| Author |
Message |
    
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 541
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:52 pm: | 
|
The Central Park Conservatory works WITH the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. It is a partnership, one that is both public and private. They have a management contract from the city that can be revoked if they don't meet certain financial and contractual standards.
a perfect libertarian relationship between private organizations and the role of government. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 542
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
you spoke of the limited power of the people to make change.
No that's not what I said.
The form of government you have chosen to live under allows you the right to vote for elected officials who ultimately vote on how your tax dollars are spent. You can try and affect what the money is spent on, but that is the extent of your power.
|
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Libby,
fastest growing political party in the nation. get ready cause we are coming.
from lp.org
Currently, more than 590 Libertarians hold public office, more than all other third parties combined. In the 2003 elections, we elected 46 Libertarians, nearly half in higher-level races such as city and county council. During the year 2000, we ran more than 1430 candidates, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.
We fielded candidates for 255 of the 435 seats in the U.S House as well as 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for election -- the first time in eighty years that any third party has contested a majority of the seats in Congress. Our slate of U.S. House candidates received 1.7 million votes, the first time any third party has received over a million votes for U.S. House.
1.7 million divided by 255 translates to an average of 6666 votes per candidate...wow! how many seats were won - ZERO.
from house.gov the current breakdown of the HOR is 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent.
I guess fastest growing is all relative???
I did enjoy the section list all the Libbys holding public office, so I'll highlight my personal favorite -
Robert Dempsey of Colorado
San Miguel County Coroner
He probably IDs the govenment agency that led to the deceased's demise.
|
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
For anyone who would like to see how they fall in terms of political leanings, take the quiz at the address below -
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I never would have guessed that I'm a left-leaning CENTRIST. Yes, that was sarcasm. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 550
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
L1C, people like to keep their money. It's no secret. It's also no secret that in the absence of taxes, there's a significant group of people who would decide to keep their money to themselves.
Moreover, in terms of 'subsidizing' other people's children, how is the government different from a private charity? The government just makes it mandatory; a private charity asks people to do it voluntarily. When it's mandatroy, all one can do is gripe; when it's voluntary, people love that they don't have to do it. Why would people who don't like paying taxes *voluntarily* give their money to a charity?
Wouldn't the subsequent drop in funding cause *all* schools to suffer?
Furthermore, what is the guarantee that charities won't 'stay close to home,' in other words, work where their donations come from instead of where they need to be? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 552
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
When it's mandatroy, all one can do is gripe; when it's voluntary, people love that they don't have to do it. Why would people who don't like paying taxes *voluntarily* give their money to a charity?
if people dont voluntarily give money to charities but the government makes it mandatory then isnt the government working against the will of the people? so you are advocating a non-representative government that works against the wishes of its populace? i am surprised that you are supportive of a fasctist like regime. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 551
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
For somebody who doesn't like having what he says made into something it's not, you do a pretty fair job of contorting my words.
People don't like to pay taxes, but they will. Most people accept the fact that in return for services from their government, they must pay to fund those services. If this was not the case, then *none* of the representatives currently in office would hold it. More taxes, less taxes, but taxes remain constant.
This is not my opinion; this is proven by the fact that in the 85 years that federal income taxes have existed, the people have voted for *representatives* who continue to tax them. If the will of the people was not to pay taxes, the representatives would not have been voted in.
To summarize: No, I do not support a non-representative government, and I hold that current government policy is more or less representative of the population.
None of what you posted above answered any of the questions I asked. I hold that the quality of schools will drop due to a decrease in available funding, and that schools without able local charities will suffer more. I assume you disagree; I'd be delighted to know why. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 559
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
read the thread for your answer. i given it a number of times
For somebody who doesn't like having what he says made into something it's not, you do a pretty fair job of contorting my words.
i did not twist your words. it was the logical summary of what you said. i cant read your mind, only your words.} |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 552
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Maybe I'm slow today, but I don't see how what I said translates into my support of a facist regime. Either way, now I have defined my position, therefore it's moot. Back to the topic at hand...
I have read the thread for your answer. All that I have seen is an insistence that private charities will be able to pay for schools. This has been repeated a number of times.
