite uninterested in what goes on in the private lives of others.  So long as it doesn’t cross over and begin having an effect on others (ex.: Drink and do drugs all you like, but don’t then drive).  Where Libertarians and I diverge sharply is the point at which this becomes the case.  

[The Dominator]

41 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

The child cage fights thing was, at all times, hyperbole.  If it makes you feel better: no, I do not believe Libertarians want to have child cage fights.  Just freedom from the interference of authority sufficient enough to allow them to get away with it if in fact they did.  ?

I’m personally quite uninterested in what goes on in the private lives of others.  So long as it doesn’t cross over and begin having an effect on others (ex.: Drink and do drugs all you like, but don’t then drive).  Where Libertarians and I diverge sharply is the point at which this becomes the case.  

I think that's generally fair. I think the role of authority is to ensure no one is interfering with another person's personal freedom.

I agree with your point about drinking and drug use, but I don't diverge in regards to drinking and driving simply for the fact that a drunk driver is potentially interfering with another person's freedom to drive and operate a vehicle in a safe manner. 

[LTS]

8 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Bold #1: I don't want to descend fully into the gaping maw of pedantry, and there are different strains of Libertarianism, but I find it hard to believe that the underlying habit of the ideology to reduce society to economics (again, the same fatal flaw which kills Marxism) can have any other logical end.  

Bold #2: Standard Oil, Ma Bell, and heck, the British East India Company were literally in the business of limiting competition more than anything else.  

Bold #3: Any decent society puts limits, both at bottom and at top, of the outcomes of our choices (or the impact those of others have on us).  You can get rich, but you pay taxes (Which are the cost we pay to fund government to ensure a civilized, at the very least, society).  Those taxes can then be used to ensure the poor (no matter what the reason for said poverty, and that can start another argument) do not starve.  Arguments may be had in between about what government should be doing (infrastructure, defense, education) and to what level, but there you have it.

Limiting competition is what a business should do.  The goal of being successful is to limit competition.  Your examples from earlier in history aren't exactly the best, but we can roll with that.

Still, to believe those corporations were not empowered by governmental regulation is misguided. 

To your third point.... if I were currently single, I would have left this country by now.  The thing people don't ever want to acknowledge is that the political system of the United States is not the system of the World.  Taxing the rich works to a certain point, until they decide to move.  We talk about the impacts of taxation within the discussion what how much NHL players get to keep and how that may play into their decision making.  They are still confined to the NHL to make the most money playing hockey.  Business leaders are hardly confined to the US.  If you tap that well too much, it dries up.

Finally, if part of the Libertarian movement is an emphasis on social liberalism why do you state that it reduces society to economics?  

8 hours ago, Alkoholist said:

This paragraph stuck out to me as inherently wrong, although I see your point somewhat. Sure if I don't like the way Walmart underpays it's workers and encourages them to suck of the government teet because it makes their own books look better than paying above poverty wages I can take my business elsewhere, but that doesn't mean shopping there means I have no right to complain about their practices. Depending on where you may live you may also not have many other options.

Being a Sabres fan and spending money on tickets, merchandise, and things like Center Ice certainly doesn't mean that I give up my right to complain about the team either.

High speed internet is another example. These private businesses colluded with each other and sliced up the customer pie geographically (an example of private enterprise building barriers not the government) so if I happen to live in a TWC/Spectrum area then the only choice I have is to put up with them, go completely without, or give my money to a lower quality substitute like dial up, dsl, or satellite internet.

If you put money in the pocket of someone who acts in ways against how you believe they should act you are a hypocrit.  You are supporting the corporation.  The real question is how strongly do you believe in what you want them to do?  If you ultimately cave and go spend money there then your complaint falls on deaf ears.

The same is true with the Sabres.  You continue to support the product.  You complain about them, but if you really, honestly, were that concerned, you wouldn't support them.

High speed Internet is a bad example.  Governments have control over who gets franchise licensing.  They also control the build out of poles on which cables can be run.  So, they've instilled multiple layers through which competitors must operate in order to begin to offer you service.  If it were inherently free, then corporations would prop up poles and lines everywhere.  Of course that presents a societal issue so the government must get involved.  I am sure there's someone surprised at me saying that, but it's true.  Internet access are like roadways and you can't have two corporations attempting to operate roadways over the same path.  It doesn't work.  (also the same with Ma Bell back from Sabel79's post).

[Sabel79]

7 minutes ago, LTS said:

Limiting competition is what a business should do.  

The eel-slime slipperiness of Libertarian rhetoric wins again.  Good day, sir.  

