I was going over Jays thread on the search for a label and thinking about some of the comments.

Language seems to be so slippery. Even when we try to describe ourselves as being this or not that we slip into a "predjudical mode" in that by attempting to put ourselves in a box defined by our own parameters we exclude the numerous other possibilities as being a component of ourselves.

Tolerance is an example. I like to think I'm a tolerant person and try to live accordingly. You know, live and let live, if it harm no other do what you will etc. But it seems like to be ABSOLUTELY tolerant anything goes, anywhere, anytime for everyone. I would question the wisdom of this approach as to is practical applicability to real life.

Annie said she's libertarian. I think I understand what that means but I suspect theres a limit to how far Annie would take it. For example, does that mean a total hands off attitude for government, or the individual, when wrong is being commited to another? Does our tolerance or libertarian labels require us to ignore "unfairness" or the other slippery qualities that might call us to action? Or should we just mind our own business?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2002

Answers

Or just eschew the labels again! ;-) Women have it easier, we have the societally-assumed label of "Apt to change her mind without any warning!" {smirk}

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2002

I explain being a Libertarian the easiest by saying that I value the Constitution as it was written by our Founding Fathers as the primary "law of the land", and the government should exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

All laws, whether written or verbally applied, must be Constitutional in nature, many, many laws are not. Jurys should feel free to uttilize the little known law of finding the defendant not guilty purely because the crime he/she committed does not exist under the Constitution.

Many folks find the Libertarian policy regarding drug laws repugnant, basically it states that drug use by an adult, like alcohol use and tobacco use, should be the responsibility of the consumer, and all DUI and under the influence if driving or operating a vehicle on public road ways still apply.

Additionally, since we are to be as self sufficient as possible, most, is not all, forms of welfare and social services and "free- monies" are eliminated. Most welfare essentally "rewards" irresponsible behavior, and is counter productive to the Nation as a whole. Social services for the truly needy are best left to the private sector, administrated by non profit agencies. For example, instead of the millions and millions of dollars spent on the foster child program, non profit orphanages and family style group homes are used. Having witnessed first hand the abuses of the foster parent program ( people do it as a "business, and don't care about the children at all, most all of the time!!!), I would rather see money spent in this manner, where everything can be accounted for open to public scrutiny.

Libertarian means being responsible for one's actions, holding all public services accountable for their actions, and allowing the largest amount of freedoms for everyone, equally under the Constitution, as long as one's freedoms don't infringe upon another's freedoms, that is a very key point.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2002

Thanks Annie: That was a great explanation. What is the LIbertarian view of business? What role should business play in a libertarian society and what constraints should be placed on business if any?

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2002

That is a good point John, we have been self employed forever, my family also has always been self employed, farmers and the like, even coal mine operators on a small scale back in the years following the Depression, so we have a very negative attitude towards unions and the purpose of unions, so my comments about business will be stilted I'm afraid towards allowing the strong, healthy businesses to survive. In my opinion, unions allow non productive workers to remain on the job as slackers, if they have real gripes, they can be effectively dealt with in the judicial system, that is what that is for.

The business economy should be allowed to be a totally free market, this is so very far removed to what is happening with our economy that the true benefits and implications of a totally free market are hard to fathom, much less see in action.

Above all, businesses must remain true to the Constitution as well, and no taking advantage of people and the environment, responsibility and accountability are paramount, the almighty buck should not be the "bottom line" when the choice is people's lives and well being, if what you do involves damage to the environment or to people's lives potentially, you must pay for the damage, or rectify the situation as soon as possible.

Additionally, the whole idea of illegal aliens would be eliminated as border constraints would be almost non existent, people would be encouraged to come and work here, just like we all did years and years ago, free to seek our personal happiness and provide for ourselves as we please, and all these immigrants would have to pay those minimal taxes just like the rest of us to support our country. The whole idea of limiting immigration now is totally egaltarian in nature, we were allowed to come here and live and work, but now we don't want others to do the same??? Something is not right with this picture. Of course, without all those welfare programs in effect, the true immigrants who honesty want a better life will come, ones who will live up to the responsibility of providing for themselves and their families.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2002

I think I understand what you're saying.

So with a really free market system there would be no subsidies for anyone? Including specific, targeted industries who currently get sweetheart deals and special legislative treatment?

On the other side of the same coin, what role do corporations have regarding the electoral process? Should they be able to make campaign contributions? They're not a voting entity so I don't see why they should but the supreme court has ruled that a corporation is a person and has an equal right to "free speach". Do libertarians consider corporations to be people and the uninhibited contributions to be "free speach" or is it instead the purchase of influence?

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2002

No subsidies for anyone, it screws up the market, making an unfair advantage to the rest of us not recieving subsidies, you either are clever enough to do it on your own hardwork, or you don't survive in the business world.

Ugh, lobbyists and campaign finances, what a dirty word!!! Lobbyists have no place in the world of Libertarians, campaign contributions should be equally limited to any and all parties, the way it is set up now is to the advantage of the Big Two parties, purposely to hinder the other political parties out there! Corporations should count no more than any other one persons contribution, otherwise money is buying a vote, or the vote. Money contributed by any one person or corporation should not be able to influence the vote's outcome, something it does do now, just look at how Dubya got in office (shudder and shake)!!!

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2002