You have also said that you are sure that not everyone will give, but enough will be given. I disagree with that assertion. I am curious as to why you are so sure that the funds will be there. I am also curious as to how you define 'enough' funding for schools.
You have also not addressed the issue of donations staying where they are given. On reflection, I think that people would be happiest donating locally where it benefits them. Even if donations do rise, what is the guarantee that funding will get everywhere that it needs to go? If there is no guarantee, what happens to those children whose schools do not have enough? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 565
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
I disagree with that assertion. I am curious as to why you are so sure that the funds will be there
this brings us full circle to the idea that if you think people wont donate money to support schools then the government is working against the will of the people by making it mandatory.
you cant say we want government to make us support education and then say you dont think people would want to give money for education. either people would support charities towards education or the government is acting against the wishes of its populace. which is it? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
what I find troubling about libertarianism is that, while its goal of freeing individuals from the heavy hand of government is laudable, it does not address the abuse of individual rights by private corporations. Because they believe in only the most minimal of government intervention, they believe that the Wal-Marts, Exxons, and McDonalds of the world should not be subject to regulation. As someone who values the rights of individuals, I can't make that distinction, and say that governmental abuse of individual rights is bad, but corporate abuses (labor, consumer, environmental) are OK. and it's easy to say that the market should correct for those abuses, but the reality is the near-monopolistic nature of some of these corporations (like Wal-Mart) effectively prevents people from having the freedom to make decisions to shop or work elsewhere.
so as far as I'm concerned, anti-trust and other regulation of corporate monoliths is necessary to guarantee personal freedom. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 563
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
The Libertarian party is in no condition to govern in its current form, but in time I expect them to evolve and eventually become a power party. Lower taxes, less regulations and overall government spending along with an end to moral laws would be a good platform to start from, but they have to recognize the need to help those who cannot help themselves and the importance of a strong national defense. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Dr. Winston: It is my understanding that Libertarians believe that government policies are responsible for the creation of private business monopolies. I believe I read that somewhere a long time ago. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 569
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
but they have to recognize the need to help those who cannot help themselves
we do recognize this issue and have addressed it, private charities. if people are concerned then they will donate.
and yes, government policies are responsible for monopolies. |
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 797
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Libertarian, can you explain what you mean by this:
"government policies are responsible for monopolies." |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 572
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
i dont know why i botherd to post the links.
The Issue: We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.
The Principle: Anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.
Solutions: We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.
Transitional Solutions: We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Your position would be more convincing if you had data to support your assertions. If you simply state "anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly," without citing any evidence, you aren't very persuasive.
If anything, the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws has led to monopolistic practices. |
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 798
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Libertarian -
I was hoping that you would present this in your own words rather than just copy the statement from the party page. Also provide examples, historical context, etc. |
D.
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5573
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
In terms of media companies, I think the FCC has done a great job of creating monopolies by removing ownership laws. Not sure what continuing down the path described by the libertarians would do, but my guess is it would eventually lead to a single media company. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
The poor guy must think that Rockefeller was a property developer in Manhattan. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
This is why it's impossible to argue with an ideologue. Any opposing view is met not with evidence and logic, but with simple contradiction. In the eyes of the libertarian true believer, pure food and drug regulation leads to the marketing of dangerous drugs and tainted meat, anti-trust regulation creates monopolies, securities law causes fraud, environmental laws result in more pollution, and on and on and on.
So instead of making arguments with hard evidence, the best support they can muster for their beiliefs are instances in which negative results occur by mistake - like the marketing of Vioxx. In this view, because the SEC or FDA is not perfect, they should be abolished instead of strengthened.
