Christians and Libertarians -- Washington Post article

[88Devin07]

Question:

Doesn't Libertarianism eventually prevent the Church and the State from working together?

Shouldn't the end goal be such a relationship?

I see it all this way... The Church changes people's hearts and minds. However, eventually the State has to change, and work with the Church. You get a relationship such as the Roman Empire or the Russian Empire. Of course, even those empires had problems with the relationship, but things can be easily ironed out and improved.

Instead of taking the typical American Protestant perspective of "Church and State should be Separate", shouldn't we take a perspective that the Church and the State should remain separate, but work together to the same goal?

Doesn't Libertarianism, by its own nature prevent this?

Isn't the more Orthodox idea the idea of working together in a common direction rather than total separation? We aren't out to provide religious freedom and never have been. The goal is the salvation of human beings. If the government is truly there to protect people, why can't it put laws into place that helps protect people spiritually as well as physically?

When you have a heretic arise, what is wrong with exiling that heretic out of the country and away from the population? Isn't that protection?

Also as for the much earlier posted quote from St. John Chrysostom, I think that is more of a statement against Socialism and Communism than it is a statement that could be in support of Libertarianism.

 

[Thekla]

More banking "complexities" resulting from deregulation (in case anyone wonders whether or not we have a deregulated finance sector); I recall this explanation of hypothecation and re-hypothecation (which has become re-re-re-hypothecation to the extent that many banks can claim the same asset kinda held by just one bank) was pretty readable:

First what is re-hypothecation’. As usual it is not complicated, just stupid.And as always it is defended on the grounds that it ‘provides liquidity’ to the markets. Sadly it is supremely unstable liquidity which when it goes wrong does so massively. Hypothecation is very like repo agreements when an assets it ‘sold’ but with the guarantee to be ‘sold’ back for a given price on a given date. Leading to the obvious conclusion that it was not actually a sale at all – just a loan. But a loan disguised in ways that allow banks to lie . Which leads to the further question why invent Hypothecation if you already have repo? And the answer is Hypothecation is far worse. Here is a good description of it from the Reuter’s article,

…hypothecation is when a borrower pledges collateral to secure a debt. The borrower retains ownership of the collateral but is “hypothetically” controlled by the creditor, who has a right to seize possession if the borrower defaults.

Why do this? It’s in part about who gets to show what assets as still being on their books while others get to use said assets as collateral for their own loans. Which brings us to ‘re-hypothecation“. Who says an asset that has been “hypothecated” once can’t be “re-hypothecated”? Well actually no one. The UK and the US authorities have spent a decade removing any restraint of Hypothecation to bring us to where we are now.

So, Bank 1 has an asset. It badly needs cash because it’s nearly broke. It hypothecates its asset to bank 2. Bank 2 also needs/wants a loan.So it turns to bank 3 and says, I happen to have a lovely asset which I hypothetically control, would you like it? Bank 3 says great. So bank 2 gets its loan which it probably uses to make other loans, while the asset it got from bank 1 is re-hypothecated to bank 3. Now bank 3 hypothetically controls the asset. Bank 3 turns to bank 4 and does the same. We now have 4 banks three of whom hypothetically control the original asset which is in fact still where it started, in bank 1 – a bank which was in such trouble it had to hypothecate its assets. Along the way, however, three banks have used the asset to get themselves loans and all of those loans rest on hypothetical control of the original asset. A pyramid of loans and obligations rest on a single asset whose control is now not at all clear should any one along the chain need to assert their control or need it bank to pay off their debts – should anything go wrong in the the ventures into which they put the money they borrowed on the strength of the ‘asset’. And THAT my fellow citizens is why the bankers insist they get paid so much.

Rumours, disasters and ‘re-hypothecation”. | Golem XIV - Thoughts

This is part of the "shadow banking system" ... the one that is there but can't really be tracked.