[Taro T]

23 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

And this is where I come middle of the road depending on the issue.  I want a balanced budget.  Government imo should spend money to promote a safety net, a floor if you will... but conditions should be attached so that the money goes for onfosy certain basic necessities.  Therein lies the rub, my basics might not be yours.  Food shelter clothing ( limited) and any income should offset that support.   Also, in the US, defense spending is way too mismanaged and wasteful.  Overall taxes shouldn’t be higher than 30 percent including fed, excise taxes, user taxes, state and sales taxes etc and the budget should be constrained by that number.  

 

PS SS would not be such a hole if the government would stop borrowing against it and once the millenials reach full integration that hole will go away.  It’s a short-term gap.

 

 I would love to see a return to the line-item veto.  It worked well in Virginia and as well under Clinton for various reasons.  Still think though highly political can be used as effective budget balancing tool. 

Agree w/ this in large part, though my guess is that I'd prefer a balanced budget that is a smaller slice of GDP than you would.  (IMHO, the federal budget should typically be ~18% of GDP & nearly always 20% or less.)  Also believe that there isn't a problem w/ borrowing when it's for LT infrastructure projects provided the bonds mature w/ in the life of the project.

 

[North Buffalo]

53 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Agree w/ this in large part, though my guess is that I'd prefer a balanced budget that is a smaller slice of GDP than you would.  (IMHO, the federal budget should typically be ~18% of GDP & nearly always 20% or less.)  Also believe that there isn't a problem w/ borrowing when it's for LT infrastructure projects provided the bonds mature w/ in the life of the project.

 

possibly on GDP, but I’d like a balanced budget first and worry about percentage of GDP down the road.  We are so over that mark at this point...  one step at a time and Id have to look at implications of that number. I suspect defense spending alone is more than double that percentage let alone mandatory programs.

[LTS]

On 7/7/2018 at 12:46 AM, Sabel79 said:

The eel-slime slipperiness of Libertarian rhetoric wins again.  Good day, sir.  

I'm glad you are showing yourself out the door to be honest.  It's clear you are not attempting to understand any concept of this and instead are hard fast in some ill-conceived notions of what is being discussed. Instead, rather than discuss the concept of Libertarianism you've chosen to insult anyone attempting to explain it and do so using analogies, associations, and terms that are flat out incorrect.

As a last resort, I will throw this out for your brain to chew on.

Reducing competition is not a concept that only applies to business.  It's not even a human concept.  Limiting competition is a core tenet in the laws of nature.  When you are forced to compete you are forced to expend more resources than if you did not have to compete. Trees grow taller not only to insure that they get the most sun but also to insure that no plant within their area gets it.  This is reducing competition.  Weeds and grass engage in a perennial battle to see which will have control of my lawn.  

When two plants are on an equal enough playing ground that neither can snuff the other out because the amount of resources it takes is too great, then they coexist.  This is also true of plants that do not compete with each other but are instead compatible with each other.

The last statement I will make is that working to reduce competition is not equal to not allowing competition and that's something you don't seem to have grasped.  Companies, people, plants, animals all work to reduce competition.  None of them stop competition from happening however.  That's what a government does.

[Sabel79]

On 7/6/2018 at 3:10 PM, LTS said:

a business doesn't build barriers, a government does.  What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation?  

 

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 12:37 AM, LTS said:

Limiting competition is what a business should do.  The goal of being successful is to limit competition.  

 

 

40 minutes ago, LTS said:

Reducing competition is not a concept that only applies to business.  It's not even a human concept.  Limiting competition is a core tenet in the laws of nature.  When you are forced to compete you are forced to expend more resources than if you did not have to compete. Trees grow taller not only to insure that they get the most sun but also to insure that no plant within their area gets it.  This is reducing competition.  Weeds and grass engage in a perennial battle to see which will have control of my lawn.  

When two plants are on an equal enough playing ground that neither can snuff the other out because the amount of resources it takes is too great, then they coexist.  This is also true of plants that do not compete with each other but are instead compatible with each other.

The last statement I will make is that working to reduce competition is not equal to not allowing competition and that's something you don't seem to have grasped.  Companies, people, plants, animals all work to reduce competition.  None of them stop competition from happening however.  That's what a government does.

As confused as I am about the relocation of goalposts here, I'll simply say this, and it's probably where we agree that we don't agree. 