It's more of a religion than a philosophy as its U.S. proponents present it, and that more than anything else, is why it meets with resistance.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 576
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
hogwash! i have given loads of examples and cited numerous sources int this thread. each and every timme it has been ignored because it doesnt suit the collective opinion. then someone writes how i do not use examples or cite sources. on the rare occasion when someone does deign to acknowledge the example, they say its not enough.
stop picking and choosing what you choose to acknowledge in order to suit your argument.
as for being an idealogue, isnt all political discussion a discussion of ideology?
the best support they can muster for their beiliefs are instances in which negative results occur by mistake - like the marketing of Vioxx.
like this was an isolated incident. the top doctor for the fda has testified before congress on the ineptitude and lack of efficacy of this organization. another example of picking out small items and twisting them to prove a point. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5831
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
local_1_crew, I think the problem with the disagreement you are having with Albatross is that you are excluding the middle. Yes, people don't like paying taxes, but that indicates a reluctance, not an unwillingness. There is a difference. We grudgingly pay taxes, because (1, the negative) we dislike it coming from our wallets, and (2, the positive) we know it's an obligation and for the greater good. As I tell my kids, it's OK to whine "I don't wanna do it" when they do their chores and homework, but I still expect them to do it. In fact, I have learned that whining "I don't wanna" helps us get through stuff we don't like, me included.
Now, back to funding public schools. Under what premise did you willingly accept SO/M's very high property taxes when you moved in only a year ago? Did you have some sort of expectation of radically changing the obligation you accepted? Or did you merely hope to change the majority viewpoint in this neighborhood. I believe -- and I could be wrong -- that you had alternatives. For example, I have childless friends who live in Elizabeth and Newark. They have had seriously nice houses in the secret good neighborhoods of those places. Schools are underfunded, and taxes are low, which is OK for them.
I sympathize with those whose taxes have risen sharply over the years. I don't know what to advise them. You and I, as newcomers, don't have as good a platform to gripe on. The realtor told me what my taxes would be when I looked at this house. I put that amount in my budget and tried to clear out some space for rises, too.
I hope that schools are eventually funded more with income tax and less with property tax. I'm not sure if I will get my dream. This way, my ability to pay will better match my obligation. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 581
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
i chose to live here because i like my house, i like the town, and i have many friends who live here. i knew the tax situation when i bought. this in no way precludes me from railing against the inequity of the system or from trying to change it. what a boring world this would be if we all sequestered orurselves in small areas surrounded only by those who share the exact same opinions in cult like factions. i love maplewood, new jersey, and the good ol' USA. the freedoms in this country afford me the right to complain, whine, and gripe about the system and try and change it through peaceful and political means. just as you all are allowed to try and maintain the status quo and oppose my ideals. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3255
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
The rub with funding ever expanding school budgets (for me) has to do with what the return is on the payments. It's like the War on Poverty. A 5 trillion transfer of wealth would be fine with me if it had actually worked.
The more I think about it, I tend to dread a move to an income-based system of taxation. By having fewer people foot more and more of the bill, I think it will be easier for people down the road to vote for increased school funding since it won't effect their pocketbook as much.
What's necessary is a revolt, and not just in how the system is funded, but how the system operates.
(I moved here one year before the reval with no clue that my property taxes would more than double to over $20K). |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5836
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
local, I agree with your response. You are definitely entitled to rail against the system and try to change it in the ways we see fit. In fact, we should do so. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 590
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
throughout this thread you have been a voice of tolerance and reason. it is appreciated for the rare thing it is. thank you. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
quote:hogwash! i have given loads of examples and cited numerous sources int this thread. each and every timme it has been ignored because it doesnt suit the collective opinion. then someone writes how i do not use examples or cite sources. on the rare occasion when someone does deign to acknowledge the example, they say its not enough.
I'm not asking for sources and examples. I'm asking for evidence - data, empirical evidence, studies.
If what you are proposing is intuitively paradoxical - such as the notion that the FDA is the reason that unsafe drugs are marketed, the onus is on you to provide empirical evidence, not anecdotes, to support your POV.
That is why these ideas are ridiculed. It's not because we are close-minded and afraid of change. If you had a convincing argument, backed by solid evidence, you might change some minds.
But until you have more than opinion, conjecture, and anecdote, your argument will remain unconvincing. And no amount of smug posturing in which you imply the rest of us are philosophical luddites, will change that.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5838
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
libby, I guess I just like a good debate. If you'll remember, I was really looking for your comments in particular when starting this thread. A good debate is about the topic, not the people.
I didn't expect to have my mind changed in this one, but I do like to have it opened, which is why I engage in debate. The result is that my viewpoint changes (or sometimes just shifts slightly in direction) or it affirms my beliefs and teaches me to express them better.
