"myths And Half-truths About Illegal Immigration"

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Apokalupsis OK, so the Iraqi and Irish societies, are your "exhibits" as evidence for what a "successful libertarian" nation could be like? I want to make sure this is your position before responding.

No, they are not pure exhibits of what such a nation could be like. They have exhibited libertarian tendencies and have been successful to one degree or another. Irish independence lasted for centuries, even with a very powerful, and very jealous, nation state right next door.

Are they perfect examples, no. Do they show some of the proper characteristics, yes.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Iraq has shown no libertarian tendencies except constant war, which would be a characteristic. Ireland had as strong a government as was possible under the circumstance and was largely controlled by the Catholic church, not exactly libertarian.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you claim that unending wars such as those in Ireland and Iraq are desirable, then I guess you could want the situations in Iraq and Ireland. By the way, Britain at one time completely dominated Ireland, It has only gained some autonomy in recent years. By the way, what have such societies done to help humanity? raise life expectancy and such.

Hell, with having to fight off marauding nation states as they have, what would you expect them to accomplish? Their mere survival is a powerful testament.

Is that what I would expect from a technologically advance libertarian society? I don't think so. I would expect a technological society without government interference to be far more powerful than any of its neighbors.

Admittedly, I don't have an example of such an advanced society without a powerful government. But, I can see no evidence that a powerful government is a prerequisite for a technologically advanced society. Our own country advanced far faster in the past, technologically and economically, with less government than it has today. I would challenge you to give me an example of any society changing technical advancements over the past 30 years. Everything since 1970, and likely long before, has been mere incremental change, nothing revolutionary. That's what organizations such as the FDA has left us with.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

What? Historians assert that the past half century has witnissed the fastest change of any period in history, Space program, computers, and countless other innovations only made possible through the massive effort and recources that a government can organize.

How would a libertarian state be powerful, no taxes, no draft, no nothing! Only destructive terrorist style warfare.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary What? Historians assert that the past half century has witnissed the fastest change of any period in history, Space program, computers, and countless other innovations only made possible through the massive effort and recources that a government can organize. How would a libertarian state be powerful, no taxes, no draft, no nothing! Only destructive terrorist style warfare.

I said 30 years. The Space Shuttle is 1960's stage technology grafted to 1970's engine technology (which was not Earth-shattering, even at the time, just an incremental improvement over other liquid fueled rockets proposed in 1903 by Tsiolkovsky and first flown in 1926). We have had no advancements in space since then. Absolutely none. (This is a pet area of mine, I have some acquaintance with it.)

[Actually, on edit, I might point out the advancement made by Space Ship One by Scaled Composites. And, I have a personal friend of mine working for XCOR Aerospace, where they've built a rocket powered airplane that can be turned around and reflown within about an hour. Both companies are pretty much independent and operate out of the airfield in Mojave, CA. The government can't claim anything but interfering with such start-ups as these.]

Computers are based on incremental changes from the transistor and integrated circuit. The transistor was first proposed in the 1920's and first built in the 1940's. The integrated circuit, just a modular collection of transistors and other parts, again, incremental, first proposed and built in the 1950's. While Wikipedia refers to government projects, the people who did this were actually employed by Texas Instruments. (And, still, just incremental from the transistor, and beyond the 30 year time frame I gave.)

The best thing the government has done for computers is stayed the hell out of the way. Sure, the internet is based on technology developed by ARPA, in the 1960's, but what we know today is based on free markets and due to the lack of government involvement for the past few decades. The computer industry, and other closely related industries, are far less regulated and government supported than any other industry in the world. I would contend their rapid development is due to a lack of government involvement, unlike your claim to the opposite.

What major technological breakthrough have we seen in the past 30 years? And, how was that specific breakthrough brought about by government involvement?

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

1960's stage technology helped along by facist Nazi germany. but that's besides the point.

I don't think that government normally makes the innovations itself,( at least not in a free market society) but it does allow for them to happen. In a secure society with stable politics people are free to concentrate on prosperity. If I had to stay home and defend myself from roving bands of thieves, because the government won't, then I'm not likely to invent a computer.

If you are unable to come up with a sure fire way that a state with no real government would be prosperous then I'm not willing to go on your personal belief. It's certainly better than a tribal society, and at least we aren't living to 40.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 1960's stage technology helped along by facist Nazi germany. but that's besides the point. I don't think that government normally makes the innovations itself,( at least not in a free market society) but it does allow for them to happen. In a secure society with stable politics people are free to concentrate on prosperity. If I had to stay home and defend myself from roving bands of thieves, because the government won't, then I'm not likely to invent a computer. If you are unable to come up with a sure fire way that a state with no real government would be prosperous then I'm not willing to go on your personal belief. It's certainly better than a tribal society, and at least we aren't living to 40.

But, with a more powerful government, people aren't free to concentrate on prosperity. They're limited to concentrating on complying with rules and regulations. Currently an enormous proportion of our efforts in this country are expended in complying with government regulations and paying the taxes that are necessary to support that government.