 

[Macarius]

Thekla,

Two quick thoughts on deregulation - and again, I'm mostly just trying to prevent strawmen here. First: deregulation in one part of the market does not mean we have a free market; it just means the incentives have been shifted (which can create a speculation bubble all on its own) towards the now deregulated area. Only if things are equally regulated or deregulated can economic decisions be made accurately (barring natural inefficiencies like lack of knowledge or externalities). Second, and more importantly: standing on free market IN PRINCIPLE (e.g. preferring a free market to a controlled one) does not make one ANTI-REGULATION. Regulation can and should be used in order to PROTECT the longevity of the free market (e.g. to break up monopolies) or to prevent victimization (e.g. restricting predatory business practices).

Now, that said, some forms of regulation are indeed mere interferences in the market.

And, as in all free systems, people are free to make stupid decisions that result in bad consequences. If those consequences significantly victimize others (e.g. driving drunk) then the government should step in to protect the rights of the victim. In the case of the recent mortgage crisis, YES, the government SHOULD put in consumer protections against people purchasing mortgages they cannot afford.

For an example of where libertarians probably would push for less government invovlement, take a look at the farm subsidy programs the US government supports. The food bill is essentially a giant government sponsorship program for fast food and processed food producers (who are big money and pay big money to keep the food bill subsidies). Therefore, when Americans buy food, these foods are unnaturally cheaper than alternatives (e.g. the cost of the food does not reflect accurately the cost of production) and people make inefficient economic choices. We should remove or significantly reduce those subsidies (while incorporating some kind of a system for accounting for externalities like environmental impact) so that the market can adjust to people's more natural decision making (that is, to actual demand).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The problem with libertarianism is that is based on an anti-Christian philosophy. It is the product of the Enlightenment which adopted values that were purposely opposed to traditional Christianity.

Libertarianism is best summarized by the views of Hobbes. He thought that man was born in a state of war, competing against others but eventually forming unions for mutual benefit. The idea of libertarian government is one of men competing against each other but creating arbitrary laws of common interest. In other words, it is not morally wrong to steal from your neighbor, it just makes a better society if we don't do that and work together.

The fathers of libertarianism, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mill, Rousseau were pretty sick individuals. They said pretty messed up things at times. Their fundamental problem was seeing humans as individuals and the Earth as something to be conquered.

Humans aren't at war. Humans begin with the basic unit of the family! We are created by love between a man and a woman. We are mostly raised in larger family structures. These became clans, tribes, city-states, nations and peoples. The Earth was created for all mankind. We ALL have rights over its resources. However, we have determined that private property and national boundaries are for the good of all.

 

[chris4243]

In other words, it is not morally wrong to steal from your neighbor, it just makes a better society if we don't do that and work together.

Why should anyone care about making a better society? Isn't a bad society just as good as a good society? No, "For the good of society" is all about morally right and morally wrong -- and it will for the most part coincide with yours, even though you have a different basis for morality. At the end of the day, everyone needs a moral basis from which to deduce the nuances of morality -- God never commanded anything about modern technology, but we can deduce from the other stuff He did say, specifics about morality and modern technology.

Humans begin with the basic unit of the family! We are created by love between a man and a woman.

Which is why rape and drunken craziness and sex out of wedlock never result in pregnancy, right?

 

[Thekla]

Thekla,

Two quick thoughts on deregulation - and again, I'm mostly just trying to prevent strawmen here. First: deregulation in one part of the market does not mean we have a free market; it just means the incentives have been shifted (which can create a speculation bubble all on its own) towards the now deregulated area. Only if things are equally regulated or deregulated can economic decisions be made accurately (barring natural inefficiencies like lack of knowledge or externalities). Second, and more importantly: standing on free market IN PRINCIPLE (e.g. preferring a free market to a controlled one) does not make one ANTI-REGULATION. Regulation can and should be used in order to PROTECT the longevity of the free market (e.g. to break up monopolies) or to prevent victimization (e.g. restricting predatory business practices).

1. The shadow banking system is completely deregulated, not partially regulated.

2. The degree of regulation of any market is a matter of who makes the decision to regulate (or not regulate), and who is in charge of regulation. Our market is "regulated", but the regulations are not actually enforced (the oversite is little to none).