I think Mayor Fred's response to you in the Mayor Fred thread was a total class act and very helpful. I like anon and Joan's suggestion of joining the CBAC. Maybe I should, too. Then you and I can cancel each other out.  |
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 804
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Tom said: "I didn't expect to have my mind changed in this one, but I do like to have it opened, which is why I engage in debate. The result is that my viewpoint changes (or sometimes just shifts slightly in direction) or it affirms my beliefs and teaches me to express them better. "
That's so perfect. That's what this board should be like. (often is, too, which is what I like about it, when I do like it. When it isn't like that, I don't like it. Got all that?  ) |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 593
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
If what you are proposing is intuitively paradoxical - such as the notion that the FDA is the reason that unsafe drugs are marketed, the onus is on you to provide empirical evidence, not anecdotes, to support your POV.
That is why these ideas are ridiculed. It's not because we are close-minded and afraid of change. If you had a convincing argument, backed by solid evidence, you might change some minds.
you want empirical evidence, look at the workings of the FDA for the last 20 years in terms of its approval and lack of approval for AIDS drugs, anti-inflammatories, and drug company funding. Look at the complete lack of enforcement of the beef industry by the agricultural department due to corporate interest voting.
i could cite endless examples of this sort.
I think Mayor Fred's response to you in the Mayor Fred thread was a total class act and very helpful. I like anon and Joan's suggestion of joining the CBAC. Maybe I should, too. Then you and I can cancel each other out.
i thought he was classy as well. i wish i could attend those meetings but it seems they always meet at night. I work on broadway and other than saturday matiness i work at night. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
The feedlot operators appear to have made private agreements with the inspectors, who in turn have made private agreements with the distributors. After all, if they are no acting in the public interest, one has to conclude that they are acting in their private interests instead.
This is entirely consistent with official Libertarian Party policy. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
quote:you want empirical evidence, look at the workings of the FDA for the last 20 years in terms of its approval and lack of approval for AIDS drugs, anti-inflammatories, and drug company funding. Look at the complete lack of enforcement of the beef industry by the agricultural department due to corporate interest voting.
i could cite endless examples of this sort.
Actually, what would be convincing would be analyses that showed, for example, that air and water were cleaner before the creation of the EPA than after, or that countries without the equivalent of an FDA have brought fewer ineffective or dangerous drugs to market. Of course there's a reason you don't cite peer-reviewed articles that support such propositions - there aren't any.
Again, all you're doing is citing organizational errors, not proof that these agencies are incapable of doing what they are supposed to do. Your position is entirely unsupported by research of any kind.
I could make a similar argument to yours, in saying we should abolish all police departments, citing hundreds examples where officers arrested the wrong suspects, or participated in corruption. But those examples don't mean the idea of policing crime is a bad one, they just mean that in the human endeavor of police work, people make mistakes, and sometimes even engage in corruption.
Your argument boils down to this - if regulatory agencies aren't perfect, they should be eliminated. The solution isn't to abolish regulatory agencies, but to reform them. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5841
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
I don't believe market forces would make the corrections that the FTC is forcing CompUSA to make.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27288-2005Mar11.html
Back to a previous point of mine, Libertarian, if you believe in democratic elections, doesn't that mean, at some point, you trust elected officials to spend the people's money, at least to some extent? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 596
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Your argument boils down to this - if regulatory agencies aren't perfect, they should be eliminated.
actually no. i cited those inadequacies just to point out how ineffective the are. i think they should be abolished because they interfere with a free market. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
well yeah, that's the point. to interfere with the abuses of an unfettered free market. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2140
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Is there an assumption that the organizations within a free market would be any less free of defects than governmental organizations ? |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 141
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Note - the market would be free from "defects" because everyone would be acting in enlightened self-interest, in theory at least. Anyway, a market free from ANY interference is a pipe dream and all societies will always be somewhere in the middle.
Lib - perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen a response as to why all of the regulatory agencies were established in the first place. Most were not in existance at the turn of the last century and were put in place to prevent real abuses of industry. They were created because people became MORE informed about anti-competitive practices and abuses of consumers, labor and the environment.
I don't think any regulatory agency can ever claim to be perfect and reform is often necessary. But were things so perfect before? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page