i don't think many liberals have a problem with that. most liberals are more concerned with losing current services than enacting new ones. ron paul vetoing tons of legislation would not be a problem to most liberals, im willing to wager.
Really? Ron Paul would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, something many liberals were appalled by George Bush doing. Most liberals do not want Social Security to become optional. Most liberals do not want Medicare to be phased out. Most liberals do not want Medicaid to be cast aside. Most liberals do not want federal minimum wage laws repealled.
i think that's unfair and useless rhetoric. yes, in democracy it will always be responsive to majority vote.
Ron Paul wouldn't care about a "majority vote", wheras Dennis Kucinich would. Paul is guided by Constitutionalism. Kucinich is guided by populism.
the appeal of both these candidates is that they are more responsive to more people, rather than a narrower field of special interests.
Huh? The constituency of both represents "special interest".
it may not be what you want, but you cannot deny that it's a step in the right direction to have candidates who are not bought and paid for by an even smaller number of the "some people."
Again, both these candidates are bought and paid for by a small number of "some people". Why are your arguments assuming some kind of national majority here??? Even if a Paul/Kucinich ticket won the presidency, those that elected them would not represent the entire nation or even a majority of this nation.
i also think you mischaracterize kucinich's governmental views. he wants a government with greater responsibilities, but since you're talking about philosophies you know it is a fallacy to state that he wants omnipotent government.
Why is it "a fallacy"??? Kucinich is arguing for governmental functions far beyond any codified standard, all based upon the powers of direct force. I have never heard Kucinich say what should limit the power of government.
paul and kucinich agree on things like civil rights and live and let live.
Kucinich doesn't agree with Paul on civil rights. Dennis Kucinich wants all my medical information in the hands of the state. Kucinich wants the state to control my business. Kucinich wants the state to control many aspects of my personal life. Furthermore, where are you finding "live and let live" as a fundamental part of his philosophy? The man's desire for restrictions on the lives of many is longer than the tax code.
the difference is libertarian place greater emphasis on market freedoms and liberals on lifestyle. an omnipotent government would tell its people how to live day to day lives. kucinich does not want this any more than ron paul. taxation and social services do not equate an omnipotent and fascist government and you know it. they certainly do not equate a libertarian government either though.
Taxation and social services do not necessarily equate to an omnipotent and fascist government, at least by history's standards. Those things without any codified limit, however, would.
we keep talking about ron paul's ability to compromise. kucinich would be compromising too (esp since he'd be VP and we all know that means no power ). if ron paul has expressed willingness to wait on deleting services, you don't think kucinich would be willing to wait on adding them? the first step would be a freeze, which i think they could both agree on. i think between that and troop withdrawal they'd have enough to last a term before they got to butting heads on social issues.
the point is liberalism and libertarianism are not as opposed as you want to make them. they both just have different conceptions of what freedom means.
They're not opposed, but they have different conceptions of core political philosophy?? I'm having trouble making sense of that.
Really? Ron Paul would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, something many liberals were appalled by George Bush doing. Most liberals do not want Social Security to become optional. Most liberals do not want Medicare to be phased out. Most liberals do not want Medicaid to be cast aside. Most liberals do not want federal minimum wage laws repealled.
he has said flat out that he would not instantly do away with these things. he is a man of his word and i would thus trust him not to veto these things when he has promised not to. his goal is to phase them out. but he's not going to get into office, veto them, and be done with them. he has said so. and liberals are ok with that approach.
Ron Paul wouldn't care about a "majority vote", wheras Dennis Kucinich would. Paul is guided by Constitutionalism. Kucinich is guided by populism.
Huh? The constituency of both represents "special interest".
Again, both these candidates are bought and paid for by a small number of "some people". Why are your arguments assuming some kind of national majority here??? Even if a Paul/Kucinich ticket won the presidency, those that elected them would not represent the entire nation or even a majority of this nation.
a great input better reflects the will of the people. i define special interest as one-issue interest... oil, pharma corps, whatever. the lay definition. they have bought loyalty from candidates with money donations. shifting to candidates who are bought by nothing more than their own public beliefs and the support of citizens in terms of the vote is an improvement becos it accounts for more preferences. do you prefer the former? ideally, government would account for all, but there is no government in the world that can account for all preferences. that is the price of democracy. you are talking about a nation of one.
Why is it "a fallacy"??? Kucinich is arguing for governmental functions far beyond any codified standard, all based upon the powers of direct force. I have never heard Kucinich say what should limit the power of government.
Kucinich doesn't agree with Paul on civil rights. Dennis Kucinich wants all my medical information in the hands of the state. Kucinich wants the state to control my business. Kucinich wants the state to control many aspects of my personal life. Furthermore, where are you finding "live and let live" as a fundamental part of his philosophy? The man's desire for restrictions on the lives of many is longer than the tax code.
Taxation and social services do not necessarily equate to an omnipotent and fascist government, at least by history's standards. Those things without any codified limit, however, would.
i've not gotten this impression from kucinich. never have i heard him advocate for government control of personal conduct (aside from the penal code and taxation). nor have i heard him advocate for state control of business (aside from taxation for everyone). you are right that his beliefs without limit would lead to fascist omnipotence, but just becos you have not been able to talk to him about what his limits are does not mean they do not exist.
They're not opposed, but they have different conceptions of core political philosophy?? I'm having trouble making sense of that.
freedom is not an easy thing to define. it is a negative. freedom has to be framed in terms of from what to do what. libertarianism is narrowly tailored to freedom from the government to do as one want with one's own life (the emphasis is almost always on income). its appeal is its simplicity and easy practice. liberalism is freedom from circumstances (eg. poverty) to do as one wants with one's life. this is much more difficult to effect and is the trouble with liberalism in practice. but ideologically the goal of both thoughts is the same: that one ought to be able to pursue whatever life one finds fulfilling. the difference is that libertarians see the best way to achieve this is to minimize government interference and liberals see the best way to achieve it is to maximize opportunities. it's a different approach to the same result, but there is plenty of room for overlap.
not pissed off at all. just confused. i've never gotten the impression kucinich wants to give any sort of absolute power to the government. you're overstating the case to say that social programs inevitably lead to social engineering. just as i would be overstating the case to say libertarianism inevitably leads to anarchy.
Social programs are social engineering. That's their entire purpose, is it not? I mean, ignoring the positives or negatives of social engineering, the reason we have social programs is to engineer a desired social outcome. However, a welfare state is not necessarily a fascist state. A welfare state allowing for service procurement or delivery regardless of individual will, however, is certainly a dormant fascist state, at the least. Most fascist states begin as non-bounded welfare states. This pattern is repeated throughout history.
