Libertarians (Looks at AwesomeGaythiest and BryanM)

And, more importantly I'd say, it doesn't take into account that enforcing a system of competition, an everyone-for-themselves system, breeds assholes.

Also, I know by "Communism" you're likely referring to the Marxist-Leninist states of the 20th century (and maybe the ideas developed even before that) but please stop equating them, people.

---------- Post added 4th Jun 2015 at 11:18 AM ----------

It is not community-centred. It is individualistic top-down. Check "The Nordic model".
Income is not distributed equitably at all. The Wallenberg alone proves that.
Income is relatively fairly redistributed. Value is expropriated from working people and some value is distributef to the workers while the rest is ascendingly concentrated toward the top, with the CEO's being the big dogs. Then, the government puts a tax on this value and gives a portion of the initial value back to ordinary people in the form of e.g. merit goods/services such as investing in health care.
Sweden isn't not 'really socialism'. Socialism=workers control their workplaces. We don't.
Sweden is a socialliberalist country.
It "works" better than many places, yes. But does that mean I don't see homeless people all around? No. Does that mean I can more than barely get along, being unemployed and not receiving any money for some time? No.
And to top it off, it is not at all controversial that Sweden is leaning away from sociallibrralism to neoliberalism, and things are rapidly detereorating.

Stupid yes, but not as federally controversial as one might think. Ever heard if TPP, TTIP and TISA? Yeah.

[/B]

---------- Post added 4th Jun 2015 at 11:23 AM ----------

 

No, I disagree with them on those issues because I prefer a more moderate approach to them.

I want welfare to be a bit more limited. I've seen the kind of dependency welfare can create and also some people lie about their incomes to get more benefits and get lucky enough to not get audited. Welfare gives people more than enough to live on. I'd support making welfare give the bare minimum. It's easy for some of you guys to say that you want a safety net for the poor if you've been living in a middle or high class neighborhood where you've never seen much poverty. I've seen many people in my working-class neighborhood who work hard to make ends meet and trying to resist the temptation of going on public assistance, then some of them fall of the wagon and quit their jobs.

We can't exactly afford to cut taxes for now in the U.S because of the National Debt. Once most of it or all of it is paid off, then I would want a more libertarian approach like gradual tax cuts.

National Health Care is something I support on a fiscal approach because it's a great alternative to Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S in which the American public still strongly supports.

 

If you tried living off welfare in Kentucky, you would die. It already is the bare minimum. About the only benefit one gets here, for having no job, is free health insurance. Other than that, you're better off with a job. Food stamps will cover, maybe, two weeks out of a month for a family of 4, and residential housing is limited to certain areas, almost all of which are not "nice neighborhoods".

It sounds lovely in California though...

 

I can't speak for the US, but we get similar arguments here. If you're unemployed here, you get about $112 a week - but only around $88 a week if you're aged 18-24. People really can't live comfortably on that income - and it certainly isn't enough to be buying luxurious items like flat screen televisions and Burberry handbags.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that living off benefits is easier than working a minimum-wage job.. that says more about the minimum wage being too low, than it does about benefits being too generous.

There was a survey recently here that asked people how common they think benefit fraudulence is - and it turns out the general public think it is far more common than it actually is in reality. Last time I checked, fraudulent benefit claims made up less than 1% of all claims - the people surveyed thought it was closer to 20% of all claims.

This is the scary thing though.. you get certain right-wing outlets that overuse the word 'scrounger' and 'cheat' and they create a hostile atmosphere towards those less fortunate, and make out like people claiming benefits are doing so because they're lazy, and we should all be outraged that these low lives are living off taxpayers' money - and the numerous morons here lap it up, and then believe benefit cuts are justified, even though they are not.

 

So... Why not work a job and get benefits at the same time? Doesn't the UK also give low-income tax credits and job training events too? Aren't there certain jobs one can get with just finishing secondary school...

 

That is what most people do. People can get help with the rent by claiming housing benefit, or child benefit, or council tax benefit, or income support. It's important to remember that most benefits simply exist in order to assist those on low incomes - not just for the workshy or lazy.

That is why penalising the unemployed is ridiculous - nobody voluntarily stays on unemployment benefits because you cannot live - unemployment benefit already covers the bare minimum necessary in order to live - sure, you can get help with rent and other costs, but that's it - you can't actually enjoy life at all. I have never met a person who was more than content with claiming unemployment benefits - the money received is a pittance, and nobody lives the life of Riley on $112 a week.

In almost all cases, the benefits people receive are absolutely necessary. A lot of people working cannot cover rent, or childcare, so have no choice but to claim benefits. I mean, benefits here aren't very generous compared to other countries in Western Europe so I find the idea of making benefits even less generous in the US - a country not renowned for its extensive safety net- to be insane.

Basically my point is, the amount of money a person, but more especially a single, childless person, can claim from the state, is restricted, and to suggest that people can just sit on their arses enjoying life while they have no disposable income whatsoever, is crazy.

 

So much social darwinism, sickening social darwinism, going on in this thread.

