I found quite a nice collection of quotes I thought I would tack on to this post. I invite every lefty on the board to visit the site below and read through them. Plenty of wisdom to be gained.

Libertarian Quotes

quote:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -John Kenneth Galbraith

quote:

"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead." Leo C. Rosten

quote:

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear. -William Gladstone

quote:

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. -FDR

quote:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" -Abraham Lincoln

quote:

Democracy [is] when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.-Aristotle

quote:

'The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages.' -Aristotle

quote:

"From the get-go, the strategy has always been we're going to spend what's left." -Tom "The Hammer" Delay on social security in 1995

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

# Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable. – Anonymous

so whom informs the libertarian of what a worldly 'morality' is?


how is this remedied?

cheers on the post wolverine, and i agree with most of the Libertarian quotes too...but why must libertarian mean 'right-leaning' when all that means is bootlicking the powers that be. means nothing to any sort of power struggle.

seems most politicking in the US goes that way...unless you have money and control.

et tu|

EDIT: on simple history lessons, is it not curious how some of the most radically different personalities have suddenly appeared on a quote sheet together? (Capitalizt's post). the quotes look good on paper, but considering the multitude of people attribute...strange stuff...

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Last edited by biznology on Mar-28-2005 at 11:13

Libertarian doesn't mean right-leaning. I think that is a common misperception. Sometimes I make that mistake because I agree with the Libertarians on all economic issues. I think they have incredible insights into human nature/behavior in this area, but they can also be very left wing on social issues. The traditional right/left paradigm really doesn't fit them well, because they advocate less government across the board. A better way to describe them would be to say they are "UP-leaning" on the up/down Libertarian/Totalitarian scale.

And wolverine, "Liberalism" as used in the quotes at the site refers to classical liberalism, back when the word still meant "liberty"...rather than today's liberals who advocate a huge, coercive, paternalistic government (just like the conservatives)

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-28-2005 at 16:20

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt And wolverine, "Liberalism" as used in the quotes at the site refers to classical liberalism, back when the word still meant "liberty"...rather than today's liberals who advocate a huge, coercive, paternalistic government (just like the conservatives)

Out of curiosity, where would you place former President Clinton, considering he successfully shrunk the government to levels not seen in over 20 years at that time?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Clinton really didn't shrink government at all (other than military reductions.). He was a lefty who tried to socialize our healthcare system early in his term. Thankfully the American people didn't like that and gave us a mini-revolution in 94 when the Republicans swept more than 200 democratic seats in congress. Both parties were in absolute gridlock over many issues, so spending growth was held to a respectable level. I credit gridlock for the 90's boom more than anything else.

One party control is always a bad thing. America's supposedly "conservative" party has proved this again over the past few years. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Clinton really didn't shrink government at all (other than military reductions.). He was a lefty who tried to socialize our healthcare system early in his term. Thankfully the American people didn't like that and gave us a mini-revolution in 94 when the Republicans swept more than 200 democratic seats in congress. Both parties were in absolute gridlock over many issues, so spending growth was held to a respectable level. I credit gridlock for the 90's boom more than anything else.

Clinton cut more than 100,000 federal government jobs before the 94 takeover and without a single Republican vote for Clinton's budget, then later balanced the budget, created a social security surplus without raising payroll taxes, presided over welfare reform limiting people to a maximum of less than 5 years lifetime in TANF programs, regardless of prolonged needs and also passed NAFTA. With the DLC movement in the Democratic party, he was a centrist. I realized before my post you also disagree with much of what the Republicans do as well, but often you frame your opposition to progressives and Democrats, when they seem to be offering more fiscally responsible government, though I did throw in the Delay item just in case. Libertarians are on the right though, they are just further to the right. I would say that universal healthcare as Clinton proposed it would have helped business greatly, as rising health insurance costs affect business even more than people. The reality is that defense overspending far outweighs social programs. A flat tax, if it were to be within a balanced budget, could never be put into effect without massive cuts in the military.

quote:

One party control is always a bad thing. America's supposedly "conservative" party has proved this again over the past few years. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I couldn't agree with you more here. I wouldn't want even the politicians I favor having a vast majority and it is neccessary to have opposition that can critique proposed policies by the majority. Though I dislike a number of provisions in the welfare reform bill, relevant Republican opposition was neccessary in providing a number of successes in the late 90s. I just wish they wouldn't have made such a big deal out of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones to provide opposition near the end.

Can't say I agree with the quote in your signature though

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Mar-28-2005 at 18:58

I would like to know how many of those 100k government jobs came from. As I recall Clinton called for a 1.5% reduction in military spending when he was elected, and I have a feeling the majority of the "shrinkage" government saw before 1994 was due to base closings and cutbacks in military civilian employees. I'm not saying this was a bad thing, but he certainly didn't cut in areas that needed to be cut.