A welfare state need not ever become a fascist state, so I'm not suggesting that the welfare state inevitably becomes a fascist state. That is no more inevetiable than the abused child becoming a murdering adult.
To the final point, Libertarianism cannot "inevitably lead to anarchy". Libertarians and anarchists are very much at odds. Libertarians support the moral primacy of contracts. Anarchists support the moral primacy of might. The two do not merge well. A Libertarian state that reduces to an anarchistic construct would do so through revolt, not natural progression. There is an obvious natural progression from the welfare state to the fascist state, and it is detailed in the original post.
he has said flat out that he would not instantly do away with these things. he is a man of his word and i would thus trust him not to veto these things when he has promised not to. his goal is to phase them out. but he's not going to get into office, veto them, and be done with them. he has said so. and liberals are ok with that approach.
I think you misunderstand my use of the word "veto". A president cannot veto an existing program, nor can he easily end it unilaterally. I'm suggesting the Ron Paul would veto expansions to these programs (while Kucinich would often support those expansions). Furthermore, Paul would likely veto pork-filled and shortsighted budgets submitted to him by Congress.
Regardless, how many Liberals are "ok" with phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without replacement (ie UHC)?
a great input better reflects the will of the people. i define special interest as one-issue interest... oil, pharma corps, whatever. the lay definition. they have bought loyalty from candidates with money donations. shifting to candidates who are bought by nothing more than their own public beliefs and the support of citizens in terms of the vote is an improvement becos it accounts for more preferences. do you prefer the former? ideally, government would account for all, but there is no government in the world that can account for all preferences. that is the price of democracy. you are talking about a nation of one.
Hehe...the vast majority of both Kucinich's and Paul's supporters are "one-issue interest". They're anti-war or pro-universal healthcare or anti-tax or anti-abortion or UFO freaks (j/k on the last one). I don't see a Paul/Kucinich ticket as "accounting for more preferences", at least in political terms. I see it accounting for one preference (anti-war) with a bunch of contradictory preferences (pro-gov v. anti-gov) (pro-abortion v. anti-abortion) (etc) thrown into the mix. It's an ideological mess. It seems silly to suggest that these two men account for a broad array of preferences when both are fringe candidates that will not garner more than 10% of their party's voters.
i've not gotten this impression from kucinich. never have i heard him advocate for government control of personal conduct (aside from the penal code and taxation). nor have i heard him advocate for state control of business (aside from taxation for everyone). you are right that his beliefs without limit would lead to fascist omnipotence, but just becos you have not been able to talk to him about what his limits are does not mean they do not exist.
The last point is fair, but the former are dead wrong. Kucinich supports health care systems that would ban me from getting medical treatment on my own terms, would ban smoking at the federal level on private property, and would enact numerous limits on personal liberty. He would fundamentally change the labor rights system in this country, starting with the philosophical belief that people have a "right to a job", which is perhaps the silliest political idea in the last 500 years. This is not just taxation and penal code. It goes far beyond that, and I have no idea what bounds he sees (though it is certainly a fair point to say that bounds may exist).
freedom is not an easy thing to define. it is a negative. freedom has to be framed in terms of from what to do what. libertarianism is narrowly tailored to freedom from the government to do as one want with one's own life (the emphasis is almost always on income). its appeal is its simplicity and easy practice. liberalism is freedom from circumstances (eg. poverty) to do as one wants with one's life. this is much more difficult to effect and is the trouble with liberalism in practice. but ideologically the goal of both thoughts is the same: that one ought to be able to pursue whatever life one finds fulfilling. the difference is that libertarians see the best way to achieve this is to minimize government interference and liberals see the best way to achieve it is to maximize opportunities. it's a different approach to the same result, but there is plenty of room for overlap.
Freedom is not a negative. Freedom is your ability to think and to act and, in terms of base philosophy, cannot be limited by any individual or body. You may always think and act, regardless of your circumstance. Freedom is a natural right, not a negative measure.
Now, Libertarians believe in Liberty, which is specifically freedom from government oppression. Liberals believes in opportunity, which is a bridgeable gap between your present state and your desired state.
Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is overlap. When individuals are allowed to choose and follow opportunity without destructive influence by the state, you have overlap between Libertarianism and Liberalism, biased towards Libertarianism. However, Liberalism, based on its core values, will always seek to expand the opportunities of some at the cost of others and, since the modern Liberal's favorite tool for achieving this is the state, a rift quickly forms between complimentary ideologies.
The irony here is that modern Liberals started 100 years ago as near-Libertarians. However, modern Liberals abandoned the cause of individual liberty in exchange for the ability to use the state's power to enhance the opportunity of some at the price of others.
To the final point, Libertarianism cannot "inevitably lead to anarchy". Libertarians and anarchists are very much at odds. Libertarians support the moral primacy of contracts. Anarchists support the moral primacy of might. The two do not merge well. A Libertarian state that reduces to an anarchistic construct would do so through revolt, not natural progression. There is an obvious natural progression from the welfare state to the fascist state, and it is detailed in the original post.
hardly. they both believe government should not be able to tell anyone what to do. taken "without bounds" as you keep saying, would lead to that outcome. no government telling anyone what to do. it is no more farfetched than your contention that unbounded welfare liberalism leads to omnipotent fascism. government could not even defend borders... becos it could not engage in a war of defense until it ensured that every citizen was opposed to the invaders, otherwise it is forcing citizens to reject invaders they might want.
you try to distinguish anarchy and libertarianism based on might and contract. fascism is about the moral primacy of government telling flawed humans what to do. welfare liberalism is about the moral primacy of voters to choose services they want their government to offer. convinced? we could play that game all day. the fact is, none of these ideologies are as clearly delineated as you pretend. there is always overlap, common ground, and divergent ground. that is my point. ron paul and kucinich have some common ground. maybe even enough to build a sensible ticket upon. it's unlikely, but not as absurd as some on here act.
I think you misunderstand my use of the word "veto". A president cannot veto an existing program, nor can he easily end it unilaterally. I'm suggesting the Ron Paul would veto expansions to these programs (while Kucinich would often support those expansions). Furthermore, Paul would likely veto pork-filled and shortsighted budgets submitted to him by Congress.
Regardless, how many Liberals are "ok" with phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without replacement (ie UHC)?
exactly. i don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects. i figured you to be more intelligent than buying into the limbaugh hype-talk. im also saying that if ron agrees not to cut these programs, surely kucinich will agree not to expand them. that's the compromise. for now. they could both revisit down the line. but in terms of building common goals now, that would not be an issue.