I get how nature works.  The universe is a cruel, violent, and fundamentally unfair place.  It wants us dead.  The very life-giving oxygen we breathe is also slowly tearing us apart inside; ultimately it's the reason why we all must die (if we're lucky to not go earlier for any of the other myriad reasons we can be erased).  I lament that not, but firmly believe that we as a society, from the very beginning, have understood this and sought to work together conquer it, at least in as much as we can.  We have done so quite well at times and very badly at others.  There is no perfect government, they are made by and of people.  People are not perfect.  We've agreed for thousands of years now that they are a necessity.  Queue the endless loop of disagreements about what government does, how, and who pays for it; all of which can be debated with reasonable people on both sides.  

I don't think anything in the previous paragraph is controversial.  I guess where you and I will be unable to find each other on the same map is that you seem to believe that the problem is government itself; if we were to unfetter people and the market to the greatest extent possible things would be better.   I truly believe that the main function of government in a market economy is to keep capital's thumb off the scale (for capital is truly the most likely wrongdoer here, even Adam Smith pointed this out in The Wealth of Nations) and ensure it isn't engaging in behaviors that will negatively impact us all (pouring toxic waste into lakes, for instance; or price-fixing and market manipulation in more prosaic terms).  I share none of your belief that the market will regulate itself.  It's been tried repeatedly and collapses every time, after a few at the top make off with what remains.  We've learned to hack the system too well to be compared to plants fighting for sunlight.  To say that regulation = the end of competition is a bit much, since the end of competition is exactly what capital wants.  Devour to survive, which sounds great in theory, but it doesn't end well for pretty much statistically everyone.  It can certainly be tempting to wish for liberty at all times, but through a restriction of liberty (and this can be defined in such narrow terms as paying taxes or not driving above 70 MPH) is sometimes attained a greater good.  

[5th line wingnutt]

On 7/7/2018 at 12:46 AM, Sabel79 said:

The eel-slime slipperiness of Libertarian rhetoric wins again.  Good day, sir.  

Many of the opponents of libertarianism have never really studied it.  They have a little bit of mostly second-hand knowledge about it, usually from someone else who does not like it.  They try to pigeonhole it just as you did.  You seem to think libertarians are all disciples of Rand and the objectivists.  Another poster (Dark?) seems to think we are all about economics and greed.

Libertarianism starts with the Scottish enlightenment around 1695.  It encompasses disciplines including, but not limited to, political philosophy, economics, ethics/moral philosophy, legal philosophy, praxeology, and natural rights theory.  It comes from some of the greatest minds of western civilization like Mill, Locke, and Smith.  It has been continued by newer thinkers like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Buchanan, and Nozick, among many others.

Is it really reasonable to try and shoe horn three and quarter centuries of intellectual effort into one little box?

You are not really critiquing libertarianism, you are critiquing your own caricature of libertarianism.

[Sabel79]

1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Many of the opponents of libertarianism have never really studied it.  They have a little bit of mostly second-hand knowledge about it, usually from someone else who does not like it.  They try to pigeonhole it just as you did.  You seem to think libertarians are all disciples of Rand and the objectivists.  Another poster (Dark?) seems to think we are all about economics and greed.

 

Libertarianism starts with the Scottish enlightenment around 1695.  It encompasses disciplines including, but not limited to, political philosophy, economics, ethics/moral philosophy, legal philosophy, praxeology, and natural rights theory.  It comes from some of the greatest minds of western civilization like Mill, Locke, and Smith.  It has been continued by newer thinkers like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Buchanan, and Nozick, among many others.

 

Is it really reasonable to try and shoe horn three and quarter centuries of intellectual effort into one little box?

 

You are not really critiquing libertarianism, you are critiquing your own caricature of libertarianism.

 

Speaking of Murray Rothbard...

"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society."

Which is downright progressive compared to: 

"[T]he parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

Both excerpts from his book, "The ethics of Liberty".  Both offered in all earnestness.  I Dunno about you, but I'll pass.  I realize these are nothing more than hypothetical, but they are used to illustrate my visceral objection to the philosophy.  It actively disavows personal morality based on an assumption, with no rationale based in fact behind it, that we'll all somehow keep each other in line while having no real reason besides immediate self-interest, to do so.  

[WildCard]

Here's mine, FWIW. I read some of the replies in here, but not all of them. Seems like there's a pretty strong favoring of one side on the political spectrum for this board. Pretty surprised by that honestly, considering how divisive I thought the Political Thread was supposed to be

 

 

 

 

[Frieda]

Pretty much close to the cross hairs for me. 

[LTS]

8 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

 

 

As confused as I am about the relocation of goalposts here, I'll simply say this, and it's probably where we agree that we don't agree. 

