Some people think we need less government

If a Libertarian Republican, a Communist and a Socialist can agree we need government to be smaller, I think we can call this thread resolved. Power corrupts.

But I can't agree that we forcefully wind down companies. The bigger the corporation the more families they feed, the more investors, including normal people that are involved with them.

I can agree that we should wind up companies that cannot stay profitable unless they talk their government friends into taking from the people. But who am I to judge what businesses stay in business and which go after that? I would let the consumer and investors decide that.

Once government is dwindled down we will get more competition and those big firms will begin to lose market share. All the industries with few players in it are all heavily regulated. Remove the regulations and people can compete. Can you imagine what the software world would look like if programs needed government approval for security before they can be sold? A million small firms would close overnight, but Oracle, Microsoft, etc... would be here tomorrow.

 

This goes back to all of my understandings of libertarianism, it starts by limiting the power of government. You're not going to be able to stop companies from doing what they've already done. The difference is government has allowed them to completely control the global economy and only a subset of folks are making hand over fist. This can only occur if the government allows it.

My way of thinking is it needs to start at the government. We can't interfere in the private sector to the point where it becomes restrictive and only the rich succeed. This is why I've been highly on board with a limited government, not a smaller one, a limited one. If you say 'small', that is the opposite of 'big', in which case, it's like telling someone that are fat and need to lose weight. Nothing's stopping them from gaining back all of that weight and being fat again. I say 'limited' because no matter how small or big the government wants to get, it's strength is limited.

Until either we, who want a 'limited' government, run & get into office or we elect officials who aren't in the rat race game (Which, by all accounts, are far, few, and in between). It's starts locally, then it goes statewide, then it goes nationally. Government on all levels has become so powerful, they essentially control all of us like puppets. I've had enough of that game, the main reason why we mindset is on the Libertarian party and libertarianism.

 

This right here is a contradiction. When the ideological thoughts of Republican mix in libertarianism, it becomes a shady ground. I've yet to advocate for Rand Paul. Ron Paul, I supported because he was a once in a lifetime thing. What Ron Paul became is the messenger of what this country needs and most of the Conservatives turned a blind eye to him and went with the typical big business man American, Mitt Romney. Was Ron Paul the perfect President? Probably not, but which one was? Who in this world is perfect? What he was perfect for right now.

The difference is, between Rand & Ron Paul, Rand holds more of a 'Conservative' view while Ron held more of a 'Libertarian' view. That's why he appealed to more Libertarians. People didn't care for Ron Paul's abrupt manner and his blunt statements. Nearly everything the man stated, made absolute pure sense to me. Even Bill Maher, a deep liberal, pegged him up for the Republican candidate, Jon Stewart as well. What's even more insane about Republicans, all Fox ever talked about was the top 3, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, & Michelle Bachman. Never once endorsing Ron Paul. Why? Because big business & big media fear the ideals of what Ron Paul was preaching. Even the Koch's Brothers won't even endorse Ron Paul, that should tell you something right there and Rand Paul has gotten donations from them (Things that make you go hmmmmm...). I challenge anyone to watch Ron Paul's debates with the Republican candidates and tell me it didn't make more sense than the morons the Republican party and/or the main stream media pegged up to win the nomination.

He is still active within the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. People down play it because they feel it's been corrupt by big businesses because of Murray Rothbard. Here is the honest truth, Rothbard started up Cato Institute with David Koch, of the Koch Brother's. Rothbard began to question the motives behind the Koch's Brothers and decided to co-found the Mises Institute. David Koch forbid him to do it, but he did it anyway. Why? Because Rothbard didn't believe in only creating platforms to make the rich richer, it was about all of us, not just the 1%.

Sorry for the bit of a rant, I just get tired of hearing Republican-Conservative-Libertarian mantra. Republican = Conservative. Ron Paul was the rare exception but it's only brought out the uprising of the Libertarian party and Austrian economics. For a compiled version of all of the various media clips about Ron Paul, this is my favorite (Music definitely sets the tone):

[video=youtube;07xNAjUYWhg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07xNAjUYWhg[/video]

 

Bill Gates didn't invent any of his products. The true producers are meek geeks who had been brought up to become Cash Cows for MBA Milkmaids. This is a disincentive; it means that science is for suckers, compensated worse than slaves if you correctly judge by what percentage of the value they produce that they get back. The problem in realizing this is that the public never knows what it missed due to this upside-down reward system, such as the cure for cancer.

