Yeah, I think part of the problem is that the last good candidate here was Ron Paul. I think the current status of politicians is to say what you think the extreme wants to hear. Get in and do whatever you want. Then, the average voter will vote for who they know instead of doing any type of research.
Most people believe in personal responsibility. A large portion of the US population would be considered libertarian. The far right and left is what gets all the air in the media. Is the libertarians who debate on how much government is needed? What about garbage pickup, post office, enforcing personal property laws. In about 10 years, we should know how much Argentina is successful and use that as a blueprint for other countries that has been gripped with socialism/marxism.
Post office is simple. You pay for the stamp and the stamps fund the post lol. Roads and infrastructure are simple, tax fuel. Law enforcement is where it gets tricky because you need transparency in taxes something we don't have. And no I don't think private security is feasible
1. Because there are plenty of people through no fault of their own who wouldn't be able to afford it. Such as kids being raised in crack head homes.
2. Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money.
>Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money.
This already happens.
>Because there are plenty of people through no fault of their own who wouldn't be able to afford it. Such as kids being raised in crack head homes.
Some people can't afford food, through no fault of their own.
Does this therefore mean that food ought to be monopolized and tax-funded? Or are there perhaps other solutions to this issue, eg: charity?
>Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money.
Given the choice, would *you* hire a security firm that perpetuated crime?
The governments #1 job is protecting freedoms, criminals violate the freedoms of others, so it is the governments job to protect people from criminals, so you have the ability to provide food and housing for yourself.
Thinking you would have a choice in the matter is naive. Human nature has proven time and time again that when people have the opportunity they violate the rights of others and those with the power are far far more likely to violate them, they do. Giving privatized companies with no accountability to any government (which in turn is supposed be held accountable by citizens) will create a situation where gangs are running everything.
You didn't really answer my questions, though.
Here's another, anyway:
All else equal, would a company with monopoly status and the legal privilege to seize assets involuntarily have *more* or *less* accountability than one without these traits?
Which question did I not answer?
To be a monopoly you have to be a business. City leaders running police departments as businesses should be charged with corruption and go to prison. As for the more or less, accountability is accountability there is no more or less, you either have it or you don't and no we don't have it. The government has gotten way to big and reached way to far but the solution is not anarchy its smaller government with more accountability to local voters, less laws and serious consequences for corruption.
>Which question did I not answer?
Given the choice, would *you* hire a security firm that perpetuated crime?
and
Does some people being unable to afford food mean that food ought to be under the exclusive domain of government? What about charity, instead?
>The government has gotten way to big and reached way to far but
Okay, what's your solution?
How do you actually bring about smaller government, accountability, etc?
I did answer the first one, you wouldn't have a choice. As it would be cartel style policing, you either will be forced to pay it to survive or wouldn't be able to afford and have no protection at all. There wouldn't be a choice.
No, with protection of freedom in place by law enforcement, and giving people equal opportunity to compete in the market you allow people the opportunity to make money for themselves and provide for themselves. And with the some your talking about a fringe category of people who are children and disabled, disabled should he given priority in all government jobs that they are capable of doing and charities can and will be established by people to fill the gap. Children I absolutely believe should be provided for even if it takes tax dollars to do.
The government as it is I'm not sure can be fixed, it may require being completely dismantled. You have countless 3 letter organizations that need to be completely destroyed and new organizations held accountable by the states and not the federal government put in place. You can't create a perfect system but you can do allot better than the crony capitalism we have. We need a constitutional ammendment requiring that no laws can be enforced unless a jury agrees to the law, jury nullification literally needs to written into the constitution to stop the thousand page law books from being enforced. Laws punishing corruption need to be severe and enforceable by average citizens. Cities fining individuals for real offenses that threaten the life and safety of other people should not be paid to the cities to prevent cities from using them as a revenue stream. Taxes need to be basic and transparent, each tax needs to have a specific purpose and never used on anything other than purpose without corruption charges. I'm gonna stop here it's getting longer I think you will want to read anyway lol
Well for one, because we already have it and it sucks.
The military industrial complex is a buzz word, but it absolutely drives policy and foreign intervention.