The last point is fair, but the former are dead wrong. Kucinich supports health care systems that would ban me from getting medical treatment on my own terms, would ban smoking at the federal level on private property, and would enact numerous limits on personal liberty. He would fundamentally change the labor rights system in this country, starting with the philosophical belief that people have a "right to a job", which is perhaps the silliest political idea in the last 500 years. This is not just taxation and penal code. It goes far beyond that, and I have no idea what bounds he sees (though it is certainly a fair point to say that bounds may exist).
i've never heard any of this and it reeks of foxnews scare-mongering to me. i suppose you have proof somewhere? if true, it is indeed alarming to say the least.
hardly. they both believe government should not be able to tell anyone what to do.
That's silly. A Libertarian certainly believes that the government should be able to tell you to go to jail if you break a governmental law. He believes that the government should be able to force a contract breaker to compensate his victim. The list of things Libertarians believe the government should be able to tell you what to do is quite extensive, relatvive to the anarchist that does not believe in the right for the state to exist in the first place.
taken "without bounds" as you keep saying, would lead to that outcome. no government telling anyone what to do. it is no more farfetched than your thing.
Libertarianism, by definition, is a belief in government with specific bounds relative to individual liberty. A person who does not believe in government at all is not a libertarian -- he is an anarchist.
the fact is, none of these ideologies are as clearly delineated as you pretend. there is always overlap, common ground, and divergent ground. that is my point. ron paul and kucinich have some common ground. maybe even enough to build a sensible ticket upon. it's unlikely, but not as absurd as some on here act.
The ideologies are very clearly defined based on their primary values (though certainly those that adhere to these ideologies only in part muddy the waters). Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is certainly some overlap. However, that overlap looks quite small when compared to the points of contention.
A Paul and Kucinich ticket is no more sensible than a Hillary Clinton/Fred Thompson ticket. Certainly there would be "overlap" on some issues between the latter, but wouldn't everyone find that quite absurd as well?
Both Kucinich and Paul would have much more complimentary individuals available to them that could also cover the perceived overlap between the two candidates. Were Ron Paul to get the nomination and ask Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate, I'd be very disappointed. Furthermore, were Dennis Kucinich to get the nomination and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate, I'd happily eat my own shit.
Freedom is not a negative. Freedom is your ability to think and to act and, in terms of base philosophy, cannot be limited by any individual or body. You may always think and act, regardless of your circumstance. Freedom is a natural right, not a negative measure.
Now, Libertarians believe in Liberty, which is specifically freedom from government oppression. Liberals believes in opportunity, which is a bridgeable gap between your present state and your desired state.
Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is overlap. When individuals are allowed to choose and follow opportunity without destructive influence by the state, you have overlap between Libertarianism and Liberalism, biased towards Libertarianism. However, Liberalism, based on its core values, will always seek to expand the opportunities of some at the cost of others and, since the modern Liberal's favorite tool for achieving this is the state, a rift quickly forms between complimentary ideologies.
The irony here is that modern Liberals started 100 years ago as near-Libertarians. However, modern Liberals abandoned the cause of individual liberty in exchange for the ability to use the state's power to enhance the opportunity of some at the price of others.
i've never heard any of this and it reeks of foxnews scare-mongering to me. i suppose you have proof somewhere? if true, it is indeed alarming to say the least.
"People have a right to: A job.
A safe workplace.
Decent wages and benefits.
Organize and be represented.
Grieve about working conditions.
Strike.
Fair compensation for injuries on the job.
Sue if injured by negligent employers.
Security of pension and retirement benefits.
Participate in the political process." -Dennis Kucinich http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Jobs.htm
"Majority of candidates want national smoking ban
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The majority of the Democratic presidential candidates said in Wednesday's New Hampshire presidential debate they would support a national smoking ban in public places.
When asked the question, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama only said they supported efforts at local levels to prevent smoking in public places. The rest of the candidates indicated they would seek a national ban to do so.
That's silly. A Libertarian certainly believes that the government should be able to tell you to go to jail if you break a governmental law. He believes that the government should be able to force a contract breaker to compensate his victim. The list of things Libertarians believe the government should be able to tell you what to do is quite extensive, relatvive to the anarchist that does not believe in the right for the state to exist in the first place.
Libertarianism, by definition, is a belief in government with specific bounds relative to individual liberty. A person who does not believe in government at all is not a libertarian -- he is an anarchist.
The ideologies are very clearly defined based on their primary values (though certainly those that adhere to these ideologies only in part muddy the waters). Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is certainly some overlap. However, that overlap looks quite small when compared to the points of contention.
A Paul and Kucinich ticket is no more sensible than a Hillary Clinton/Fred Thompson ticket. Certainly there would be "overlap" on some issues between the latter, but wouldn't everyone find that quite absurd as well?
Both Kucinich and Paul would have much more complimentary individuals available to them that could also cover the perceived overlap between the two candidates. Were Ron Paul to get the nomination and ask Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate, I'd be very disappointed. Furthermore, were Dennis Kucinich to get the nomination and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate, I'd happily eat my own shit.
i edited that post to more clearly say what i wanted. so im not going into this one
exactly. i don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects. i figured you to be more intelligent than buying into the limbaugh hype-talk. im also saying that if ron agrees not to cut these programs, surely kucinich will agree not to expand them. that's the compromise. for now. they could both revisit down the line. but in terms of building common goals now, that would not be an issue.
What is this? How can you say that you "don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects" when Liberals made a huge stink about Bush vetoing SCHIP expansion and, with their Republican friends, continue to reelect incumbents who stuff billions of dollars worth of pork-spending into the federal budget??? Where are these Liberals that are demanding an end to federal spending? Hell, there are few conservatives left that are demanding an end to excessive federal spending.
Dennis Kucinich wants to make kindergarten free for all kids in this country and he wants to do it on the federal level. Ron Paul wants to quickly end federal oversight and funding for public schools. I'm really having trouble seeing what you're seeing.
Freedom is not a negative. Freedom is your ability to think and to act and, in terms of base philosophy, cannot be limited by any individual or body. You may always think and act, regardless of your circumstance. Freedom is a natural right, not a negative measure.
Now, Libertarians believe in Liberty, which is specifically freedom from government oppression. Liberals believes in opportunity, which is a bridgeable gap between your present state and your desired state.
Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is overlap. When individuals are allowed to choose and follow opportunity without destructive influence by the state, you have overlap between Libertarianism and Liberalism, biased towards Libertarianism. However, Liberalism, based on its core values, will always seek to expand the opportunities of some at the cost of others and, since the modern Liberal's favorite tool for achieving this is the state, a rift quickly forms between complimentary ideologies.
The irony here is that modern Liberals started 100 years ago as near-Libertarians. However, modern Liberals abandoned the cause of individual liberty in exchange for the ability to use the state's power to enhance the opportunity of some at the price of others.
exactly. freedom is the freedom from other individuals and bodies to think and act on your own philosophies. the problem is that in human society, no philosophy can be acted upon without in some way affecting the ability of others to act on their own becos they have to take into account how you will do in deciding how they will be able to act. this is a practical inevitability. nobody acts in a vacuum.
it is ironic that your criticism of liberalism parallels your distinction of libertarianism and anarchism. what other vehicle for affecting this change is there? if not the state, you are back to individuals and you are back to individual might. even under a free contract theory, there is great might in those with more resources, better leverage. the might is more subtle, but still there and distinguishing between that might and pure physical might is meaningless from a functional standpoint. so liberals resort to the state to equalize opportunity and avoid individual power games. libertarians resort to the state to protect their resources and avoid individual physical power games.
What is this? How can you say that you "don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects" when Liberals made a huge stink about Bush vetoing SCHIP expansion and, with their Republican friends, continue to reelect incumbents who stuff billions of dollars worth of pork-spending into the federal budget??? Where are these Liberals that are demanding an end to federal spending? Hell, there are few conservatives left that are demanding an end to excessive federal spending.
Dennis Kucinich wants to make kindergarten free for all kids in this country and he wants to do it on the federal level. Ron Paul wants to quickly end federal oversight and funding for public schools. I'm really having trouble seeing what you're seeing.
it is the fault of the liberal party? how come pork barrel spending and spending in general skyrocketed under conservative leadership? the party of liberalism is NOT the one solely responsible for pork barrel spending. liberals are in favor of necessary federal spending. so are conservatives. they just have different views on what is necessary.
it is the fault of the liberal party? how come pork barrel spending and spending in general skyrocketed under conservative leadership? the party of liberalism is NOT the one solely responsible for pork barrel spending. liberals are in favor of necessary federal spending. so are conservatives. they just have different views on what is necessary.
Slow down, champ. I'm not blaming the liberal party here. I'm simply asking you where is the "outrage" over this spending and where are the Liberals who want to see reductions in governmental services? Liberals are calling for expanded health care services, expanded educational services, expanded welfare and safety net services. I'm not hearing a lot of Liberals who would be ok with reductions in these services, and I'm not seeing many people on either side of the Liberal/Conservative divide upset enough with pork-barrel spending to toss out incumbents because of it.
Slow down, champ. I'm not blaming the liberal party here. I'm simply asking you where is the "outrage" over this spending and where are the Liberals who want to see reductions in governmental services? Liberals are calling for expanded health care services, expanded educational services, expanded welfare and safety net services. I'm not hearing a lot of Liberals who would be ok with reductions in these services, and I'm not seeing many people on either side of the Liberal/Conservative divide upset enough with pork-barrel spending to toss out incumbents because of it.
i didn't say they were outraged over excess spending. but i think a lot of liberal support is token support... lip service if you will. i think they would vote for it in a referendum for instace, but i don't think it's important enough for them to work for it. other issues take great precedene. and a candidate like ron paul who will end the war and freeze things until we can figure out what we really need and want would be fine with most liberals, even if they disagree with his ultimate goals, which they know will never be realized anyway.
but you're right, nobody is pissed about pork barrel spending. well they are, but nobody knows what to do about it becos the special interests are so good at clouding the issues and distracting people with homos and evolution
hell, i'm all for shutting down the department of education and ending federal involvement with schools. people round here would call me a liberal though, just becos i don't think income is the be-all end-all of existence or that taxation is inherently evil. that is my problem with libertarianism. it's single-minded obsession with money and greed... makes me feel like merchant of venice should be required reading for libertarians.
exactly. freedom is the freedom from other individuals and bodies to think and act on your own philosophies. the problem is that in human society, no philosophy can be acted upon without in some way affecting the ability of others to act on their own becos they have to take into account how you will do in deciding how they will be able to act. this is a practical inevitability. nobody acts in a vacuum.
Obviously we must, in all our decisions, consider the actions and reactions of those around us. But my actions need not be exclusionary to yours, and vice versa. When they happen to be exclusionary, the issues of property and rights and justice emerge. This is not a "problem". This is a fundamental part of reality and a necessary part of the fabric of any society. "Problems" emerge when people hold onto contradictory views of property (ie I can own something another cannot) or rights (ie I have a right to something that is an obligation to another) or justice (ie vengance is a form of recompense). Those contradictory views are the problem.
Your existence next to me, and your actions, cannot possibly affect my freedom to think or to act. They can only affect my chances of success. Unfortunately, a bizzare thread of Liberalism now exists that suggests that people should somehow (and for some reason) have an equal chance of success. Also unfortunately, a bizzare thread of Libertarianism exists that suggests that the state can actually limit a person's freedom beyond the concept of liberty. Neither makes much sense.
it is ironic that your criticism of liberalism parallels your distinction of libertarianism and anarchism. what other vehicle for affecting this change is there? if not the state, you are back to individuals and you are back to individual might.
Might as a primary motivator for change exists far beyond political ideology. Might can be as much a determinant in an anarchistic "utopia" as it can be in a fascist "utopia". However, might need not be a primary motivator (as we see in Western society today), nor does it need to be there at all as a systematic motivator, though it will likely always be with us an interpersonal motivator. Regardless, your individual need to use force is far less than ever in the history of civilization. Overall, might as a systematic motivator is a dying force when one looks at the overall progression of human civilization. And those are very much positive things.
In other words, the extent to which might exists is not static. There's a silly assumption that suggests that if one removed the might of the state than an equal might would simply take its place. That can certainly happen, but it's not gauranteed. You might end up with more, you might end up with less. You'll likely end up with less since the force exercised by the state is partly a function of its unprecedented ability to amass it and use it. But absent the state force, the distribution of the force that takes its place might be unjust or simply unacceptable as compared to the past.
