why don't Democrats understand libertarians?

It really boils down to the fact that Democrats are authoritarian and hold much less value on the rights of the individual while libertarians believe that within the confines of the non-aggresion principal they are sacrosanct.

 

Yep...

Black is white, war is peace, yada, yada, yada...

 

I've already explained this … you're simply not listening. Where land scarcity is slight capitalism can work fine because rents don't consume nearly as much of producers income. As populations increase and advanced production takes place, landowners start TAKING more and more of a percentage of production. This is where capitalism begins to deteriorate and government begins to grow out of necessity. If the big government welfare checks stopped going out tomorrow all heck would break out ... capitalism has matured.

Landowners do not contribute to production. This can be proved by the fact that land taxes are the only tax that does not follow the Laffer Curve. Land value taxes produce more revenue the higher they are levied, all the way to 100% of the rental value of land. If landowners contributed to production, then such heavy taxation on their income would kill incentives, less would be produced and revenue would fall. But that doesn't happen and the reason it doesn't happen is because landowners do not earn the income they receive.

Improvements are not land and I do not favor taxing them … you are trying to change the topic to improvements because you know that landowners are economic parasites.

Private collection of land rent by landowners is not necessary to secure tenure. Shifting taxation onto land values changes nothing about how tenure is secured, legally nothing changes and tenure is just as secure.

So now you are claiming that they earn it because they don't destroy it? Your argument is getting more and more bizarre. Anyway, I was raised on a farm, I spent thousands of hours behind the wheel of a tractor. As farmers we supplied all the equipment, seed, fuel and labor, but after the crops were harvested we had to give the landowners 1/3rd the harvested crop. The landowners didn't contribute anything at all, and except for one, they never even showed their face … I never seen them in person. Shifting to land value taxation would have helped our family farm, because it would have removed our tax burdens. Instead of giving the landowners 1/3rd the crop for doing nothing, we would have paid that 1/3rd to the community, and been completely tax free after that.

 

You simply insist on posting right-wing rhetoric nonsense filled with cliché’s and name calling, don't ya.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait for it they will get around to it

 

Unfortunately it appears our experiences differ because I have found that simply is not the case. Black is not white (simply many shades of gray) and war is definitely not peace. However my assessment is accurate. Democrats are authoritarian. Like the GOP it is an authoritarian based party. Not to say that there are not liberals that are not authoritarian (I know many liberal libertarians). Perhaps like too many you conflate the modern usage of "liberal" and "Democrat". No fear...it is not an uncommon mistake.

 

yes, I much prefer answers that answer the question. Read the op and try it.

 

Perusing this thread there is evidence that the answer to your question is multi-faceted. Some Democrats don't seem to understand what they themselves support by placing that "D" after their name. Others have a very prejudiced, violent and unrealistic viewpoint of what libertarians actually believe- almost to the point of blind bigotry. Some Democrats however (and this is the minority) are actually intellectual in their beliefs. They are educated and are able to voice what they believe and provide a rational argument to support it (these are the folks that I respect, but they seldom post usually do to their disdain for their mindless brethren).

 

Lol, it is pretty funny. More than one have roughly said, "nut uh, we understand libertarians! They're dumb, ignorant idiots!"

 

Certainly. But I do not concern myself with the wanton ignorance of others. On occasion, people shed such buffoonery and will wish to engage in sincere conversation regarding the topic.. Usually it is at the point when they have the epiphany that they should fear living in ignorance more than they should fear exploring open, cogent conversation.

 

Libertarians believe consistent challenges increases the strength of something and those challenges can sometimes be quite fatal. Historically speaking you can take any empire in history and see themselves having near absolute domination then then proceed to decay. The consistent destruction and creation of everything in existence has created a far stronger world. If there are no challenges and you wish to solely accept that organization A is the clear answer to all problems than there is no "progress" just stagnation. Libertarians want experimentation which is why giving the choice to the individual is far superior overall compared to giving the power to bureaucrats, politicians, and lobbyists who make up a small sample of the overall population. The idea that consistent experimentation makes no sense is the clear indicator as to why you'll never progress or understand why people experiment in the first place.

What countries do you speak of that willingly decides to engage in being unorganized and less efficient?

You seem pretty clueless as to what Libertarians want... it's as if you think we're trying to do as you do which is to control people's perspectives and ability to do as they please with themselves.

What has really been apparent throughout history is the ignorance of the common man who willing follows the herd because it's out of the norm and/or they're afraid they'll die for it. That is sole reason why humanity has taken so long to progress... not because of your belief that Libertarians believe in "magic". It's people such as yourself that believe people need to be controlled and perfection is already here. Your mindset brings stagnation.