I can inform everyone that a university in Oslo just produced an extensive statistical paper that showed a very clear correlation between higher benefits and better safety net leading to higher desires to work.

I'm out of this.

 

That sums it up nicely' it does seem more about corporate freedom, than individual.

And I also worry about the environmental consequences of such a system; the Chesapeake Bay is increasingly incapable of supporting life, and less regulation is not going to bring it back, nor help other fragile systems. It would help the rich stay rich.

 

I am fully conversant in the origins, nature and history of the Nordic model. Historically, it actually is rooted in strong community fabric and a culture of trust, which is one of the reasons that thinkers such as Kilbom did not fall prey to the temptations that motivated Stalin's behavior. The Nordic model is based only partly on its welfare state and is not really the strongest part of the model. The better aspects are the laws negotiated between trade unions and the business owners, which not only protect workers but also make the country a very easy place to open and run a business. A huge percent of their labor is unionized, and this is partly because Sweden has more effective laws governing the behavior of unions.

What you are saying here is simply inaccurate. The income is actually more flatly distributed. The Nordic model is not based on redistribution. The welfare state is openly geared toward maximizing labor force participation, which is really similar in its aims to the welfare-to-work programs that succceeded under US president Bill Clinton.

It is one of the most unionized countries in the world. At one time, the trade union density was at over 80%, but the density has dropped to 67%, rounding down.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN

There, the decline seems to be slowing down. There is also a large public sector. Initially, I used careless language on the topic, but Sweden is probably closer than any country in the world to actually acheiving the aims of Karl Marx. Although the country's determination to pursue those aims may have waned, their recent history overall is a positive example of how an economy can accomplish a great deal by pushing their populace to acheive up to a common standard.

 

I hate positivist arguments if it's not me using them.
Like I said, things work relatively better here than many countries and I count myself lucky to live here. But things are waning, without sign of improvement.
And while distribution itself is also better than many other countries, redistribution is absolutely key to supporting the welfare state. And yes, The Revolution might have faded from Karl's eyes had he seen Sweden today, who knows ^^

Anyways, without conceding defeat and stubbornly rejecting the middle ground, well fought.
Let's just agree libertarianism sucks and shake hands. *shakes*

 

you sound more like a new age liberal.
in defense of liberals many liberal governments as in the case in my country new Zealand be-leave and act fiscally responsible, payed off nation dept etc and have limits in how far they intervene in the private sector and private affairs.

as for libertarians being stupid,corporate, greedy, as some posters claim.
jimmy wales (a libertarian)who founded Wikipedia was inspired by "The Use of Knowledge in Society'' written by hayek another libertarian.

in regards to being pro corporate the argument dosnt hold up considering nearly all libertarians are against bailouts of banks, corporate welfare ,or regulations that end up serving present big corporate players like how the patent system is currently set up.

 

Yeah, if you look at another one of my posts on this thread, I only disagree with them on those issues because I mostly prefer a more moderate approach.

The "libertarians are corporatists and love Wal-Mart" misconception dies hard....

 

Here's the simplest explanation of libertarian economics:



Thank you Doonesbury...

 

Trickle-Down-Economics...

It ain't money that's trickling on your face.

 

His tax cuts weren't gradual. The way he should have approached it was to inch it in a little bit at a time. If he was going to do something that drastic, he should have slowly introduced it. Also, he lost a lot of tax revenue because his tax-exemption law created a giant loophole which caused many other businesses to avoid paying taxes.

Brownback didn't think of legalizing drugs, which would have cut spending to prisons and bring tax revenue. Not only that, they didn't try to end capital punishment, which would have also cut additional spending.

Also, their spending is truly un-libertarian. They spent way more on farm subsidies in 2014 and 2015 than a few years ago. Farm subsidies make produce needlessly expensive and they hurt the poor the most.

 

libertarians don't believe in trickle down economics?. in fact i dont think any main school of economic thought does?.originally it was used to describe Supply-side economics under reagan(libertarians generally see supply and demand as 2 sides of the same coin)
it is mainly political idea and does not denote a specific economic theory.its pretty much solely a strawman argument these days.

free market theorists are what atheists are to theists .most arguments free market proponents make are to show how little people who seek to control the market know about the societies they can imagine they can create. or in other words the economic information (prices ect) needed to run an economy cant be a centralised process without hampering the efficiency of the means of production.

 

I'm all for regulation where it's needed, this is why.

 

With you on that. Also, what people think is the free market isn't really free at all. I mean, you have the subsidies being handed out to corporations and stifling regulations on starting a business, both of which favor big business (or people that were really lucky) and create unfair advantages.

Also, free markets are what makes countries prosper. Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore have the most laissez faire economies in the world and they went from rags to riches.

 

Libertarianism is awesome. I would consider myself an Anarchist, but since that's not really a valid political system currently, I consider myself a Libertarian because I agree with most of their platform. There's even a Libertarian group that specifically lobbies and fights for the LGBT community called Outright Libertarians which is cool.