A "might for right" activity extends from the views of those involved, be them state leaders or individual civilians. Affect the ideologies, and you'll affect the balance of might as a motivating factor. Constructive actions that combat hatred, anger, jealousy, desperation and the other causes of violence always serve as appropriate combatants to violence. Contractual justice systems concerned not with punitive measures or subjective moral aims but instead with objective recompense serve to diffuse violence. Removing the structures that allow bodies to amass significant amount of power and, more importantly, the tacit assumed consent that maintains those structures, and you'll have a society that can exist relatively free of force and coersion.
A society will only be free from force and coersion to the extent that individuals willingly reject force and coersion as appropriate behaviors.
even under a free contract theory, there is great might in those with more resources, better leverage. the might is more subtle, but still there and distinguishing between that might and pure physical might is meaningless from a functional standpoint. so liberals resort to the state to equalize opportunity and avoid individual power games. libertarians resort to the state to protect their resources and avoid individual physical power games.
Certainly both Liberals and Libertarians believe in a state.
I'm curious how you're using "might" here. A person who has "more resources" is not necessarily invoking "might" against you. This is the great Liberal fallacy, that there can be a "victim" absent a crime. Ownership of resources is not a crime.
just becos i don't think income is the be-all end-all of existence or that taxation is inherently evil. that is my problem with libertarianism. it's single-minded obsession with money and greed... makes me feel like merchant of venice should be required reading for libertarians.
Hehe...I'm curious, if I have a "single-minded obsession with money and greed" for wanting to keep what I've earned, what do those who want to take what I've earned have? Can't that statement simply be flipped around?
To defend those like me who believe that taxation is inherently evil, understand what we believe is wrong. We see force and coersion as wrong. And the last great manifestation of force and coersion, aside from war, is taxation. Were this 1968, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with the draft. Were this 1925, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with war. Were this 1850, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with slavery.
For some, certainly, a desire to live without taxation is little more than a desire to have more money. But do understand that there are those of us whose desire to see an end to taxation stems from something much deeper.
That sounds nice, but doesn't make much sense. Aesthetics represent the a view of beauty and, specific to this conversation, the perspective of surface attributes. Certainly one may tangentially suggest that everything contains beauty and, therefore, a study of aesthetics would be a study of everything. However, in the context of this conversation, I would suggest that saying "aesthetics represent everything" would be akin to saying "whatever I see on the surface of the ocean represents everything within the ocean".
of course youre right. maybe try saying things that are a little less perfect so i can try to argue with you,...???
While "checks and balances" are certainly a defining characteristic of the American political machine, it is not the basis of American political philosophy. The basis of American political philosophy, for better or worse, was individual liberty. Checks and balances within the structure of government grew from that philosophical basis. Only a fool would values "checks and balances" in and of themselves. The wise value "checks and balances" for specific reasons (ie controlling the actions of the state in the name of individual liberty).
i'm not saying that 'checks and balances' should or even were designed to be the basis, but in light of the evolving corruption writ the industrial revolution that is all we have left to hang our [american(s)] mantle of "justice" [democracy?] upon.
so, i suppose what i was truyl saying is what you finished by saying, except i would add that i am not that wise.
I don't dismiss its plausibility, though I find a Paul/Kucinich ticket to be both highly unlikely and incredibly unwise. A good presedential ticket would contain two individuals who complement each other, rather than directly contradict each other.
Personally, I could stomach a Paul/Obama ticket. I'd be fascinated to see a Paul/Greenspan ticket. I'd really prefer a Paul/Jeffrey Sachs ticket.
interesting. you probably are the most interesting voice on these boards 4 days out of each week FFG.
i'm gonna say that in america the president used to be vice-presidented by/with the person who got second-place,... so,....?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Hehe...I'm curious, if I have a "single-minded obsession with money and greed" for wanting to keep what I've earned, what do those who want to take what I've earned have? Can't that statement simply be flipped around?
To defend those like me who believe that taxation is inherently evil, understand what we believe is wrong. We see force and coersion as wrong. And the last great manifestation of force and coersion, aside from war, is taxation. Were this 1968, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with the draft. Were this 1925, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with war. Were this 1850, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with slavery.
For some, certainly, a desire to live without taxation is little more than a desire to have more money. But do understand that there are those of us whose desire to see an end to taxation stems from something much deeper.
becos it's a narrow-minded and disingenuous vision of coersion. it ignores that coercion can take many forms and that one can be far more coerced without taxes due to lack of bargaining power that is a result of no act they ever committed than another person is coerced by being "forced" to give up a small fraction of their excess to contribute to the society they share.
you describe freedom as an utter lack of responsibility. i would say that humans, as social creatures from the beginning of time, have more than just rights to freedom. they also, to an extent, have a responsibility to their fellows or tribe or however you want to describe it. for without society and the support of fellows, humans would have become extinct. i see nothing immoral about a tax then, or at best, its immorality is vastly outweighed by the immorality of one refusing to make good on their responsibility and debt to human society that ensured their existence.
libertarianism has serious problems. you talk about "your" wealth. how is it yours? you do not possess original wealth. you traded for it or inherited it. if you want to trace that ownership back, it will ALWAYS come back to acquisition by force: your wealth came down the pipe on the backs of african slaves via the guns of the british empire. or from the rifles of american frontiersmen as they slaughtered the natives. even if you won't accept that, eventually someone walked onto a piece of land and said "this is my land, and you cannot harvest or use it in any way. if you do, i will kill you." you cannot pretend your wealth is totally, unquestionably legitimate becos it inevitably came to you by force at some point in the chain of its acquisition and the fact that that force was used before the force of taxes levied on it does not make it acceptable or make your claim to it more legitimate or moral than government's claim on a fraction of your income in exchange for protecting your right to use that property from others BY FORCE.
force is an inevitable part of private property, becos one cannot have private property without the right to use force to protect it. you have the right to freedom of thought and whatnot, but your only right to exert control over external objects comes on the back of force and it does not matter if those external objects are other people's religious beliefs or your crockpot. becos somewhere along the line a unilateral individual decision was used to deprive others of the use of a good (land, or whatever) and defended by force. someone said "this apple orchard which used to be used by everyone to eat is now mine and mine alone and i will kill anyone who violates my ownership. there are good reasons for doing such a thing (tragedy of the commons) but that doesn't deny it's original acquisition and it certainly calls for some form of compensation, which in the original sense did not happen. the fact that you now bitch about the government doing the same thing you did to acquire "your" property is nonsensical.
i know you will break this up into 20 different sentences and make it look like my argument makes no sense, but anyone reading this as a whole will understand its logical weight. it is very easy to poke meaningless holes of credibility by questioning sound assumptions and discrediting by sheer number, it is much harder and more intellectually demanding to try to combat an argument as a whole. i know, i've done cross examination. if you take it sentence by sentence, you can make someone saying the ocean is wet look like an idiot. so i'd like to see you respond without the cheap tricks.
