I'm feeling lost.

Kris

Kris

Well-Known Member
ChrisWsrn said:
First, mountainboy965 makes some very good points in his post so please feel free to read it.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a Framework of a functioning Pure Libertarian Government. We just have not been using it since the late 1800s. It worked for at-least 100 years without economic issues. The only economic issues the US had during this time were caused by using slave labor and wars.

Some people in this thread are using Anarchy and Libertarianism interchangeably. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!! Anarchy is no government control and does not work for long. Libertarianism is what the Founding Fathers gave us. A Pure Libertarian Government has a group of independent sub-governments (States) being under sovereignty of a larger government (Federal Government). The independent governments (States) can do what ever they want. The Federal Government can only provide Courts (Contract Enforcement and Law Enforcement), Defense (Military, Diplomacy, and Intelligence), and Interstate Commerce (Air Band Management, Orbit Management, Money, and Infrastructure) Services to the states and citizens under its sovereignty using federal tax revenue. The states are responsible for managing all other departments and services with their own tax revenue.

One thing that is done in a pure libertarian government is that the Legislative Branch of the federal government has to directly manage federal policy and can not allocate policy decisions to agencies (Like EPA regulations, IRS regulations, and FCC regulations). States are still free to do whatever they want to do with their tax revenue except print federal currency.
Click to expand...
Times have changed since the late 1800's. More and more corporations are out now.
Much more technology.
Many more people.
Many more douchy people.
Need for more infrastructure.
States themselves are now more unified and much less separated than they used to be back then.


To sum everything up: Small governments and small public sectors work when you're governing small groups of people.

When you're governing larger bodies of people, more diverse people, etc you need more government, rules, and regulations.

I can tell one stranger not to touch something, and /likely/ they won't touch it, but if I tell 100 people, the odds are in the favor that at least someone will.

Thus you need more enforcement/laws/regulations on the group of 100 than you do on the group of 1.

Laws need to be able to cover/govern the entire population, not just friendly, tax paying, happy citizens.

Again, I stress that I may not know what I'm talking about, these are just the views and interpretations of a minor, and I might be over my head.
 
ienjoywaffles

ienjoywaffles

Well-Known Member
So because this is getting REALLY off topic and it is clear that neither parties will convince the other that they are right, I'll just leave a pretty decent link that summarizes how I feel about it. Why I Hate Your Freedom

Back on topic, life sucks and the government sucks and people suck.
 
mountainboy965

mountainboy965

Well-Known Member
xHallucinationx said:
Libertarianism is Anarchy with globalization. AKA the quitters way when they give in to corporations.
Click to expand...

While I will agree that some aspects of Libertarianism may be similar to Anarchy, it is not the same. Keep in mind that the type of libertarianism that I believe Chriswrsn is referring to is "US Libertarianism," which is a modernistic and contemporary form of libertarianism. US Libertarianism advocates free markets, small government, free trade, and ending world affairs militarily. Under US Liberatarianism, there is a still a government structure in place to take care of roads, homeland defense, and other essential government functions.

Anarchy, on the other hands, advocates complete strip-down of the government, and generally advocates chaos and destruction. Under anarchy, there is no government in place at all. There is simply people taking the law into their own hands.
 
Audi

Audi

Well-Known Member
For the record, I don't give a rat's arse all this shit about the 'Founding Fathers' and crap.

Most people in this thread are American, so that's fine.

But for the sake of a generalist arguement - and for those living in countries other than the United States, it's like, "Who gives a fuck?"

brb eating pretzels in Europe
 
Nordiclovepotion

Nordiclovepotion

Well-Known Member
*Wakes up*
Well, I heard this shitstorm from my bed and have this to say -
What worked in the past will not necessarily work now. If your argument was that we (America namely, but any other country as well) should go back to a colonial system and your reasoning was because it worked in the 18th century, you would be wrong. As Kris said, we have many more people, much more technology, and with it, different problems and by nature different possible solutions to our problems. I'm appreciative of Socialism and Capitalism, and agree with Mountainboy that balance is what we need.

And, responding to Rem's ACTUAL original post, I would like to add that 80% of Millionaire's in the U.S (I know you're not from the U.S or anywhere near it, but it offers perspective) are first-generation affluent, meaning that they are the first person in their family to become wealthy. So we should focus on what we want (not in a greedy way) and what we feel we need to do and work to achieve said goals with our resources/abilities.

If there are holes in this, bring them to my attention as I wrote this in a comatose state, this was really a rehash of the entire argument so I guess you can say it's a very opinionated TL;DR.
*Passes out*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top