3. Per your second point, if the market is to be "free" how can one then claim to be for regulation ? One man's victimization is another man's right to achieve profit by any means.

- If moral action cannot be legislated without undermining choice and true moral development, why is victimization the exception ? And here, only one sort of victimization (and not other forms, like creating scarcity for the purpose of achieving higher prices) ?

- Why is the longevity of the free market assigned a higher value than the longevity of a person ? (The life of a child, for example ...)

Now, that said, some forms of regulation are indeed mere interferences in the market.

How do you differentiate the "some" from the "all" ?

And, as in all free systems, people are free to make stupid decisions that result in bad consequences. If those consequences significantly victimize others (e.g. driving drunk) then the government should step in to protect the rights of the victim. In the case of the recent mortgage crisis, YES, the government SHOULD put in consumer protections against people purchasing mortgages they cannot afford.

On the first point:
Driving drunk is a moral failing; why does the government get to act on this moral failing but not other sorts of moral lapses that also victimize others ?

On the second point:
It seems you've bought the narrative that the mortgage holders were largely to blame for the housing crisis. Why not say instead of, "government SHOULD put in consumer protections against people purchasing mortgages they cannot afford ..." do you not question the responsibility of the lenders, but also moreso the brokers who engaged in fraud in order to capitalize on the fees (or the lenders who repackaged the mess in CDOs without -or with- adequate review ? What about the ratings agencies who gave this mess a AAA rating ?

As Greenspan was quoted as stating (re: some of mortgages then being written), "Even if you had a doctorate in math you wouldn't understand these instruments and their implications."

As for the government involvement, it was (iirc) Standard & Poors (among others) who used their firepower to fight predatory lending laws: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...ard-poor’s-predatory-policy-agenda.html As ALEC evidences increasing influence at the state level (secretly, for the most part), how can we even pretend that any system that relies on the individual, and individual rights, ever not prefer the ascendency of the powerful ? Of social and economic Darwinism ?

Is it not S&Ps right to encourage predatory lending ?

Is it not Countrywide's right to encourage predatory lending ?

For an example of where libertarians probably would push for less government invovlement, take a look at the farm subsidy programs the US government supports. The food bill is essentially a giant government sponsorship program for fast food and processed food producers (who are big money and pay big money to keep the food bill subsidies). Therefore, when Americans buy food, these foods are unnaturally cheaper than alternatives (e.g. the cost of the food does not reflect accurately the cost of production) and people make inefficient economic choices. We should remove or significantly reduce those subsidies (while incorporating some kind of a system for accounting for externalities like environmental impact) so that the market can adjust to people's more natural decision making (that is, to actual demand).

I'm no fan of corporate farming, agribusiness, and farm subsidies (which largely go to agribusiness).

But how does having fewer laws not result in fairness instead of the continuing unfair advantage for the powerful, and license to still run the markets (and people's lives into the ground) ? How do you suppose farm subsidies came to support wealthy agribusiness concerns in the first place ?
Because these concerns had the wealth and power to lobby themselves into an advantageous position. Even with fewer laws, do you really think they'd have any less power ?

So to summarize:

How many lives, real person's lives, do you think its worth risking to have such a system ?

How do you decide which laws are forcing morality, and which are not ?

Why is "some market regulation" not enforcing morals ?

How are few laws any less moral coercion than more laws ?

 

[Thekla]

I kept thinking to mention this phenomenon, but hesitated.

But I do think reality should be part of the discussion about implementing ideologies ...

I have already mentioned the effect of malnutrition in children.

This study mirrors the findings from the studies on the Dutch Hunger Winter (that study also found elevations of Spina Bifida):

David St. Clair, M.D., Ph.D., of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues conducted a study to test the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to famine would increase the rate of schizophrenia in adult life by examining people who lived through a massive famine in China from 1959-1961. The risk of schizophrenia was examined in the Wuhu region of Anhui, one of the most affected provinces. Rates were compared among those born before, during, and after the famine years. All psychiatric case records for the years 1971 through 2001 were examined, and clinical and sociodemographic information on patients with schizophrenia was extracted by researchers.