Comments
Really? Ron Paul would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, something many liberals were appalled by George Bush doing. Most liberals do not want Social Security to become optional. Most liberals do not want Medicare to be phased out. Most liberals do not want Medicaid to be cast aside. Most liberals do not want federal minimum wage laws repealled.
Ron Paul wouldn't care about a "majority vote", wheras Dennis Kucinich would. Paul is guided by Constitutionalism. Kucinich is guided by populism.
Huh? The constituency of both represents "special interest".
Again, both these candidates are bought and paid for by a small number of "some people". Why are your arguments assuming some kind of national majority here??? Even if a Paul/Kucinich ticket won the presidency, those that elected them would not represent the entire nation or even a majority of this nation.
Why is it "a fallacy"??? Kucinich is arguing for governmental functions far beyond any codified standard, all based upon the powers of direct force. I have never heard Kucinich say what should limit the power of government.
Kucinich doesn't agree with Paul on civil rights. Dennis Kucinich wants all my medical information in the hands of the state. Kucinich wants the state to control my business. Kucinich wants the state to control many aspects of my personal life. Furthermore, where are you finding "live and let live" as a fundamental part of his philosophy? The man's desire for restrictions on the lives of many is longer than the tax code.
Taxation and social services do not necessarily equate to an omnipotent and fascist government, at least by history's standards. Those things without any codified limit, however, would.
They're not opposed, but they have different conceptions of core political philosophy?? I'm having trouble making sense of that.
he has said flat out that he would not instantly do away with these things. he is a man of his word and i would thus trust him not to veto these things when he has promised not to. his goal is to phase them out. but he's not going to get into office, veto them, and be done with them. he has said so. and liberals are ok with that approach.
a great input better reflects the will of the people. i define special interest as one-issue interest... oil, pharma corps, whatever. the lay definition. they have bought loyalty from candidates with money donations. shifting to candidates who are bought by nothing more than their own public beliefs and the support of citizens in terms of the vote is an improvement becos it accounts for more preferences. do you prefer the former? ideally, government would account for all, but there is no government in the world that can account for all preferences. that is the price of democracy. you are talking about a nation of one.
i've not gotten this impression from kucinich. never have i heard him advocate for government control of personal conduct (aside from the penal code and taxation). nor have i heard him advocate for state control of business (aside from taxation for everyone). you are right that his beliefs without limit would lead to fascist omnipotence, but just becos you have not been able to talk to him about what his limits are does not mean they do not exist.
freedom is not an easy thing to define. it is a negative. freedom has to be framed in terms of from what to do what. libertarianism is narrowly tailored to freedom from the government to do as one want with one's own life (the emphasis is almost always on income). its appeal is its simplicity and easy practice. liberalism is freedom from circumstances (eg. poverty) to do as one wants with one's life. this is much more difficult to effect and is the trouble with liberalism in practice. but ideologically the goal of both thoughts is the same: that one ought to be able to pursue whatever life one finds fulfilling. the difference is that libertarians see the best way to achieve this is to minimize government interference and liberals see the best way to achieve it is to maximize opportunities. it's a different approach to the same result, but there is plenty of room for overlap.
Social programs are social engineering. That's their entire purpose, is it not? I mean, ignoring the positives or negatives of social engineering, the reason we have social programs is to engineer a desired social outcome. However, a welfare state is not necessarily a fascist state. A welfare state allowing for service procurement or delivery regardless of individual will, however, is certainly a dormant fascist state, at the least. Most fascist states begin as non-bounded welfare states. This pattern is repeated throughout history.
A welfare state need not ever become a fascist state, so I'm not suggesting that the welfare state inevitably becomes a fascist state. That is no more inevetiable than the abused child becoming a murdering adult.
To the final point, Libertarianism cannot "inevitably lead to anarchy". Libertarians and anarchists are very much at odds. Libertarians support the moral primacy of contracts. Anarchists support the moral primacy of might. The two do not merge well. A Libertarian state that reduces to an anarchistic construct would do so through revolt, not natural progression. There is an obvious natural progression from the welfare state to the fascist state, and it is detailed in the original post.
I think you misunderstand my use of the word "veto". A president cannot veto an existing program, nor can he easily end it unilaterally. I'm suggesting the Ron Paul would veto expansions to these programs (while Kucinich would often support those expansions). Furthermore, Paul would likely veto pork-filled and shortsighted budgets submitted to him by Congress.
Regardless, how many Liberals are "ok" with phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without replacement (ie UHC)?
Hehe...the vast majority of both Kucinich's and Paul's supporters are "one-issue interest". They're anti-war or pro-universal healthcare or anti-tax or anti-abortion or UFO freaks (j/k on the last one). I don't see a Paul/Kucinich ticket as "accounting for more preferences", at least in political terms. I see it accounting for one preference (anti-war) with a bunch of contradictory preferences (pro-gov v. anti-gov) (pro-abortion v. anti-abortion) (etc) thrown into the mix. It's an ideological mess. It seems silly to suggest that these two men account for a broad array of preferences when both are fringe candidates that will not garner more than 10% of their party's voters.
The last point is fair, but the former are dead wrong. Kucinich supports health care systems that would ban me from getting medical treatment on my own terms, would ban smoking at the federal level on private property, and would enact numerous limits on personal liberty. He would fundamentally change the labor rights system in this country, starting with the philosophical belief that people have a "right to a job", which is perhaps the silliest political idea in the last 500 years. This is not just taxation and penal code. It goes far beyond that, and I have no idea what bounds he sees (though it is certainly a fair point to say that bounds may exist).
Freedom is not a negative. Freedom is your ability to think and to act and, in terms of base philosophy, cannot be limited by any individual or body. You may always think and act, regardless of your circumstance. Freedom is a natural right, not a negative measure.
Now, Libertarians believe in Liberty, which is specifically freedom from government oppression. Liberals believes in opportunity, which is a bridgeable gap between your present state and your desired state.
Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is overlap. When individuals are allowed to choose and follow opportunity without destructive influence by the state, you have overlap between Libertarianism and Liberalism, biased towards Libertarianism. However, Liberalism, based on its core values, will always seek to expand the opportunities of some at the cost of others and, since the modern Liberal's favorite tool for achieving this is the state, a rift quickly forms between complimentary ideologies.