An oncologist doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old. What kind of childish freak is that? It eliminates 99% of those with the potential to cure cancer and destroys the will to create of the few who put up with it. Of course, the well-financed self-serving myth we are made to believe in is that geniuses are different from the rest of us and don't mind wasting their youth working without pay as long as they can hide away in libraries and laboratories.

Steve Jobs would still be alive under a Promethean system. He contributed to his own death by getting potential scientists to get into the quickly rewarding field of computers instead. College interns get $35 an hour if they are techies! Pay that to a student oncologist and you would soon get the cure for Jobs's ailment.

 

Limited is a better word. That is what I usually mean by small, but I see what you mean.

The political system in America dictates two parties in so many ways, the only way to make change is within the current political parties. The Republicans have moved back to libertarianism, and have picked up many of their ideas, even if they are not purists. If you want your policies, work to change the current structure. The Republican primaries are ripe for libertarian ideas right now, but the need to be done at the Congressional level. Forget trying to hit a home run with the Presidency, play small ball and line up lots of potential Presidential candidates down the road. That is the strategy I would use, but libertarians by their nature like to isolate themselves and refrain from going a long with a group; and that is why they do not punch as hard as other ideologies.

 

When Friedman was alive, he advised Pinochet's fascist dictatorship. Most of the plutocrats' examples are just blowing bubbles. Because they are based on short-term free-for-alls, they blow up, as the US did in 2008.

 

In a free-for-all, those with the most expensive weapons and defenses take away the freedom of everybody else. If it is regulated, they'll be the only ones able to bribe the referees.

 

Not true though, the American Medical Association, like every union, has been barring access to the medical field for a long time now, and all seats in medical schools are taken every year, and thousands of qualified applicants turned away. Unions again are in business to protect people already employed in their field, to the detriment of entrants and society at large. That is why they exist.

In any event, computers have drastically improved medicine, this is a weak argument. Try to map the human genome without techies.

 

False argument. I am not an anarchist. I believe the government has an important but limited role in protecting people from others who do harm to their person or property, and to act as a neutral referee in civil and criminal disputes. Judges are not bribed in America, you need them anyway even in your system. When the masses can vote to have the government harm their property, they have become the very thing they were designed to protect against. That is why true democracy is a horrible idea, the will of the masses should only go so far as not to trample the individual.

If courts were so easy to bribe anyway why are civil judgments so high, and plaintiffs attorneys so successful? If anything, our judicial system favors the plaintiff tremendously, with the exception of recognizing certain arbitration clauses.

 

Yes and when he was there he denounced military dictatorship and refused an honorary degree b/c of the coup. That is true. He also predicted that b/c of the economic reforms, in time political reforms would come to Chile and it would improve. That came true.

Just because people are stuck with bad politicians doesn't mean they should also go poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgMNLtLJ2k

Friedman has other success stories of course. School programs in Belgium and Sweden are modeled after many of Friedman's school choice ideas.

 

And the less is your value as a person. Workoholic greedhead zombies destroy their personal lives and personalities. Their children hate them and become Leftists. Their trophy wives dump them out of disgust.

Plutocratic predators are all hollow and numb inside and don't feel their lack of normal human rewards out of life. In the first stage of their cancer of the soul, they are addicted to and obsessive about one thing only. They look themselves in the mirror and see only net worth. They eventually gain the power to inflict their sick selves on the rest of society. This power becomes a new addiction when money still hasn't given them complete fulfillment. And when money and power can't feed their insatiable addiction, they can see a life after death by imposing their sons on the next generation through hereditary privileges. If there is an afterlife, they probably make Hell even worse for themselves and others than Satan can make it.

 

So you should get things from someone's else's labor because you are too lazy to earn it yourself? How fat on the worker's back should you live? Someone has to do the work to develop the product for you. You people who take from others because you do not want to earn it truly do understand leftism and socialism, at least you get it.

Most people work harder then they have to so their children can have better lives, and you think that is a bad incentive to work and earn more? The super rich tend to work hard so they can give it away. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Flagler, Getty, Gates, Buffet, etc...all the while producing goods that you and I both want. Lets be real, do you want government made goods for free, or do you want those quality goods from the capitalist market for free? See a lot of antique soviet cars being shown around these days? No I bet you don't, other then as monuments to the failure of central planning.

 

I disagree with that notion. If a 3rd party is capable of receiving 5% of the votes, they can receive Federal funding. Of which, the amount of coverage can be a lot vaster. Right now, the Libertarian party only receives money on a local level. Most of the time you only hear of the Libertarian party in local races or the Presidential one. I don't expect to see a Libertarian party in the WH until at least 2020 (I joke because I say that's when the world will wake up & see to the world of politics and realize what this country truly needs).

