What's your political orientation?

I'm not trying to be insulting but I can tell by your arguments that you really don't understand libertarianism as a philosophy or know about its history or major players. Philanthropy and libertarianism have gone hand-in-hand throughout American history.

I'm going to suggest a book, not just to you but to everyone else:

Amazon.com: Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression (9780963233660): Mary J. Ruwart, Frances Kendall, Leon Louw: Books

Written by:

Mary Ruwart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this really sums up the compassion behind the liberty movement.

 

That's not a fact - that's your personal belief. The fact is, most poor or developing countries improve their lot when they open their markets and institute capitalist policies in the economy.

If the government were really able to solve poverty problems, Cuba and North Korea would be paradise. The URSS would still exist. Latin America as a whole would be a powerhouse after so many left wing governments (because even the so called "right wing dictatorships" there applied leftists and statist policies during their time in power).

My country only took off recently because of free-market policies implemented during the 90's and kept (surprisingly) by the current left-wing government.

First, not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists - I'm not. I believe in a Small Government - but that doesn't mean a WEAK government, it means a SMALL and LIMITED one, but a STRONG one.

Second, about my home country: dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

Rio de Janeiro is that mess (I say Rio, not Brazil, because that's a specifically problem of that city, not the whole country. Believe or not, Rio is not the whole Brazil as you might think by watching or reading the US media) mostly because of a sequence of stupid populist leftists governments (check about "Brizola" in the Wikipedia) who decided that the police shouldn't go inside the favelas.

Mix that with a misguided "War on Drugs" (copied from the USA). The result was, as you called, a "Escape from New York" scenario (by the way, I love this movie...lol).

Even though I'm from the South of Brazil (the "first world" part of the country you could say) part of my family is from Rio and my grandmother lived in a favela there. I know first hand the situation.

So, how does that relate to my libertarian beliefs? Well, as I said I'm not a anarcho-capitalist. I want the government and the police inside the favelas, taking the control out of the hands of the drug lords. This in no way conflicts with my libertarian beliefs.

But, as a libertarian, I also want the end of the War on Drugs - the real responsible for the power that those gangs have.

(Did you watch "City of God"? That movie explains in a very good and entertainment way how the War on Drugs transformed favelas's petty criminals in powerful drug lords).

 

They all are the same to me. Punch of hypocrites who will do or say anything in order to get elected.


bs. I'm free thinker who makes decision after doing careful research on the intended goal.

 

If they can't be trusted, limit their power, that's how I see it.

 

I agree with you. If a federal employee accepts a bribe or a gift over a few dollars they can be fired or go to prison; it has happened with DOD employees. The same should apply to legislators and their staff (including election campaign funds).

 

That's bold right there, and it just could work. Alternatively, it could get sticky as personal relationships with other politically active individuals comes into play. We don't want to arrest a legislator for opening a birthday gift from a PAC leader he knows personally. I would imagine a large portion of a politicians friends are other politicians.

 

Actually I do know quite a bit about the situation in Rio's favelas firsthand. I served on an IPTM (international police training mission), training the Policia Civil in Rio in 2003. About a year later the authorities initiated an offensive against the gangs and several officers who had attended the training were killed.

As far as political philosophy, while I think that libertarianism is a fatally flawed ideology in the modern world, I favor market capitalism with a significant dose of regulation by a strong central government. That was pretty much what we had in the U.S. during the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration. Most libertarians seem to favor a flat tax over the current progressive income tax. I believe the opposite. The way I view taxes is that those who have profited the most from the benefits of stable currency and low crime rate should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those for whom a stable currency, economic growth and low inflation hasn't translated into prosperity. I don't agree with using the power of the government to tax as a means of widespread income redistribution. Those that do are socialists and shouldn't hide behind the term "progressive."

 

Actually I believe a lot of people who are in favor of a flat tax or a federal sales tax would not oppose a regularly scheduled "tax return" so to speak. The way I understand it, to mitigate the inherently non-progressive nature of the flat tax and sales tax those who are for it usually concede that a monthly rebate of a certain amount of money based on income to lower income families/individuals would be in order.

So for example, say I only make 900/month, the government would (example numbers following) send me $120 check every month or two to mitigate the negative effects of a relatively higher tax. So, I think that most flat tax supporters would actually favor something more along the lines of "Flat tax with deductions" which is not truly a flat tax but serves the purpose of significantly simplifying the process, holding the rich accountable, and sifting out government BS. Or alternatively, the flat tax would have a starting threshold of say $13,000, and if I make 15,000 I'm only actually taxed for $2000 or some other such simple but fair system.

I'm not an expert but I don't think even libertarians are usually in favor of a truly flat tax or sales tax system without some kind of compensating return. The idea is limited the size of government and limiting the power of those who can afford attorneys, not to make things harder on the poor.

I hope you will find our brand of libertarianism more appealing. I do understand that all "fringe" parties have their loons, and that's probably what you were dealing with. I believe libertarianism is a very reasonable ideology when practiced in moderation and with careful consideration of consequences.

 

I think you should read some book of more moderate libertarians like Hayek and Friedman, instead of more radical ones like Mises and Rothbard. You'll probably find out that your point of view is not that far from ours.

 

Libertarian. Christopher Gadsden is my homeboy.

 

I hope Tom posts again, I found the conversation very interesting. What lesson do we libertarians stand to learn after hearing the harsh criticism folks like Tom have to offer? How can we present ourselves today in light of the perception that some have? I wonder if our priorities (at least in America) are not in line?

 

The challenge for libertarians is keeping the message of liberty relevant without compromising core principles.

Probably the greatest example of this in action is The Cato Institute. They manage to stay at the forefront of the political conversation, successfully influencing policy and policymakers while educated the public. I have a lot of respect for those guys.

 

By American standards I would be considered a libertarian. By Canadian and British standards I'm apparently an anarchist.

So I voted libertarian.

 

I chose Satanist / Big Government

 

What's your political occidentation?