The irony here is that modern Liberals started 100 years ago as near-Libertarians. However, modern Liberals abandoned the cause of individual liberty in exchange for the ability to use the state's power to enhance the opportunity of some at the price of others.
hardly. they both believe government should not be able to tell anyone what to do. taken "without bounds" as you keep saying, would lead to that outcome. no government telling anyone what to do. it is no more farfetched than your contention that unbounded welfare liberalism leads to omnipotent fascism. government could not even defend borders... becos it could not engage in a war of defense until it ensured that every citizen was opposed to the invaders, otherwise it is forcing citizens to reject invaders they might want.
you try to distinguish anarchy and libertarianism based on might and contract. fascism is about the moral primacy of government telling flawed humans what to do. welfare liberalism is about the moral primacy of voters to choose services they want their government to offer. convinced? we could play that game all day. the fact is, none of these ideologies are as clearly delineated as you pretend. there is always overlap, common ground, and divergent ground. that is my point. ron paul and kucinich have some common ground. maybe even enough to build a sensible ticket upon. it's unlikely, but not as absurd as some on here act.
exactly. i don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects. i figured you to be more intelligent than buying into the limbaugh hype-talk. im also saying that if ron agrees not to cut these programs, surely kucinich will agree not to expand them. that's the compromise. for now. they could both revisit down the line. but in terms of building common goals now, that would not be an issue.
i've never heard any of this and it reeks of foxnews scare-mongering to me. i suppose you have proof somewhere? if true, it is indeed alarming to say the least.
That's silly. A Libertarian certainly believes that the government should be able to tell you to go to jail if you break a governmental law. He believes that the government should be able to force a contract breaker to compensate his victim. The list of things Libertarians believe the government should be able to tell you what to do is quite extensive, relatvive to the anarchist that does not believe in the right for the state to exist in the first place.
Libertarianism, by definition, is a belief in government with specific bounds relative to individual liberty. A person who does not believe in government at all is not a libertarian -- he is an anarchist.
The ideologies are very clearly defined based on their primary values (though certainly those that adhere to these ideologies only in part muddy the waters). Between Libertarianism and Liberalism, there is certainly some overlap. However, that overlap looks quite small when compared to the points of contention.
A Paul and Kucinich ticket is no more sensible than a Hillary Clinton/Fred Thompson ticket. Certainly there would be "overlap" on some issues between the latter, but wouldn't everyone find that quite absurd as well?
Both Kucinich and Paul would have much more complimentary individuals available to them that could also cover the perceived overlap between the two candidates. Were Ron Paul to get the nomination and ask Dennis Kucinich to be his running mate, I'd be very disappointed. Furthermore, were Dennis Kucinich to get the nomination and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate, I'd happily eat my own shit.
well said.
HR 676
http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_bill_final.pdf
"People have a right to:
A job.
A safe workplace.
Decent wages and benefits.
Organize and be represented.
Grieve about working conditions.
Strike.
Fair compensation for injuries on the job.
Sue if injured by negligent employers.
Security of pension and retirement benefits.
Participate in the political process." -Dennis Kucinich
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Jobs.htm
"Majority of candidates want national smoking ban
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The majority of the Democratic presidential candidates said in Wednesday's New Hampshire presidential debate they would support a national smoking ban in public places.
When asked the question, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama only said they supported efforts at local levels to prevent smoking in public places. The rest of the candidates indicated they would seek a national ban to do so.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the drinking age, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said they were in favor of lowering it to 18 — an answer that was well received by the Dartmouth College crowd. Kucinich added that he supports lowering the voting age to 16."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/26/majority-of-candidates-want-national-smoking-ban/
i edited that post to more clearly say what i wanted. so im not going into this one
What is this? How can you say that you "don't think liberals are opposed to a president vetoing expansion or pork barrel projects" when Liberals made a huge stink about Bush vetoing SCHIP expansion and, with their Republican friends, continue to reelect incumbents who stuff billions of dollars worth of pork-spending into the federal budget??? Where are these Liberals that are demanding an end to federal spending? Hell, there are few conservatives left that are demanding an end to excessive federal spending.
Dennis Kucinich wants to make kindergarten free for all kids in this country and he wants to do it on the federal level. Ron Paul wants to quickly end federal oversight and funding for public schools. I'm really having trouble seeing what you're seeing.
exactly. freedom is the freedom from other individuals and bodies to think and act on your own philosophies. the problem is that in human society, no philosophy can be acted upon without in some way affecting the ability of others to act on their own becos they have to take into account how you will do in deciding how they will be able to act. this is a practical inevitability. nobody acts in a vacuum.
it is ironic that your criticism of liberalism parallels your distinction of libertarianism and anarchism. what other vehicle for affecting this change is there? if not the state, you are back to individuals and you are back to individual might. even under a free contract theory, there is great might in those with more resources, better leverage. the might is more subtle, but still there and distinguishing between that might and pure physical might is meaningless from a functional standpoint. so liberals resort to the state to equalize opportunity and avoid individual power games. libertarians resort to the state to protect their resources and avoid individual physical power games.
it is the fault of the liberal party? how come pork barrel spending and spending in general skyrocketed under conservative leadership? the party of liberalism is NOT the one solely responsible for pork barrel spending. liberals are in favor of necessary federal spending. so are conservatives. they just have different views on what is necessary.
Slow down, champ. I'm not blaming the liberal party here. I'm simply asking you where is the "outrage" over this spending and where are the Liberals who want to see reductions in governmental services? Liberals are calling for expanded health care services, expanded educational services, expanded welfare and safety net services. I'm not hearing a lot of Liberals who would be ok with reductions in these services, and I'm not seeing many people on either side of the Liberal/Conservative divide upset enough with pork-barrel spending to toss out incumbents because of it.
i didn't say they were outraged over excess spending. but i think a lot of liberal support is token support... lip service if you will. i think they would vote for it in a referendum for instace, but i don't think it's important enough for them to work for it. other issues take great precedene. and a candidate like ron paul who will end the war and freeze things until we can figure out what we really need and want would be fine with most liberals, even if they disagree with his ultimate goals, which they know will never be realized anyway.
but you're right, nobody is pissed about pork barrel spending. well they are, but nobody knows what to do about it becos the special interests are so good at clouding the issues and distracting people with homos and evolution
hell, i'm all for shutting down the department of education and ending federal involvement with schools. people round here would call me a liberal though, just becos i don't think income is the be-all end-all of existence or that taxation is inherently evil. that is my problem with libertarianism. it's single-minded obsession with money and greed... makes me feel like merchant of venice should be required reading for libertarians.