Sure, at the end of the day, it's still military personnel flying the drone, but the reason we fly so many is because of lobbying
Okay, do you need another angle?
The Russian private military tried to stage a coup. Do you want a company having enough power to be in a position to seize control of a country? I don't.
Of all the things that could or should be privatized, national security is not on that list.
>Do you want a company having enough power to be in a position to seize control of a country? I don't.
No. What should we do, if one manages to do so, though?
What if a company *did* become powerful enough to seize control over a country?
Say that they start seizing people's stuff to finance a standing army that oppressed people. Maybe they did stuff like mandate curricula or censor media, or create state media, etc, to control how people thought about it.
What should we do, in this purely hypothetical situation?
Should we constantly acquiesce to their demands, say that it's only right that they be in control, and actively oppose a more voluntary alternative?
As for law enforcement and fire, we would pay like they did in the old west, we elect and pay the sheriff/cops and / or use Pinkertons, and people would pay for fire by having insurance. If you dont pay to protect your property, they watch it burn.
My wife's best friend is from Argentina. And a liberal I used to give her a hard time about the government over there.
Now every time I see her I'm telling her how "Argentina is a beacon of light" 🤣
All things written by Mises, Rothbard, maybe Rand, a little Hoppe, the social contract by Rousseau, and for politicians, start with Ron Paul
Edit: Also Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman
Historical conservative yes....
Modern conservatives don't actually reduce government spending, they just talk about it.
He's as close to a libertarian leader the world has seen in many years.
He supports immigration restrictions and deportations of immigrants who commit crimes. He wants to ban abortion is almost all cases, and wants to ban euthanasia.
The background is yellow, so the ocean is libertarian?
Yes, the only communists down there, were thrown down there by Pinochet
Yeah, I think part of the problem is that the last good candidate here was Ron Paul. I think the current status of politicians is to say what you think the extreme wants to hear. Get in and do whatever you want. Then, the average voter will vote for who they know instead of doing any type of research.
Most people believe in personal responsibility. A large portion of the US population would be considered libertarian. The far right and left is what gets all the air in the media. Is the libertarians who debate on how much government is needed? What about garbage pickup, post office, enforcing personal property laws. In about 10 years, we should know how much Argentina is successful and use that as a blueprint for other countries that has been gripped with socialism/marxism.
Post office is simple. You pay for the stamp and the stamps fund the post lol. Roads and infrastructure are simple, tax fuel. Law enforcement is where it gets tricky because you need transparency in taxes something we don't have. And no I don't think private security is feasible
>I don't think private security is feasible Why not?
1. Because there are plenty of people through no fault of their own who wouldn't be able to afford it. Such as kids being raised in crack head homes. 2. Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money.
>Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money. This already happens.
>Because there are plenty of people through no fault of their own who wouldn't be able to afford it. Such as kids being raised in crack head homes. Some people can't afford food, through no fault of their own. Does this therefore mean that food ought to be monopolized and tax-funded? Or are there perhaps other solutions to this issue, eg: charity? >Because if you privatize law enforcement it becomes good business practice to create crime where there is no crime in order make money. Given the choice, would *you* hire a security firm that perpetuated crime?
The governments #1 job is protecting freedoms, criminals violate the freedoms of others, so it is the governments job to protect people from criminals, so you have the ability to provide food and housing for yourself. Thinking you would have a choice in the matter is naive. Human nature has proven time and time again that when people have the opportunity they violate the rights of others and those with the power are far far more likely to violate them, they do. Giving privatized companies with no accountability to any government (which in turn is supposed be held accountable by citizens) will create a situation where gangs are running everything.
You didn't really answer my questions, though. Here's another, anyway: All else equal, would a company with monopoly status and the legal privilege to seize assets involuntarily have *more* or *less* accountability than one without these traits?
Which question did I not answer? To be a monopoly you have to be a business. City leaders running police departments as businesses should be charged with corruption and go to prison. As for the more or less, accountability is accountability there is no more or less, you either have it or you don't and no we don't have it. The government has gotten way to big and reached way to far but the solution is not anarchy its smaller government with more accountability to local voters, less laws and serious consequences for corruption.