 

It's apparent what Libertarians want. And you just described exactly what I said. It's a survival of the fittest approach. That's why you can go throughout history and all the strongest societies had strong governments. Even early America had a strong government. One of the first things they did when they came to America is develop a government, lol. Organized societies are far more efficient than disorganized ones. Having strong generations are far more efficient than having weak ones that just are allowed to destroy themselves because of some ridiculous philosophy. Everything you guys complain about not being able to do is just dumb.

I mean everything from walking in the nude, to cooking meth in your backyard, to owning businesses where you refuse service to people based on whatever you want. You guys have the weakest arguments against organization. It's just all philosophical bs. It's why not a single developed country in the entire world abides by libertarian principles and countries are becoming more and more organized and understanding of how to develop stronger societies.

There is no place for libertarianism in the real world. That's why it is relegated to .com blogs and a political party which gets about 1% of the vote. It's not even a relevant party or philosophy. Because majority of people think it is ridiculous and would make our country much weaker.

 

Survival of the fittest isn't the absolute Libertarian approach because there are Libertarians who donate to charities. If we truly are truly what you describe we would believe "Might makes right" but, that isn't the case at all. If we truly followed that principal we would be in favor of an aggressive foreign policy. Going to economics plenty of businesses have died and many products have died out because of impracticality. Do you weep for the changes throughout history because everything was so much better? Do stay up at night thinking of the horrors Libertarians brought upon the world by using alcohol on wounds instead poop that cost the jobs of physicians? What about the fall of all the Empires that were absolutely perfect (In your mind)?

Those strong governments(Emperors/Kings/Dictators) you also mentioned also committed inhumane acts towards their enemies and their own people. Just because they were dominant doesn't mean they were better than what came afterwards... if that were truly the case the Roman Empire should be still in existence but, that is faded because of the corruption and inability to adapt. Everything becomes obsolete eventually and all Empires fall.

Organization is wonderful and it keeps people informed in terms of defending themselves from their hostile neighbors(Rival governments + Native tribes) during that period of time. While it also helped the management the societies desired together was far more beneficial for the whole. The difference between your ideas of a strong government and my own is that you believe in a strong Federal government bureaucracy that handles the problem of that state my own belief is that the government level should start at the town level. Having layers of organization and delegating duties/laws with a bottom up approach is far more receptive and organized compared to a top down approach the current system works.

Not being able to do? The current Constitution allowed for States to make their own social policies and anything else not described in the Constitution yet, the Federal government believes it has a say in the social/economic policies of every state when you have bureaucrats legislating laws concerning areas where they've never been or in topics they know nothing about. How are people in my home state able to tell the Federal government they don't desire X & Y when they have outvote 98 different Senators and 433 Representatives who may be in favor of it? The policies could be in terms of social laws deciding on what people have to wear on Sunday but, New Hampshire doesn't even follow that social norm at all yet they have to abide by it. Top down approach policies is ineffective and that's why a bottom up approach is the general method Libertarians wish to go by.

If a town established that people are allowed to walk in the nude and every Representative was in favor of it all then the law is passed... a changing of that law could be easily altered/thrown out at the town level. There is far less people to manage in a town and you generally don't have hundreds of bureaucrats & committees reviewing every piece of legislation. How exactly is it "philosophical bs" to point out that person A owns a business and refuses to give service to person B? Does person A not own the business or do you the voting individual decide who is allowed to enter their store? That belief is just as crazy as previous societies that outlawed people from services because the underlying belief is that the government decides who is welcome and who isn't it.

There is no place for autonomy, freedom of choice, political freedom, voluntary association, and the underlying belief that the individual should have their fate put into their own hands? Sounds a lot like an Authoritarian state that crushes that ideas of the individual in order to perpetuate the status quo... sounds like the typical empire that has fallen.

You only want stagnation.. not progress.

 

AHA!

CHAOS THEORY!

How exciting.

 

I am still waiting for the PF monkeys to type something sensible, but all they do is keep defecating on their keyboards...

 

I also disagree that "economic libertarianism" failed anyone. Throughout history it has been the freedom to engage in financial transactions in a voluntary manner which has had the most positive effect on society. It has been the manipulation of the money supply which has wrought the most damage. Buy and read The Creature From Jekyll Island, A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, by G. Edward Griffin and you'll understand the whole mess.

 

By whom?

Is libertarianism the the champion of Laissez-faire? Is that Libertarians want?

 

The Gilded Age, "an era of serious social problems disguised by a thin gold gilding." those great economic gains covered serious social problems with a thin gold gilding, thats nothing to be proud of.