I've already said, in my 'limited' government post, it starts at a local level. Then grows into statewide, eventually it becomes nationally. The problem isn't solely on being a 'purist', it's about where does your loyalty lay. I'd rather have someone who only receives 1% of the votes that will limit government so the fat cats start to lose some weight versus putting someone into office that has some of the views but will just take food off of one fat cats plate and put it onto another's. It just becomes a rehash of the same political bs that's been going on for generations. We're not getting any better, it doesn't matter how crappy the economy gets, they have enough money to stay afloat, we don't.

The Republican party is so fragmented right now, I want no part of them. They have no idea where their loyalty lies. They'd rather jump on the biggest bandwagon and ride it into the next election. They could careless what's right or wrong. As long as they getting fed with more money to win more elections to shove more legislation down our throats by the big corporations, they don't care. I will continue to vote Libertarian in every election, locally, state, & nationally. I will be that 1% because it isn't about being a 'purist', it's about stop letting the big corporations run our lives.

Think of it like this, if I told you lets start up a business together, lets say you have the machine to build everything and I have the knowledge on how to put it together. When the time comes to collect payment, I only give you a subset of that money. You ask me why am I getting so much when it's supposed to be both of our business, then I say it's because I was the brains to get the operation going so without me, the company wouldn't be anything. You'll get mad at me and probably look else where to start up your own company to earn your fair share. In which case, I'm not a purist because I broke our agreement of starting a business together. Are you going to want to do business with me because of this? Of course not because I would sell you out for money and walk all over you in doing so. This is exactly what's occurring in politics today and it's got to stop. No rehash, it's time for a change.

 

You couldn't be more wrong, and to prove how wrong you are, I suggest you read my post in this same forum titled...."Obama & EPA Killing our Businesses and our Poor" Its the statists and our big govt nanny state that are destroying our nation in record breaking time.

 

An MD is just some Mama's Boy who didn't earn a living until he was 26 because he was afraid to grow up. The exception to that is, of course, the fatcats' fatkittens who live off a fat allowance in college. But they don't have to compete with the full talent pool, so they shouldn't be respected either. It doesn't matter what kind of secondary restrictions one-track-minded scabs cite the AMA for imposing, the most important and never spoken about restriction is 8 years of class-biased indentured servitude. That has turned our talent pool into a puddle. What good is the genome map if we have inferior people analyzing it? They can't connect the dots, they can only collect the dots.

 

Public financing does not win elections, and isn't very libertarian. (It isn't very libertarian b/c since it is the public's money it has to have rules attached so not everyone can apply for it, but once you start applying rules to speech you are departing from libertarian principles). The media does not cover 3rd parties, the majority of voters will not vote 3rd party b/c of the Perot disaster. My dad is your average guy who you can persuade to 3rd parties, but after Perot, he is dead set on never falling for it again. While anecdotal, many feel that way and are right because it is based on the fact that we are in a winner take all system. Fight in the primaries, if you win there then take the general as a combined force. People who just want limited government anyway they can get it shouldnt have to see more and more government piled on by the socialist drifting left while waiting for the right kind of win from the right. If libertarians want to act as a third party, run a Constiutional Ammendment, but otherwise stick to policies arguments and win over more Republicans and shore up that party. I really think the Tea Party movement is a an opportunity for Freidmanist type views to take hold. You are probably less pro military then they are, or he was, but it is a big start. Ron Paul moved the ball forward because he was polling well and competing in a Republican primary event that was followed by the media. Libertarians in smaller races can do the very same thing.

 

Whether you like it or not, an ambulance will come for you some day. Then you will have an appreciation for the value doctors can give the public.

They have to wait longer then 26 actually, they have to do residency which is a money losing affair. All required by your beloved government bureaucrats who do not care what you think.

 

On your system, if someone has money, that's proof that he earned it and didn't cheat to get it. Also, your delusion claims that he earned it without any help from the society in general, so he owes us nothing. This prejudice glorifying the successful in a failed society is so embedded that only a revolution can open people's minds. The power of money cannot defeat the power of numbers, so you flunkies should be careful about insulting the majority. Making democracy a dirty word is a dangerous mistake. Besides, if you make the people hate themselves, they will be too listless to work very hard. Lack of pride produces lack of productivity. The plutocrats' sweet life is totally dependent on the sweat of others, so humiliating the people will cost you in the end.