How about we agree to disagree on the elimination of the government. Let's both concentrate on eliminating 75-90% of the government we have today. We can even agree to keep the majority of what's there. We could eliminate 75% of today's government by rolling back to what we had in 1935. Definitely not a point of "minimal government".

Let's agree to work to that end and, when we get to that point, we can then debate whether the rest of it should go.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Sure, but don't trust me not to opportunistically make my own paramilitary to overthrow this new weak government and take power for myself.:)

[JJB]

I also like the idea of cutting spending and lowering taxes.

However, I think we also have to be realistic; you're probably never going to see such drastic reductions in government.

In the short term, it would be smart to balance the budget. In the long term, it would be better to reform Healthcare and Social Security, which together consume about 2/3 of the budget (http://www.federalbudget.com/).

As a goverment employee, I get a choice of private, government-sanctioned health and retirement plans, which are more valuable and less expensive to the taxpayer than anything the government can offer directly.

If we apply such privatization to the national level, and give people a choice, that alone would solve a lot of our budget problems.

[brien]

How would a libertarian state be powerful, no taxes, no draft, no nothing! Only destructive terrorist style warfare.

This is not a Libertarian state. Nowhere in the LP platform is there a pledge for NO taxes or NO nothing. Please familiarize yourself with the LP at:

Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon

Preamble As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles. These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: JJB I also like the idea of cutting spending and lowering taxes. However, I think we also have to be realistic; you're probably never going to see such drastic reductions in government. In the short term, it would be smart to balance the budget. In the long term, it would be better to reform Healthcare and Social Security, which together consume about 2/3 of the budget (http://www.federalbudget.com/).

FYI:

"In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion.

The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher." Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: brien This is not a Libertarian state. Nowhere in the LP platform is there a pledge for NO taxes or NO nothing. Please familiarize yourself with the LP at: Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee Adopted in Convention, July 2, 2006, Portland Oregon

It's a libertarian state as the member I was arguing concieves it.

[brien]

It's a libertarian state as the member I was arguing concieves it.

And I was more interested in bringing the true platforms of the LP into proper focus rather than having you belabor under false LP ideals. Because people say something is a Libertarian platform, like NO TAXATION, doesn't make it true. I merely was interested in bringing the true LP platforms into focus so you could accurately judge the LP.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: ByaKya Welcome back apok, glad to see you again, really. Can you tell me the name of a communist state, past or present that isnt run by a psycho, a murderer, tyrant, etc?

Relevancy?

that way we can truely see the success or failture of communism. you talk like someone that got all he needed to know about communism from the cold war.

Ad hominem.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger No, they are not pure exhibits of what such a nation could be like. They have exhibited libertarian tendencies and have been successful to one degree or another. Irish independence lasted for centuries, even with a very powerful, and very jealous, nation state right next door.

What specific characteristics and tendencies were displayed?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Apokalupsis What specific characteristics and tendencies were displayed?

The Celtic Irish had a very weak, pretty much non-existent, central government with very high levels of self-soveriegnty. They had a non-geographically allocated, independent judiciary. They had no standing army. And, they were still able to keep the English at bay for several hundred years.

The example the Iraqis are setting is that it is not necessary to have a large standing army answering to a centralized government to keep an invader from taking control of a region. The insurgents and private militias seem to pretty much answer to no one with some degree of guidance from spiritual leaders.

Somalia is another country that is setting some interesting examples. Now, don't take that to say that I want to have a parallel to what they're going through. However, several sectors of the Somali economy are growing quite rapidly, even as the Somali people are resisting the reinstatement of a centralized government. The problems that are arising there are due to some people wanting to take control, either as an actual or a pseudo government. The areas where the people have been able to be left alone and free from outside interference and the imposition of warlords are actually doing fairly well in a lot of ways.

As I said, examples with some degree of success. None of these are clear parallels to a technologically advanced libertarian society but they do show different ways in which government could be considered superfluous, even areas where modern Americans often think government is absolutely necessary. Defense, judiciary and economy.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Insurgency is not defence, it allows the enemy to take your private property and land, just not to get comfortable. The Irish were decentralised becaused they were forced to be, not because they wanted to be. They had a king until the English killed him.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Insurgency is not defence, ...

It seems to be working pretty well against the invaders in Iraq. Do you think it would be much different if it was the U.S. that had been invaded and the "insurgents" were American citizens?? Of course, they wouldn't be "insurgents" then, they'd be "freedom fighters".

[Gods_Mercenary]

It still wouldn't be a real defence, our lands would still be occupied and our citizens desecrated. Our insurgency would just make the occupier uncomfortable, that's all. Real defence of citizens involves protecting them.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It still wouldn't be a real defence, our lands would still be occupied and our citizens desecrated. Our insurgency would just make the occupier uncomfortable, that's all. Real defence of citizens involves protecting them.

It worked quite well for the Afghanis when the Russians invaded.

Keith