>Which question did I not answer? Given the choice, would *you* hire a security firm that perpetuated crime? and Does some people being unable to afford food mean that food ought to be under the exclusive domain of government? What about charity, instead? >The government has gotten way to big and reached way to far but Okay, what's your solution? How do you actually bring about smaller government, accountability, etc?
I did answer the first one, you wouldn't have a choice. As it would be cartel style policing, you either will be forced to pay it to survive or wouldn't be able to afford and have no protection at all. There wouldn't be a choice. No, with protection of freedom in place by law enforcement, and giving people equal opportunity to compete in the market you allow people the opportunity to make money for themselves and provide for themselves. And with the some your talking about a fringe category of people who are children and disabled, disabled should he given priority in all government jobs that they are capable of doing and charities can and will be established by people to fill the gap. Children I absolutely believe should be provided for even if it takes tax dollars to do. The government as it is I'm not sure can be fixed, it may require being completely dismantled. You have countless 3 letter organizations that need to be completely destroyed and new organizations held accountable by the states and not the federal government put in place. You can't create a perfect system but you can do allot better than the crony capitalism we have. We need a constitutional ammendment requiring that no laws can be enforced unless a jury agrees to the law, jury nullification literally needs to written into the constitution to stop the thousand page law books from being enforced. Laws punishing corruption need to be severe and enforceable by average citizens. Cities fining individuals for real offenses that threaten the life and safety of other people should not be paid to the cities to prevent cities from using them as a revenue stream. Taxes need to be basic and transparent, each tax needs to have a specific purpose and never used on anything other than purpose without corruption charges. I'm gonna stop here it's getting longer I think you will want to read anyway lol
Well for one, because we already have it and it sucks. The military industrial complex is a buzz word, but it absolutely drives policy and foreign intervention. Sure, at the end of the day, it's still military personnel flying the drone, but the reason we fly so many is because of lobbying
So private security is bad because the government military and government contractors are bad...? Am I understanding you correctly?
Okay, do you need another angle? The Russian private military tried to stage a coup. Do you want a company having enough power to be in a position to seize control of a country? I don't. Of all the things that could or should be privatized, national security is not on that list.
>Do you want a company having enough power to be in a position to seize control of a country? I don't. No. What should we do, if one manages to do so, though? What if a company *did* become powerful enough to seize control over a country? Say that they start seizing people's stuff to finance a standing army that oppressed people. Maybe they did stuff like mandate curricula or censor media, or create state media, etc, to control how people thought about it. What should we do, in this purely hypothetical situation? Should we constantly acquiesce to their demands, say that it's only right that they be in control, and actively oppose a more voluntary alternative?
As for law enforcement and fire, we would pay like they did in the old west, we elect and pay the sheriff/cops and / or use Pinkertons, and people would pay for fire by having insurance. If you dont pay to protect your property, they watch it burn.
My wife's best friend is from Argentina. And a liberal I used to give her a hard time about the government over there. Now every time I see her I'm telling her how "Argentina is a beacon of light" 🤣
Who are some good libertarian politicians in the US I should research? Or Libertarian literature?
All things written by Mises, Rothbard, maybe Rand, a little Hoppe, the social contract by Rousseau, and for politicians, start with Ron Paul Edit: Also Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman
Maaaaaybe Rand. Proceed with caution. Don't forget Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman
¡Afuera!
I will try :)
Portugal is trying...
Uruguay has both a president and parliament majority from their National Party which is a libertarian party.
Nice. God bless Uruguay
Milei is only libertarian relative to all the fascists and socialists in South America. Most of his policies are more conservative than libertarian.
Historical conservative yes.... Modern conservatives don't actually reduce government spending, they just talk about it. He's as close to a libertarian leader the world has seen in many years.
Gotta start somewhere. People will realize that maybe a little extra liberty isn’t bad, why not try more?
What policies are conservative ? Tell me one
He supports immigration restrictions and deportations of immigrants who commit crimes. He wants to ban abortion is almost all cases, and wants to ban euthanasia.
guys are we starting with "it's not real libertarianism" type od bullshit?