I get how nature works.  The universe is a cruel, violent, and fundamentally unfair place.  It wants us dead.  The very life-giving oxygen we breathe is also slowly tearing us apart inside; ultimately it's the reason why we all must die (if we're lucky to not go earlier for any of the other myriad reasons we can be erased).  I lament that not, but firmly believe that we as a society, from the very beginning, have understood this and sought to work together conquer it, at least in as much as we can.  We have done so quite well at times and very badly at others.  There is no perfect government, they are made by and of people.  People are not perfect.  We've agreed for thousands of years now that they are a necessity.  Queue the endless loop of disagreements about what government does, how, and who pays for it; all of which can be debated with reasonable people on both sides.  

I don't think anything in the previous paragraph is controversial.  I guess where you and I will be unable to find each other on the same map is that you seem to believe that the problem is government itself; if we were to unfetter people and the market to the greatest extent possible things would be better.   I truly believe that the main function of government in a market economy is to keep capital's thumb off the scale (for capital is truly the most likely wrongdoer here, even Adam Smith pointed this out in The Wealth of Nations) and ensure it isn't engaging in behaviors that will negatively impact us all (pouring toxic waste into lakes, for instance; or price-fixing and market manipulation in more prosaic terms).  I share none of your belief that the market will regulate itself.  It's been tried repeatedly and collapses every time, after a few at the top make off with what remains.  We've learned to hack the system too well to be compared to plants fighting for sunlight.  To say that regulation = the end of competition is a bit much, since the end of competition is exactly what capital wants.  Devour to survive, which sounds great in theory, but it doesn't end well for pretty much statistically everyone.  It can certainly be tempting to wish for liberty at all times, but through a restriction of liberty (and this can be defined in such narrow terms as paying taxes or not driving above 70 MPH) is sometimes attained a greater good.  

I love this response.  I am 100% serious.  It gives us discussion points.  It's much better than the single line response from before.

If the government is made of the people, and people decide how the government operates, then why hasn't the government already allowed capital to rule us?  Why is it, if people are left to their own devices, that you believe capital will run amok but if those same people form MORE government that they don't create laws that allow capital to run amok? 

Right now, as a business, I only need to focus on a handful of people in the government who can influence others to create rules that make it easier for my business to dominate the market.  This has been true under Democratic and Republican led Presidencies and Congresses.  

If the government does not pass laws to protect the business then the business must win the influence of the people.  That's a much harder job.

In your definition of LIbertarianism you take away the requirement of the government to serve the people, not the business.  Serving the people means that you pass a rule that says you can't dump toxic waste into lakes.  You reference that LIbertarianism would enable price-fixing.  Yet the government currently engages in that practice.  It creates false price floors.  It subsidizes businesses.  It interferes with the natural balance.

Liberty and Libertarianism does not mean no laws.  It means less laws.  There are libertarians who want to operate without any restrictions.  There are Republicans who want the same as well as Democrats.  They are all bad for society.

 

5 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Speaking of Murray Rothbard...

"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society."

Which is downright progressive compared to: 

"[T]he parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

Both excerpts from his book, "The ethics of Liberty".  Both offered in all earnestness.  I Dunno about you, but I'll pass.  I realize these are nothing more than hypothetical, but they are used to illustrate my visceral objection to the philosophy.  It actively disavows personal morality based on an assumption, with no rationale based in fact behind it, that we'll all somehow keep each other in line while having no real reason besides immediate self-interest, to do so.  

Shall we coin a new form?  The Moral Libertarian?  I don't operate without morals.  These passages as you quote are certainly shortsighted and do not account for many of the undesirable outcomes of the concept of "owning a child".  I'm not sure how many LIbertarians sign up for this concept.

[Sabel79]

@LTS

so what you’re saying is... you’re not a libertarian and, in fact, are a socially permissive small-government fiscal conservative?  ?

In all seriousness, I agree with you on capital’s deleterious effect on government.  I can’t process the idea that less (as opposed to better, which might include a leaner org, but well-reasoned regulation is paramount) government would somehow make capital better behaved.  If anything, it’s going to be much quicker and cheaper for them to rig the markets in their own favor. 

As far as my removal of the duty of a “libertarian government” (still an oxymoron as far as I’m concerned) to serve the people... are you sure you’re not putting it there?  Since the preferred form of government of the Libertarian is, frankly, almost (I’ll give you that much) none, how can this be the case? 

[LTS]

2 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

@LTS

so what you’re saying is... you’re not a libertarian and, in fact, are a socially permissive small-government fiscal conservative?  ?