The researchers found that birth rates (per 1,000) in Anhui decreased approximately 80 percent during the famine years from 28.28 in 1958 and 20.97 in 1959 to 8.61 in 1960 and 11.06 in 1961. Among births that occurred during the famine years, the risk of developing schizophrenia in later life increased from 0.84 percent in 1959 to 2.15 percent in 1960 and 1.81 percent in 1961.

The death-adjusted risk was 2.3 times higher for those born in 1960 and 1.9 times higher for those born in 1961.

"Our study strongly supports the view that prenatal exposure to famine increases the risk of schizophrenia in later life. Using a much larger sample size with clear evidence of exposure, our findings are internally consistent and almost exactly replicate the Dutch findings. Since the two populations are ethnically and culturally distinct, the processes involved may apply in all populations undergoing famine," the authors conclude.

Schizophrenia Daily News Blog: Prenatal Malnutrition Increases Schizophrenia Risk

But of course, it is immoral to "force" persons, and corporate persons - through taxation - to provide a minimum nutritional level for the other.
Or regulate the commodities market, etc.

 

[Thekla]

I still don't understand where a straw man has been presented.

Nor do I understand why the state has the right to enact laws against some "immoral acts" but not others. Where is the line drawn ?

Surely, not all drunk drivers kill people. Why then legislate against this, but not in the markets (where, for example, commodity speculation can and has led to death due to food scarcity).

To some extent, in previous discussions, it seems the "line" is similar to the line in the "Trolley Problem" -- people will pull the lever and kill a man, but they won't push him onto the tracks. A car crash has visceral "push the man" impact; other actions use a lever.

Bubbles do not only respond to regulation -- the tech bubble occurred in a so-called regulated market. The commodity market (where the oil and food bubbles have occurred) is more heavily regulated than the stock market.

Furthermore, most well placed big investors are pleased when bubbles 'pop' - there is a great deal more money to be made in someone elses ruin than in any form of standard investing. (Why else do you think even traditional investors drive them ? Fire-sales are everyone's dream.)

The 2008 crash (which seems to be partially related to the economic hit lower income people experienced in 2006) really occurred in the completely unregulated sector of shadow banking (London). If the subprime mortgages hadn't been cut into CDOs and backed by more CDSs than there were CDOs, the bubble burst would have been far less severe. That's what we bailed out, and the resulting liquidity freeze (as there was no way to track who was holding what CDSs and other unregulated complex derivatives).


Thus, I still do not understand how an unregulated market is healthier than a regulated one. Nor do I understand how one can call our markets regulated; regulation must be enacted in oversight and prosecution -- and even our regulated market is essentially not -- and of course, those in the financial sector know this)

So again, where is the line drawn !!!

And how do we know this will be the case.

And again -- how can the weaker party prevail against a stronger party in contractual agreements, and in adjudication where the ability to pay court costs and retain good counsel is essential and these resources are often used pre-emptively ?

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

I am a libertarian on for one very basic reason. I believe in free will, this is a fundamental aspect of Orthodox Christianity and it is at the core of libertarian philosophy. ( I know I am chiming in late.)

 

[Thekla]

I am a libertarian on for one very basic reason. I believe in free will, this is a fundamental aspect of Orthodox Christianity and it is at the core of libertarian philosophy. ( I know I am chiming in late.)

If I can ask - in your understanding, does the state have the right to make a law against drunk driving ?

Is there any protection for the weak against those who are stronger ?