Yes, I give Clinton and the democrats full credit for raising taxes, though I believe the surpluses would have been created anyway in the 90's due to the explosion of the internet and a high tech boom around the globe. If anything, those tax hikes reduced the growth that we would have seen in the coming years. Raising taxes is always a disincentive to investment, and lowering them always encourages it. You forgot Clinton also signed a big capital gains tax cut against the wishes of his party. Despite the doom and gloom scenarios and the typical "it only helps the rich" BS from the left, capital gains revenue SOARED when the rate was slashed. The money came pouring in as people began churning their investments and moving their money out of tax shelters and into the economy (boosting the stock market). This more than anything else contributed to the (projected) surpluses created under Clinton.

I do give him credit for reducing capital gains tax, signing NAFTA and signing welfare reform (of course, he only did so after two vetos...when he feared the GOP had enough support to override a third). Those things did help the economy but they certainly would not have happened under democratic dominance of government. If anything, we would have seen an ideology pushing the OPPOSITE of all three policies...higher taxes for "the investor class", trade protectionism pushed by big labor, and a more "compassionate" expansion of the traditional welfare state, with no 'harsh' work requirements for the able-bodied.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-28-2005 at 22:22

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I would like to know how many of those 100k government jobs came from. As I recall Clinton called for a 1.5% reduction in military spending when he was elected, and I have a feeling the majority of the "shrinkage" government saw before 1994 was due to base closings and cutbacks in military civilian employees. I'm not saying this was a bad thing, but he certainly didn't cut in areas that needed to be cut.

Most jobs cut were civilian defense positions from an extremely bloated budget (MUCH larger than spending on means tested programs). Social program employment hiring did increase, but overall from all aspects, Clinton's 8 years brought a net 300,000 job cut, bringing the federal government to its lowest total number since JFK.

quote:

Yes, I give Clinton and the democrats full credit for raising taxes, though I believe the surpluses would have been created anyway in the 90's due to the explosion of the internet and a high tech boom around the globe. If anything, those tax hikes reduced the growth that we would have seen in the coming years. Raising taxes is always a disincentive to investment, and lowering them always encourages it. You forgot Clinton also signed a big capital gains tax cut against the wishes of his party. Despite the doom and gloom scenarios and the typical "it only helps the rich" BS from the left, capital gains revenue SOARED when the rate was slashed. The money came pouring in as people began churning their investments and moving their money out of tax shelters and into the economy (boosting the stock market). This more than anything else contributed to the (projected) surpluses created under Clinton. I do give him credit for reducing capital gains tax, signing NAFTA and signing welfare reform (of course, he only did so after two vetos...when he feared the GOP had enough support to override a third). Those things did help the economy but they certainly would not have happened under democratic dominance of government. If anything, we would have seen an ideology pushing the OPPOSITE of all three policies...higher taxes for "the investor class", trade protectionism pushed by big labor, and a more "compassionate" expansion of the traditional welfare state, with no 'harsh' work requirements for the able-bodied.

So how was Clinton a "big lefty"? He both cut and raised certain taxes for every segment of the population, like many presidents from both sides have done, even Reagan. I don't think the "investor class" did too bad overall in the 90s. I'll leave your overgeneralizations of liberals aside, err maybe I'm just not a progressive after all, but I do have a question: Say you got the exact scenario you want, where you had a free market economy with little to no government regulation and a minimal flat tax, doing away with any progressive taxation and no public service programs. Wouldn't that not only have a negative effect on most all workers and their families and also threaten to turn a democratic country into essentially an oligarchy? It would clearly enhance the possibilities of monopolies to form, which run counterproductive to competition, in both markets and government representation. This was actually the original intent of the estate tax, for example, as the founding fathers did not wish for dynasties to form, rather than intending to declare class warfare. I would point to the late 1800s/early 1900s as an example of where this would head the country towards, rather than seeking to find a balance between government regulation and free commerce that encourages greater productivity and subsequent American benefits.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

I do have a question: Say you got the exact scenario you want, where you had a free market economy with little to no government regulation and a minimal flat tax, doing away with any progressive taxation and no public service programs. Wouldn't that not only have a negative effect on most all workers and their families and also threaten to turn a democratic country into essentially an oligarchy? It would clearly enhance the possibilities of monopolies to form, which run counterproductive to competition, in both markets and government representation. This was actually the original intent of the estate tax, for example, as the founding fathers did not wish for dynasties to form, rather than intending to declare class warfare. I would point to the late 1800s/early 1900s as an example of where this would head the country towards, rather than seeking to find a balance between government regulation and free commerce that encourages greater productivity and subsequent American benefits.

Well I disagree with virtually all of your conclusions, but since this is a hypothetical argument, there is no way to prove them wrong. I guess it is just a matter of "faith" for me. Liberals seem to have "faith" that an elite group of people (bureaucrats) can have the wisdom and good judgement to coordinate the activities of millions...to "fairly" distribute wealth, to regulate prices and wages, and to basically restrict many forms of voluntary exchange between consenting adults. This is done in the name of the "common good" in hopes of increasing the general prosperity of hundreds of millions.