In all seriousness, I agree with you on capital’s deleterious effect on government.  I can’t process the idea that less (as opposed to better, which might include a leaner org, but well-reasoned regulation is paramount) government would somehow make capital better behaved.  If anything, it’s going to be much quicker and cheaper for them to rig the markets in their own favor. 

As far as my removal of the duty of a “libertarian government” (still an oxymoron as far as I’m concerned) to serve the people... are you sure you’re not putting it there?  Since the preferred form of government of the Libertarian is, frankly, almost (I’ll give you that much) none, how can this be the case? 

Well, I think as it was outlined in the isidewith.. the Libertarian party is the party I MOSTLY associate with... but not strongly.  56% I believe?

I would argue that the markets are already rigged.

The preferred form of government by the Libertarian party is one that allows people their own freedom to pursue their interests as they best see fit.  It however, does not extend to allowing corporations to ruin the environment.  

I think that Libertarians would accept nearly no government so long as people could hold themselves responsible.  (People running corporations included).  That said, the realization is that it's not going to happen.  So, government must exist and it won't necessarily be miniscule.  The following quotes are from the party website.  The argument is that much of the government regulatory atmosphere is unnecessary and unproductive.  I happen to agree with that.  It doesn't say that no regulations should exist.

"Libertarians believe that the only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."

In summary, Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation.

[Doohicksie]

On 7/5/2018 at 11:35 AM, Randall Flagg said:

a neat and tidy spectrum like this one: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm Gandhi, mother######!

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Doohickie

[Huckleberry]

[Huckleberry]

Some of these questions really made me feel uneasy and I thought were put in a way to push you to the left side though.

[LGR4GM]

On 7/7/2018 at 12:37 AM, LTS said:

  Business leaders are hardly confined to the US.  If you tap that well too much, it dries up.

 

I laughed at this a little. The wealth gap between the rich and event he middle class is historically extremely high. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That well has so much money right now there's actual concerns about economic overstimulation. I could raise the tax rate 10% on wealthy people and 15% on corporations and it would barely dent their profit margins. Especially now with the new tax law going into effect. Nothing like adding 1trillion dollars to the national debt. Thanks again Baby Boomers. 

[LTS]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I laughed at this a little. The wealth gap between the rich and event he middle class is historically extremely high. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That well has so much money right now there's actual concerns about economic overstimulation. I could raise the tax rate 10% on wealthy people and 15% on corporations and it would barely dent their profit margins. Especially now with the new tax law going into effect. Nothing like adding 1trillion dollars to the national debt. Thanks again Baby Boomers. 

Is is extremely high.  My point was that if you tax them enough they move.  What is their incentive to stay?

Eventually the "poor" are left trying to milk each other for money.  Eventually they have to lift themselves up.  The system, as it stands now, is designed to reduce the chance people have to succeed.  Either it's one side that wants to make everyone reliant upon the government to provide (no self-motivation) or it's the other side that wants to make the resources to succeed available only to those who can afford it.

Those with the means are the first ones to leave an unfavorable situation.  If a company starts to struggle and people think there will be layoffs, the people who jump ship first are the most talented.  Once they leave the company struggles even more to be successful... cue downward spiral and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Look at the report this week about Rochester.  It's lost 16,000 people from 2010 to 2017.  There are a lot of reasons why Rochester is shrinking.  First, NYS is shrinking, largely because of its tax laws and other anti-business regulations.  Rochester, which was built on multi-national corporations, is shrinking because many of those people recognize that and have the ability to move.  Rochester also has its own anti-business mentality which compounds the problem. 

Point is, there's a tipping point at which the willingness to pay the tax is exceeded and people move.  This changes the taxation value from that constituent to zero.

The proper solution is trying to build everyone up, not bring everyone down.  As I said, I'm dangerously close to moving, at a minimum out of state, and more likely out of the country.  I have a few friends who already have moved out of the country and many more who have moved out of state.

[LGR4GM]

Rochester is shrinking because it was built on Kodak and Kodak went under.

[LGR4GM]

 

New York's population has gone up 2.4% between 2010 and the estimate for 2017.  

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ny/PST045217

Erie County's population has slightly increased since 2010. It isn't all sunshine and sparkles outside of NY. People want to live here. The schools are good, unlike say Michigan where the constant destruction caused by Devos has caught up to the state. 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/eriecountynewyork/PST045217

 

You are right that many  states are experiencing a growth because they favor businesses over people. That won't just go on forever. For a State that is so anti-business NY is doing pretty good with the worlds 10th largest economy based on GDP. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by LGR4GM