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

Does every drunk driving incident produce a victim? I can say from experience that it does not. However I think that it in general it is the consensus of the people to provide some sort of incentive to not drive drunk, so if the will of the people is reflected in by the laws of the state than I would say that it does have the right to make such laws. What I love about libertarian-ism is that i provides for individual states to reflect the will of the people through it's laws. In an ideal libertarian society the weak would be protected simply because they have free will which would be what "the state" would protect first and foremost.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

Thomas Jefferson said 'A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."
The current two party system that corporate media passes off to Americans, and rest of the world, as democracy is farce. It is not democracy. Both parties appear to be hell bent on destroying individual civil liberties. In fact the previous administration, under the guise of safety instituted the patriot act. It allows the government to spy on its own people without any regard for their personal lives. A Republican journalist was quoted as saying "Are not civil liberties getting in the way of the war on terror?" The current administration has done nothing, despite my feeble hopes in the beginning, that the insipid slogan that was pushed in our faces "Change we can believe in!" would be actualized. Obama has done nothing to to strike down the patriot act, in fact he is taken what Bush has done and ran with it. All the while distracting people from the issue by promising social health care. A small example of this would be the fact the he outlawed flavored cigarettes. This seems like a small thing and easy to give up, sure it is an unimportant luxury, but I put forth that under the constitution that was an illegal bill. Who is the government to determine what an individual can cannot enjoy? A better example is the government bailouts, which has allowed the government to have corporate control. Most blow hard Republicans will rant on how this country is being led into Socialism by the Democrats. I disagree. We are heading towards Fascism. If it is completed it will be under a Republican face but none the less aided by the Democratic party. In the end I see no difference between Obama Bush Clinton or Reagan. All of these presidents are puppets controlled by corporations and mostly media corporations. In fact both parties receive immense donations from the same corporations.

It is within this corrupt political context that I find Libertarian philosophy to be the appropriate solution. Its philosophy extends far beyond economics. For example I admittedly have some conservative social ideology, but I would not allow that to control any one but myself. To quote Republican congressmen Ron Paul (who actually is a Libertarian) when asked if he was for gay marriage "I believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to form a contract without government interference and they are free to call it what ever they wish." This sums up in many ways Libertarian ideology.
A small federal government who cannot interfere in the lives of its people is democracy.Local government actually can reflect the needs and desires of its people without oppressing another location far away. A good example of this would be that in the state of California it is legal for one to obtain a license to posses grow and use marijuana, and this reflects the desires of the majority in the state of California. In Arizona there is no such law and it also reflects the desire and will of the people.
Much of my ideology comes from Thomas Jefferson. And I believe this quote of his sums up why I will not vote for a Democrat or a Republican. "Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. " I do not believe based on the actions of the two parties controlled by corporate greed that this is what they seek to provide and protect for Americans.
Now I hope I have attempted to establish that my main motivation for supporting libertarian philosophy is that my concern for my self as it is for others is the protection of their civil liberties. To sum it up I will rely on Thomas Jefferson's political intellect once again in this statement "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
Libertarian economics operate under the same premise, but I do have a few things to add. First I will quote the economist and Libertarian Dr. Walter Williams "What we call the market is really a democratic process involving millions, and in some markets billions, of people making personal decisions that express their preferences. When you hear someone say that he doesn't trust the market, and wants to replace it with government edicts, he's really calling for a switch from a democratic process to a totalitarian one." This is Libertarian economics in a nut-shell. The freedom to purchase sell and provide services without regulation and interference by the government. Essentially an individual's right to own property and to have this right protected is what defines democracy. It extends into all facets of democracy, for example free speech does no good if one cannot purchase or sell a printing press.
Now I see problem with the current economic system and it is not exclusively government regulation, because I believe that an individuals rights are to be protected from his employer. I see the problem with the system as a whole. The first being that it is exclusively based on credit or rather debt. The free market works only when people are not willingly spending money they do not possess. But the root of the problem is the Federal Reserve. A cartel of private banks, who have been given unconstitutionally, monopolistic powers over the money supply and thus controls inflation, deflation and interest rates. They print money when the feel like it and they make decisions in private that have serious repercussions on economy. Our entire monetary system is built on debt. When the Fed wills it creates credit out of thin air. This fuels borrowing which fuels spending at least until the bills are due. This is possibly the most irresponsible economic system imaginable.
The Libertarian philosophy requires one to be responsible. Which is why the average American wants nothing to do with it. One spends only what one has. In the free market ideal one will spend the money they have on products and services produced locally, as one invests their local economy one can expect to see the local economy grow. As local economies grow they can export their products and services farther and farther away. Citizens can vote on import and export taxes to fuel the economy farther should they will it.
In conclusion I support Libertarianism for at the very core of it's philosophy the individual's rights are protected, his right to own property and sell property without interference from bureaucrats and from bank cartels who willfully destroy the very value of the currency. The individuals right to make contracts with his or her peers financially or socially without interference, the right choose and practice lifestyles, faiths and world-views without interference, the presence of a fair competitive education system where parents can choose the form of education appropriate to they way they choose to raise their own children. Parents know their children far better then any bureaucrat in Washington ever will, and to have the only affordable option be to turn your child over the state is incredibly dangerous. To turn them over to a system whose main founder John D. Rockefeller intended the government system to create workers and maintain a class of people who would come to work for 8 hours and not question the morality or the ingenuity of his employer. In short to create in a reality an uneducated working class who does not have in their possession the ability to think critically. "In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is a very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops, and on the farm."
The current system gives little freedom to parents to choose a different form of education, the government's "free" education drastically raises the cost of any form of alternative education so that only the ruling elite can afford it. Unfortunately despite my love for Libertarian ideals, I have no faith in the majority of the American people. As the great exiled Russian thinker Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said "Hastiness and superficiality these are the psychic diseases of the 20th century..." And it is the American people who are most afflicted. The philosophy that will protect democracy at least in America, will require responsibility, maturity and hard work from it's people, The American people are too lazy and materialistic to ever be willing, at least until the powers that be drive the economy so deep into the ground we will be forced to act, to put the work into salvation of democracy.