I believe nobody is smart enough to do this. Nobody on earth has that amount of wisdom, so our best hope as humans to increase the general prosperity is to empower INDIVIDUALS...to give everyone more choices and more control over their own lives (including their money). The free market is the best institution ever created to suit this purpose. If a monopoly arises there, it will have done so through voluntary transactions between free individuals acting in their own interests. If a company offers a product or service at a better price than anyone can match, who is to say they don't deserve the top position? This decision to grant that monopoly was made freely by the people. Businesses make money by pleasing people...and the only monopolies without using force is to "out-please" your competitors...to persuade (or politely beg) the citizens to your products instead of your competitors.

Contrast this with the coercive power of government, which can't easily be held accountable for it's failures, and faces no competition for the services it provides. The left seems very concerned that a private monpoly may arise, yet they ignore the ultimate monopoly that already exists today...our $2,600,000,000,000.00 federal government...a bureaucracy that makes thousands of decisions for us each day, forcibly taking our earnings and wasting them under the guise of taking care of us. We have no say in these decisions, and this makes government the ultimate source of monpoly in the real-world.

A fair and just government would exist to protect the citizens from outside threats, and to enforce two simple laws:

#1. No theft.
#2. No violence.

Other than that, leave people free to live their lives as they choose.
Yep, I'm a radical.


"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." – Thomas Jefferson

"People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us." – Joseph Sobran May 13, 1998 (commenting on US vs Microsoft)

"Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. . . . Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable." - Ludwig Von Mises

"Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it." – David Friedman"

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-29-2005 at 04:32

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt

Well neither of us will likely change each other's ideology, though I will say my concept of what a liberal view of government is difers greatly from yours. Mine is not that government should provide for all, thus deterring the will to work, it is ensuring that those who do work hard receive wages that provide at least near the amount to provide the basic necessities of life. Much of this belief comes from your quote of Ludwig Von Mises, as it is indeed consumers who decide what has to be produced, the vast majority of which are not of the "investor class." The more people at the lower end able to be consumers active in trade, rather than struggling to make ends meet, the better the economy's strength.

The potential outcome of completely free trade I mentioned before comes from evidence of past historical events. It would be hard to see how the conditions of the industrial revolution workforce waspositive for consumers. Government regulations regarding child labor, work limits and safety came not simply from "elite bureacrats", but from representative government responding to the petition of constituents. I think just as you mentioned the power of parties in government must be checked, so must that of those with the greatest amounts of power in the private sector. Minimal protections, such as safety standards of OSHA increase the ability of workers to be productive and do not set standards too high for business to meet.

As far as monopolies,I believe in reforming government to a great degree to makeitmore reponsive to citizens, such as term limits, public funding and favoring a multi-party system. My suggestion that completely free markets could lead to oligrchy over democracy is still very relevant though I believe, as media consolidation already exists to large degree and further deregulation could lead to even fewer voices being heard and fewer perspectives. Just my 2 cents.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt A fair and just government would exist to protect the citizens from outside threats, and to enforce two simple laws: #1. No theft. #2. No violence. Other than that, leave people free to live their lives as they choose. Yep, I'm a radical.

Radical you are, but there is definately some method in your madness.. Now, a government is definately needed for the two points I've just quoted from you (which you could generalise into saying that the government is required for law and order) but their role in society has a slightly broader scope. Other than law and order (which includes national defense), the government should be one to correct market failures.. even if these market failures are a result of a pure market economy.. I'll use the following quote to explain:

quote:

If a monopoly arises there, it will have done so through voluntary transactions between free individuals acting in their own interests. If a company offers a product or service at a better price than anyone can match, who is to say they don't deserve the top position? This decision to grant that monopoly was made freely by the people. Businesses make money by pleasing people...and the only monopolies without using force is to "out-please" your competitors...to persuade (or politely beg) the citizens to your products instead of your competitors.

Not all... actually... hardly any monopolies are created through voluntary transactions between free individuals. Most monopolies are indeed natural monopolies, in that the market cannot sustain a perfectly competitive market.. not through the wit and cunning of any particular entity, but through natural forces. The best example of such occurances are utilities like water/gas/electricty industries. Such markets arise basically because set-up costs (in terms of setting up networks and infrastructure) are infeasible. Now why should society suffer from this natural occurance when the entire society can benefit from a simple intervention that can create competitive / near-competitive environments? In the end, everyone is better off.. including consumers AND those natural monopoly companies who are now more efficient progressive (yes, the government is actually doing them a favour). It's a win-win.


So basically, a government exists for more reasons than just to maintain law and order, but to also counter the effects of natural market failures... and that's it..