You didn't answer the question. Who determines how much money is enough? Who determines what the methods of protecting these rights and the penalty for violating these rights are? Wouldn't you need a defense military to protect these rights from other nations?Narbus wrote:The right to life, liberty, and property of their citizens are the only rights that the government should protect. The money goes to protecting those rights.
Philosophy of Self Ownership
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
Well, it is a libertarian government, so I'd imagine the government would. However, the laws they have to work with would have to be restructured heavily to make sure that they don't overstep their bounds, and I'd imagine that there'd be frequent votes.
A much smaller than currently exists military would be necessary to prevent outside aggression, yes. But the military would actually be defensive, not the aggressive military we have now.
A much smaller than currently exists military would be necessary to prevent outside aggression, yes. But the military would actually be defensive, not the aggressive military we have now.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
and unfortunately that's the problem with libertarian government - the fact of the matter is that you still need force (voting) to put it in power. you will still have people, like me, who don't trust the state and don't want a government of any kind.
because governments exist to get bigger. when the USA was founded, the state existed basically only to defend.
just look at it now.
because governments exist to get bigger. when the USA was founded, the state existed basically only to defend.
just look at it now.
Exactly.. and as this progresses it develops into what we have in the US today. That is why Libertarians SHOULD vote and elect its leaders if they ever hope to make a difference. It is NOT hypocritical for Libertarians to vote. Thanks for helping me make a point.Narbus wrote:Well, it is a libertarian government, so I'd imagine the government would. However, the laws they have to work with would have to be restructured heavily to make sure that they don't overstep their bounds, and I'd imagine that there'd be frequent votes.
A much smaller than currently exists military would be necessary to prevent outside aggression, yes. But the military would actually be defensive, not the aggressive military we have now.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
I have yet to see a libertarian candidate for local office. I do think that government should be stronger on the local level than it is now, and with no candidates who support what I believe, it is difficult to find a rational reason to vote. However, yes, libertarians, as it is a government-based system, would need to vote.
However, I only recently became a libertarian, so.
And yes, there is always the trouble of government overstepping it's bounds, as there is with all governments. However, I don't see a situation arising (realistically) where government can be abandoned totally. Even if Galt's Gulch were to come into being, there will always be the irrational on the outside who need no reason besides greed to attack.
In a perfect libertarian system, there would be no need for force against rational people. The only time that force would be used is against irrational people who instigate the force and refuse to answer to rational thought.
From the Ayn Rand website:
"In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules)."
source
Of course, the issue of taxes does raise some troubles. I suppose it would be possible to refuse to pay taxes, and willingly give up services in return. A fee required for calling police, asking courts to deliberate disputes, etc.
However, I only recently became a libertarian, so.
And yes, there is always the trouble of government overstepping it's bounds, as there is with all governments. However, I don't see a situation arising (realistically) where government can be abandoned totally. Even if Galt's Gulch were to come into being, there will always be the irrational on the outside who need no reason besides greed to attack.
In a perfect libertarian system, there would be no need for force against rational people. The only time that force would be used is against irrational people who instigate the force and refuse to answer to rational thought.
From the Ayn Rand website:
"In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules)."
source
Of course, the issue of taxes does raise some troubles. I suppose it would be possible to refuse to pay taxes, and willingly give up services in return. A fee required for calling police, asking courts to deliberate disputes, etc.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
-
starvingeyes
- Oskar Winner: 2007
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
narbus - the solution. ayn proposed a voluntary tax. those who pay are on the list. those who don't, are not. if you are not on the list, well... the cops don't come.
furthermore, i recommend you read robert nozicks anarchy, state and utopia. it is the ultimate philosophical/pragmatic justification for libertarianism.
furthermore, i recommend you read robert nozicks anarchy, state and utopia. it is the ultimate philosophical/pragmatic justification for libertarianism.
ok, and what about roads? If you don't pay the tax, are you not allowed to drive on them?
How about this? If you don't pay the tax, is it legal for me to kill you?
A side note:
Answer this truthfully. Theoretically, the US could become a Libertarian governement if Libertarians were the majority and were voted into office?
How about this? If you don't pay the tax, is it legal for me to kill you?
A side note:
Answer this truthfully. Theoretically, the US could become a Libertarian governement if Libertarians were the majority and were voted into office?
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
The US government was founded on strongly libertarian principles, especially with the bill of rights. I see no reason it couldn't happen if a majority of libertarians were elected into office which is a VERY large 'if.'
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
that maybe true but inbetween back then and up until today something called Jacksonian Democracy was implamented, and hell broke loose. 
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
-
InnocentDe
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 7/19/2003, 7:10 pm
[quote="Daiye Spa"]Because it goes against human nature. Power vacuums have only ever ended in one way: with a new power taking its place. Call me jaded, but I don't trust people to suddenly all change and say, "Hey, I don't want to control people anymore! Let's all start living in peace and harmony and get rid of government! Anyone up for a round of 'We Are The World'?"
(quote]
LOL. I like that
(quote]
LOL. I like that
She stands/ in the rain/
always outside looking in/
trying to hide her pain/
trying to find your sin/
with a shiver and a tear/
it's everything you've feared-
from Amy- by De Choquette
always outside looking in/
trying to hide her pain/
trying to find your sin/
with a shiver and a tear/
it's everything you've feared-
from Amy- by De Choquette
-
closeyoureyes
- Oskar Winner: 2006
- Posts: 4746
- Joined: 8/2/2003, 1:36 pm
Well.. though i am a realist.. theory sometimes helps...people understand..
theoretically, the government should be trusted, valued etc, and In Canada, under the fed. liberals.. i cant really say i feel trusted.. i mean I like Chretien and all, but it seems like half the time he hasnt got his facts down...and as far as provincially, im under campbell, who is an asshole of a premier.. if you've ever heard one of his "speeches" you'll see why. he's all for the rich, and nought for the poor..he's just really stupid in how he does things... i mean.. he'll never get ellected again... im not even gonna comment on U.S government...
but like.. in theory the government is good...but in reality...people arent and so neither is the government...
theoretically, the government should be trusted, valued etc, and In Canada, under the fed. liberals.. i cant really say i feel trusted.. i mean I like Chretien and all, but it seems like half the time he hasnt got his facts down...and as far as provincially, im under campbell, who is an asshole of a premier.. if you've ever heard one of his "speeches" you'll see why. he's all for the rich, and nought for the poor..he's just really stupid in how he does things... i mean.. he'll never get ellected again... im not even gonna comment on U.S government...
but like.. in theory the government is good...but in reality...people arent and so neither is the government...sinead