Obviously we must, in all our decisions, consider the actions and reactions of those around us. But my actions need not be exclusionary to yours, and vice versa. When they happen to be exclusionary, the issues of property and rights and justice emerge. This is not a "problem". This is a fundamental part of reality and a necessary part of the fabric of any society. "Problems" emerge when people hold onto contradictory views of property (ie I can own something another cannot) or rights (ie I have a right to something that is an obligation to another) or justice (ie vengance is a form of recompense). Those contradictory views are the problem.
Your existence next to me, and your actions, cannot possibly affect my freedom to think or to act. They can only affect my chances of success. Unfortunately, a bizzare thread of Liberalism now exists that suggests that people should somehow (and for some reason) have an equal chance of success. Also unfortunately, a bizzare thread of Libertarianism exists that suggests that the state can actually limit a person's freedom beyond the concept of liberty. Neither makes much sense.
Might as a primary motivator for change exists far beyond political ideology. Might can be as much a determinant in an anarchistic "utopia" as it can be in a fascist "utopia". However, might need not be a primary motivator (as we see in Western society today), nor does it need to be there at all as a systematic motivator, though it will likely always be with us an interpersonal motivator. Regardless, your individual need to use force is far less than ever in the history of civilization. Overall, might as a systematic motivator is a dying force when one looks at the overall progression of human civilization. And those are very much positive things.
In other words, the extent to which might exists is not static. There's a silly assumption that suggests that if one removed the might of the state than an equal might would simply take its place. That can certainly happen, but it's not gauranteed. You might end up with more, you might end up with less. You'll likely end up with less since the force exercised by the state is partly a function of its unprecedented ability to amass it and use it. But absent the state force, the distribution of the force that takes its place might be unjust or simply unacceptable as compared to the past.
A "might for right" activity extends from the views of those involved, be them state leaders or individual civilians. Affect the ideologies, and you'll affect the balance of might as a motivating factor. Constructive actions that combat hatred, anger, jealousy, desperation and the other causes of violence always serve as appropriate combatants to violence. Contractual justice systems concerned not with punitive measures or subjective moral aims but instead with objective recompense serve to diffuse violence. Removing the structures that allow bodies to amass significant amount of power and, more importantly, the tacit assumed consent that maintains those structures, and you'll have a society that can exist relatively free of force and coersion.
A society will only be free from force and coersion to the extent that individuals willingly reject force and coersion as appropriate behaviors.
Certainly both Liberals and Libertarians believe in a state.
I'm curious how you're using "might" here. A person who has "more resources" is not necessarily invoking "might" against you. This is the great Liberal fallacy, that there can be a "victim" absent a crime. Ownership of resources is not a crime.
Hehe...I'm curious, if I have a "single-minded obsession with money and greed" for wanting to keep what I've earned, what do those who want to take what I've earned have? Can't that statement simply be flipped around?
To defend those like me who believe that taxation is inherently evil, understand what we believe is wrong. We see force and coersion as wrong. And the last great manifestation of force and coersion, aside from war, is taxation. Were this 1968, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with the draft. Were this 1925, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with war. Were this 1850, we'd be "single-mindedly obsessed" with slavery.
For some, certainly, a desire to live without taxation is little more than a desire to have more money. But do understand that there are those of us whose desire to see an end to taxation stems from something much deeper.
of course youre right. maybe try saying things that are a little less perfect so i can try to argue with you,...???
i'm not saying that 'checks and balances' should or even were designed to be the basis, but in light of the evolving corruption writ the industrial revolution that is all we have left to hang our [american(s)] mantle of "justice" [democracy?] upon.
so, i suppose what i was truyl saying is what you finished by saying, except i would add that i am not that wise.
interesting. you probably are the most interesting voice on these boards 4 days out of each week FFG.
i'm gonna say that in america the president used to be vice-presidented by/with the person who got second-place,... so,....?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
becos it's a narrow-minded and disingenuous vision of coersion. it ignores that coercion can take many forms and that one can be far more coerced without taxes due to lack of bargaining power that is a result of no act they ever committed than another person is coerced by being "forced" to give up a small fraction of their excess to contribute to the society they share.
you describe freedom as an utter lack of responsibility. i would say that humans, as social creatures from the beginning of time, have more than just rights to freedom. they also, to an extent, have a responsibility to their fellows or tribe or however you want to describe it. for without society and the support of fellows, humans would have become extinct. i see nothing immoral about a tax then, or at best, its immorality is vastly outweighed by the immorality of one refusing to make good on their responsibility and debt to human society that ensured their existence.
libertarianism has serious problems. you talk about "your" wealth. how is it yours? you do not possess original wealth. you traded for it or inherited it. if you want to trace that ownership back, it will ALWAYS come back to acquisition by force: your wealth came down the pipe on the backs of african slaves via the guns of the british empire. or from the rifles of american frontiersmen as they slaughtered the natives. even if you won't accept that, eventually someone walked onto a piece of land and said "this is my land, and you cannot harvest or use it in any way. if you do, i will kill you." you cannot pretend your wealth is totally, unquestionably legitimate becos it inevitably came to you by force at some point in the chain of its acquisition and the fact that that force was used before the force of taxes levied on it does not make it acceptable or make your claim to it more legitimate or moral than government's claim on a fraction of your income in exchange for protecting your right to use that property from others BY FORCE.
force is an inevitable part of private property, becos one cannot have private property without the right to use force to protect it. you have the right to freedom of thought and whatnot, but your only right to exert control over external objects comes on the back of force and it does not matter if those external objects are other people's religious beliefs or your crockpot. becos somewhere along the line a unilateral individual decision was used to deprive others of the use of a good (land, or whatever) and defended by force. someone said "this apple orchard which used to be used by everyone to eat is now mine and mine alone and i will kill anyone who violates my ownership. there are good reasons for doing such a thing (tragedy of the commons) but that doesn't deny it's original acquisition and it certainly calls for some form of compensation, which in the original sense did not happen. the fact that you now bitch about the government doing the same thing you did to acquire "your" property is nonsensical.
i know you will break this up into 20 different sentences and make it look like my argument makes no sense, but anyone reading this as a whole will understand its logical weight. it is very easy to poke meaningless holes of credibility by questioning sound assumptions and discrediting by sheer number, it is much harder and more intellectually demanding to try to combat an argument as a whole. i know, i've done cross examination. if you take it sentence by sentence, you can make someone saying the ocean is wet look like an idiot. so i'd like to see you respond without the cheap tricks.