No ruling class should feel safe. For forty years before the 1910 revolution, the people in Mexico put up with a dictatorship without a peep out of them. Such slavish and lifeless people suddenly burst forth with a complete and unpredicted change of character and got revenge in such a bloodbath that if it happened in the US today, would kill 18 million Americans, including all your upper-class idols who didn't get out of Dodge.

 

Financing doesn't win any elections (Except when big corporations buys their candidate), the difference is the party can get public funding and become more of a reputable faction in elections. Furthermore, this is because no party, outside of the major 2, are allowed into the debates. You can't have a debate unless you here all sides of the argument. When I watched the latest rounds of debates, I felt like I was watching two birds in a cage. They were flapping around and making a lot of noise, but nothing about it made much sense.

That's fine, I don't expect majority of America to vote for something while waiting. The only problem is most vote on their party lines and don't listen to what any of the candidates have to say. Democrats care about the minorities while generating policies that dump more crap on top of them and the Republicans are the racists that hate everyone who isn't white, male, or Christian. Both parties want to continue fighting more wars, even the Tea Party has been advocating for more wars to stop terrorists. That's because war has become a profit to these folks. In those states, they have a ton of defense contractors that lobby for more war, more spending, more military products, all so they can get fatter while we're all on a diet.

Here's the problem with focusing in on the Republican party: 'The promising resurgence of the Kochs indicates a libertarian ideology focused on reviving the GOP through an emphasis on devotional principles.' (http://www.policymic.com/articles/28175/what-do-the-koch-brothers-do-after-spending-643-million-and-losing-double-down). They are just using more of the principles that I stand for and use it against me to make them more powerful. This is what I'm trying to get across. It's not the point of getting one politician, it's the point of who the politician is and where his loyalty lies. The Koch's Brothers pushed for the 2012 Republican group, it failed. Now they see the uprising of libertarianism, they are going to begin pushing for that to gain a bigger foothold. Then that, in return, will make everything I stand for look like 's' and I will be apart of the problem. I'm done playing that game.

If you're dad voted for 3rd party once before, he'll do it again. The only difference is we need to ensure that our ideals are there to help him and everyone else who vote 3rd party, not to make the top 1% stay the top 1%.

 

In the current system how do you cheat to get money, except through government force or bailout etc...? It isn't the money that is the problem, it is the power that is gatekeeper to it. Money is nothing but a symbol for value. If you crush the economic system and take people's money, you will just have their money. You will still need to go and produce the goods and services they perform to get value. No country has been made richer, or its poor better off by killing businessman, except those that were in collusion with their government. If you believe the path to freedom is more death penalty, save that guillotine for the people it was better meant for; Kings and Queens, and their cronies who sit around and pass laws and lavish their friends and unions with preferential treatment and gifts from the public treasury while others work to produce value. In a free market if you don't like a company you don't shop there. Simple as that.

 

Exactly. This is the vast majority of the electorate, and this will not change. But primaries are a place where you can reach the more informed voter. Once you win them over, the bulk that agrees with that line of thinking, but is not really engaged will come in. You will have to deal with Koch money and the likes of it anyway you go, there are rich people who do honestly care and do not expect to make their living off of government. Most are actually. They will give to libertarians that can win Republican primaries; but good luck raising money from them without the power of the party label. Without out it, nothing gets off the ground. I think you really do need campaign money to run, lots of it and the more the better. Public financing just isn't enough cash.

 

It is NOT a reality, where you can separate corporate power from government power. You can not allow corporate power to be maintained, but hope to limit government power, because corporate power ensures government DOES NOT remain limited, at least not limited in ways that benefit those corporations. So government does need to be limited, but the limitation of government and capitalist power needs to happen simultaneously. It cannot happen at different times, or it won't work.

 

He may not have realized that he did, but he most certainly actually did!! Koch industries benefits enormously from government intervention. This is not a rarity in capitalism. Capital and government conspire together to protect and ensure capitalist profit. That is fundamental to the perpetuation of capitalism. Murray Rothbard supported capitalism, while counterintuitively opposing one of the fundamental elements of the system.

In order to be legitimately anti-government, you need to be similarly anti-capitalist.

PS. That doesn't mean marxist. I am anti-state and anti-capitalist, but I am also anti-marxist as well.

 

Corporate power is always subject to competition, sooner or later.

Government power comes from guys with guns.

 

Some people think we need less government

We do, problem is Neither Party will give it to us.