 

[Thekla]

Does every drunk driving incident produce a victim? I can say from experience that it does not. However I think that it in general it is the consensus of the people to provide some sort of incentive to not drive drunk, so if the will of the people is reflected in by the laws of the state than I would say that it does have the right to make such laws.

So then equally, the will of the people could enact laws to protect the weak and regulate the market, and this would also be a Libertarian state ?

What I love about libertarian-ism is that i provides for individual states to reflect the will of the people through it's laws. In an ideal libertarian society the weak would be protected simply because they have free will which would be what "the state" would protect first and foremost.

The person born with a low IQ has the right to accidentally or through insufficient understanding be defrauded or abused by someone with more resources (including intelligence) ?

 

[Thekla]

Thomas Jefferson said 'A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."
The current two party system that corporate media passes off to Americans, and rest of the world, as democracy is farce. It is not democracy. Both parties appear to be hell bent on destroying individual civil liberties. In fact the previous administration, under the guise of safety instituted the patriot act. It allows the government to spy on its own people without any regard for their personal lives. A Republican journalist was quoted as saying "Are not civil liberties getting in the way of the war on terror?" The current administration has done nothing, despite my feeble hopes in the beginning, that the insipid slogan that was pushed in our faces "Change we can believe in!" would be actualized. Obama has done nothing to to strike down the patriot act, in fact he is taken what Bush has done and ran with it. All the while distracting people from the issue by promising social health care. A small example of this would be the fact the he outlawed flavored cigarettes. This seems like a small thing and easy to give up, sure it is an unimportant luxury, but I put forth that under the constitution that was an illegal bill. Who is the government to determine what an individual can cannot enjoy? A better example is the government bailouts, which has allowed the government to have corporate control. Most blow hard Republicans will rant on how this country is being led into Socialism by the Democrats. I disagree. We are heading towards Fascism. If it is completed it will be under a Republican face but none the less aided by the Democratic party. In the end I see no difference between Obama Bush Clinton or Reagan. All of these presidents are puppets controlled by corporations and mostly media corporations. In fact both parties receive immense donations from the same corporations.