"There was a significant human cost attached to this period of economic growth,[26] as U.S. industry had the highest rate of accidents in the world.[27] In 1889, railroads employed 704,000 men, of whom 20,000 were injured and 1,972 were killed on the job.[28] The U.S. was also the only industrial power to have no workman's compensation program in place to support injured workers.[27]"
So are the deaths of innocent workers in much higher numbers really worth the economic boom we get from it?

Yeah thats what they want

 

Yes, the deaths of "innocent workers" is worth it... Just as a reformation/renaissance involved the deaths of thousands in order for the human race to excel. Death is a catalyst... open up a history book and you'll see every transition is followed by a massive amount of death. It's a terrible situation that humans have to die in order for a better tomorrow to be had but, experimentation is at times quite fatal. When the Space colonial era begins and there is a chance of faulty equipment which involves the deaths of hundreds to thousands does that mean human race simply quits?

 

Oh yes, I'd be very sceptical about sites with that name.

What are the people who want to limit gun ownership saying to justify it? There's many people who want to do that, not all of them can be evil can they? You need to listen to their justification and realise that some people actually have a different understanding of the world than you do, and that they consequently want different things done in order to make things better. To not accept that they have good intentions is to dehumanize them.

I suppose they're some libertarians who really do want chaos, but like anarchists, they are just naive fools, nevermind them. Consequentialist libertarians -like me, I suppose, to a degree- see that organisation and order do not always need government supervision -languages, and the free market are examples- and that these natural and unplanned systems often do a much better job than planned ones -like the soviet economy and esperanto. Being a libertarian in that sense is then only to prefer the superior system of organisation over the inferior one.

The netherlands and great britian have a long history of capitalism as well, and I suppose both, especially the former, had a moderate land shortage. Yet no cities burnt to the ground. In fact, these economies prospered.

wait.. What are we even arguing here? I am defending private ownership of land. Are you arguing against that, or are you just talking about some tax?

 

So should slavery be allowed? It benefits society at the expense of "innocent workers", just as you were defending.

 

No, because that isn't free will of the individual. Every action that has been a great catalyst for human freedom involved the free will of hundreds to thousands against an oppressive organization in order to better themselves. When I look at the Great Wall & the Pyramids I don't see splendor or human ingenuity... I see the concepts of a dark world where the few control the many. When I open a history book or go to a historical site where many gave their lives in order to be free that touches me more than these "Wonders". The world didn't advance because of slaves... it was always held back because of them. So many lost minds that could have been something more but, were wasted for sport of for labor.

To go back to your question I don't see any advancements from slavery and it merely stagnates technological growth. If it meant seeing all of the "Wonders" of the world disappear so be it... I'd rather see every person learning and challenging the status quo rather than being oppressed.

 

I don't think things were as rosy as you seem to believe. This is how libertarian Albert J Nock described that period in Britain:

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis Nock's] -- Albert J. Nock, "The Gods' Lookout" February 1934

When I said “cities burn to the ground” I was speaking figuratively. From here forward just assume that I meant that capitalism (land monopoly) causes an unmanageable amount of oppression and conflict, which ends up supporting government growth.

In the legal sense I would leave landownership as it is now. On the other hand, I would allow the market to set the rates of taxation on land. If the market was allowed to set the rate of land taxation based on voluntary offers, then government would collect enough revenue from land that all other taxes could be abolished.

I cannot believe you have been on this forum for this long and you do not know the geolibertarian position/argument. Here is a quick overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

 

The two most common I've personally come across is:

There's no point to owning a firearm

You need to be in a militia, which is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. Possibly dishonest too.

The only people who are responsible enough to own a firearm is military and law enforcement.

But when you do the digging you can see that these are wrong and based on a form of bigotry. You see, a lot of anti firearm people have a negative stereotype of rural people, and I think that's where the anti firearm bias comes from. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

Democrats don't understand for the same reason Republican "conservatives" don't understand; There is little or no baggage attached with real Libertarians. There is no list of "Thou shalt nots"

Thou shalt not have guns
Thou shalt not have abortions

Thou shalt not say the "N" word
Thou shalt not say the "F" word.

Thou shalt not have religion
Thou shalt not have gay marriage

Thou shalt not show violent movies with Sly Stalone blowing away Wesley Snipes (Demolition Man)

Thou shalt not show movies with Sly Stalone blowing Wesley Snipes.

As for pot, well .......

In other words, let's get the government out of people's private lives. THAT is what a true Libertarian believes.

Are you a real Libertarian, or a hard right religious conservative posing as one?

(Don't you just love the English language? At times, it can be SO precise.)

 

That's funny because I remember a whole bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians aggressively supporting Ron Paul, who was all for controlling people. Democrats, republicans, and many self-proclaimed libertarians love to control people - they just different in which areas of people's lives they want control.