It is within this corrupt political context that I find Libertarian philosophy to be the appropriate solution. Its philosophy extends far beyond economics. For example I admittedly have some conservative social ideology, but I would not allow that to control any one but myself. To quote Republican congressmen Ron Paul (who actually is a Libertarian) when asked if he was for gay marriage "I believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to form a contract without government interference and they are free to call it what ever they wish." This sums up in many ways Libertarian ideology.
A small federal government who cannot interfere in the lives of its people is democracy.Local government actually can reflect the needs and desires of its people without oppressing another location far away. A good example of this would be that in the state of California it is legal for one to obtain a license to posses grow and use marijuana, and this reflects the desires of the majority in the state of California. In Arizona there is no such law and it also reflects the desire and will of the people.
Much of my ideology comes from Thomas Jefferson. And I believe this quote of his sums up why I will not vote for a Democrat or a Republican. "Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. " I do not believe based on the actions of the two parties controlled by corporate greed that this is what they seek to provide and protect for Americans.
Now I hope I have attempted to establish that my main motivation for supporting libertarian philosophy is that my concern for my self as it is for others is the protection of their civil liberties. To sum it up I will rely on Thomas Jefferson's political intellect once again in this statement "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
Libertarian economics operate under the same premise, but I do have a few things to add. First I will quote the economist and Libertarian Dr. Walter Williams "What we call the market is really a democratic process involving millions, and in some markets billions, of people making personal decisions that express their preferences. When you hear someone say that he doesn't trust the market, and wants to replace it with government edicts, he's really calling for a switch from a democratic process to a totalitarian one." This is Libertarian economics in a nut-shell. The freedom to purchase sell and provide services without regulation and interference by the government. Essentially an individual's right to own property and to have this right protected is what defines democracy. It extends into all facets of democracy, for example free speech does no good if one cannot purchase or sell a printing press.
Now I see problem with the current economic system and it is not exclusively government regulation, because I believe that an individuals rights are to be protected from his employer. I see the problem with the system as a whole. The first being that it is exclusively based on credit or rather debt. The free market works only when people are not willingly spending money they do not possess. But the root of the problem is the Federal Reserve. A cartel of private banks, who have been given unconstitutionally, monopolistic powers over the money supply and thus controls inflation, deflation and interest rates. They print money when the feel like it and they make decisions in private that have serious repercussions on economy. Our entire monetary system is built on debt. When the Fed wills it creates credit out of thin air. This fuels borrowing which fuels spending at least until the bills are due. This is possibly the most irresponsible economic system imaginable.
The Libertarian philosophy requires one to be responsible. Which is why the average American wants nothing to do with it. One spends only what one has. In the free market ideal one will spend the money they have on products and services produced locally, as one invests their local economy one can expect to see the local economy grow. As local economies grow they can export their products and services farther and farther away. Citizens can vote on import and export taxes to fuel the economy farther should they will it.
In conclusion I support Libertarianism for at the very core of it's philosophy the individual's rights are protected, his right to own property and sell property without interference from bureaucrats and from bank cartels who willfully destroy the very value of the currency. The individuals right to make contracts with his or her peers financially or socially without interference, the right choose and practice lifestyles, faiths and world-views without interference, the presence of a fair competitive education system where parents can choose the form of education appropriate to they way they choose to raise their own children. Parents know their children far better then any bureaucrat in Washington ever will, and to have the only affordable option be to turn your child over the state is incredibly dangerous. To turn them over to a system whose main founder John D. Rockefeller intended the government system to create workers and maintain a class of people who would come to work for 8 hours and not question the morality or the ingenuity of his employer. In short to create in a reality an uneducated working class who does not have in their possession the ability to think critically. "In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is a very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops, and on the farm."
The current system gives little freedom to parents to choose a different form of education, the government's "free" education drastically raises the cost of any form of alternative education so that only the ruling elite can afford it. Unfortunately despite my love for Libertarian ideals, I have no faith in the majority of the American people. As the great exiled Russian thinker Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said "Hastiness and superficiality these are the psychic diseases of the 20th century..." And it is the American people who are most afflicted. The philosophy that will protect democracy at least in America, will require responsibility, maturity and hard work from it's people, The American people are too lazy and materialistic to ever be willing, at least until the powers that be drive the economy so deep into the ground we will be forced to act, to put the work into salvation of democracy.

I'm no fan of the present state of things (I'm an Independent, we homeschool, I think the present economic system is a mess, and think we are a corporate - ocracy).

I also don't see how Libertarianism would change anything, except enshrine the very social-Darwinist system we now have.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

What do you propose then. I could be wrong.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

The person born with a low IQ has the right to accidentally or through insufficient understanding be defrauded or abused by someone with more resources (including intelligence) ?

I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion?

 

[Thekla]

What do you propose then. I could be wrong.

Nothing that I see at present; and I am old enough to have noticed that nothing in its academic form begins to approximate its actual form when implemented.

I think that first the present mess must be cleared - that transparency is a must in any democracy (both in the government and the financial sector); there is no democracy without it.

First step (imo) to address the political system is to outlaw corporate personhood (and I wouldn't mind re-instituting the charter system) and money=speech.

I also think the government needs to be streamlined (but not until step one has been instituted); redundancies in programs need to be addressed ( one proposal of Obama's I agree with, though implementation may be a different thing altogether). Laws and regulations need to be streamlined (we never adhere to a timeline or have an expiration date on anything) - find the central purpose of the law/s and again strike out redundancies.

On a side note, I am persistently disgusted by the lack of patriotism in this country (as opposed to boosterism) - paying taxes, delaying profit-taking, and investing in communities is not unpatriotic but can indicate a mature sense of responsibility over immature "my rights" talk.

In my family, a "genius" was not someone with a high IQ, but someone who contributed to the well being of the community; who placed the public good above private gain.

 

[Thekla]

I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion?

In an ideal libertarian society the weak would be protected simply because they have free will which would be what "the state" would protect first and foremost.

Free will includes the freedom to enter into agreements with others; where there is an unequal ability (intellectual disparity, resource disparity, etc.) the less well equipped party is easy prey to those of dubious motive.

But, if the agreement was entered voluntarily, then the strong are positioned to subtly (or not so subtly) victimize those who are weaker, and win in adjudication of the matter as well.

 

[88Devin07]

I think we should forget Thomas Jefferson, he wasn't a Christian by any means and shouldn't be held as a model for political views of Christians. We should look to Christians, and especially to Orthodox Christians to guide our political views. He was a blasphemer, a heretic and an apostate.

We ought to recognize free wil, but that doesn't mean a government should allow immorality to run rampant. As Orthodox we know immorality has devastating consequences and as stewards of the earth the earth mimicks our behavior, the more unruly we become, the more unruly nature becomes.

In order to protect its people, it's the duty of the government to help the Church lead people away from immorality and to the Church.

 

[MKJ]

Nothing that I see at present; and I am old enough to have noticed that nothing in its academic form begins to approximate its actual form when implemented.

I think that first the present mess must be cleared - that transparency is a must in any democracy (both in the government and the financial sector); there is no democracy without it.

First step (imo) to address the political system is to outlaw corporate personhood (and I wouldn't mind re-instituting the charter system) and money=speech.

I also think the government needs to be streamlined (but not until step one has been instituted); redundancies in programs need to be addressed ( one proposal of Obama's I agree with, though implementation may be a different thing altogether). Laws and regulations need to be streamlined (we never adhere to a timeline or have an expiration date on anything) - find the central purpose of the law/s and again strike out redundancies.

On a side note, I am persistently disgusted by the lack of patriotism in this country (as opposed to boosterism) - paying taxes, delaying profit-taking, and investing in communities is not unpatriotic but can indicate a mature sense of responsibility over immature "my rights" talk.

In my family, a "genius" was not someone with a high IQ, but someone who contributed to the well being of the community; who placed the public good above private gain.

How about create structures in society that:

allow for most people to be self-employed;

encourage regulation at the lowest appropriate level:

recognize that money is representative of work or resources and is not self-fertile;

is based on remuneration for production and rather accumulated wealth.

that sees that we can only be fully human in society and so the social order does have a real role to play in making sure we have the opportunity to be fully human;

and that recognizes that infinate growth is cancerous and will destroy us.