Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. (Info)  (Read 3576 times)

Pseudomancer

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

;D Alright, I'm a fairly liberal person.  By this I mean that I am interested in improving our race and the world that we use, primarily I believe in the liberty part of liberal and I don't understand much of where the other ideas came from (Such as socialism).  I don't find it to be bad to be socialist, but then when I think of socialist I think of being for the people first and government last.  Of course modern meanings of these words are pretty damn twisted around.

I am interested, as stated in my subject, in getting to know some topics I haven't seen as much discussion on.  I willingly admit I might touch on a few that have been discussed.

A few types of people I am concerned about; The mentally unstable, mentally challenged, disabled, homeless, and the hopeless.  How does the FSP think of these individuals?  Some of them I believe require assistance, though I would like to hear other options if they exist.   Some willingly put themselves into their status, and some would like to move up but in the case of the more motivated homeless, many of them will find it extremely difficult to get a job without access to a shower, proper nutrition, or stable friendships.  Anyway, don't think I'm some nutty liberal that wants to hold everyone's hand, I'm just curious about what we could do about these people, those without the ability to survive on their own/work, those that choose to be freeloaders, and those that have difficulty achieving their ambitions.

You all seem fairly centrist, which is good; myself, I don't believe in holding an unbreakable opinion.  Being able to understand the various grays and colors in this world is what lends to a great strength.  If you're going to lose 90% of your platoon to a strategy deemed 'the best idea so far' I would be the guy calling for a reassessment.  If there is a question here, it is probably along the lines of whether or not the ideals of the FSP are on-par with my own.

How will you/would you deal with communications?  The internet, telephones, television, etc?  Right now those lines are privileged only to a select couple or few companies.  There is zero competition for the most part and after checking out my last bill from the ISP I'm wondering why it is that prices are still the same as years ago, with little, no, or less progress than before?  I personally think it is because there is too much protection for these companies by the feds but I am interested in your opinions.

Family discipline.  A complex subject since on the one hand, I believe no child should be punished by force, but on the other I don't see why someone should go to jail for spanking the kid (withen reason) for doing something bad (withen reason).  Where do some of you stand on this issue?  Not just spanking but any kind of domestic disputes involving force be it with the children or spouse.

Homosexuals I have seen are accepted withen the FSP.  I was mostly going to ask about whether homosexuals would be allowed to adopt, but to broaden the question how will adoption be handled... at all?

Maybe I'll add some more to this later but I don't want my post to get passed up by being too wordy.  This project sounds very enlightening and I appreciate any answers I get in response. 

-B.G.
Logged

FreeBoB

  • Guest

-B.G.

Welcome!

A quick note -  you can subscribe to the new monthly newsletter, the FSP News here: http://www.freestateproject.org/news/fspnews/ 

Brian
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident

You touch on a number of interesting issues, and I will attempt to hit each briefly while providing a quick look at the general framework that I use to approach basically anything.

Re: the homeless, mentally unstable, etc. 
As a libertarian, I have a pretty strong belief in the benefit of private charities.  I also think it would be hard to overestimate the harm that is actually done to the homeless, for example, by misguided government regulations.  Imagine you're homeless--hell, AND disabled--and you would give anything to make just a couple dollars an hour to get back on your feet.  Unfortunately, employers are prevented from paying you less than $5/hr, which may make the transaction a bad deal for them.  At the same time, they may be forced to provide an address (which you don't have) to the government for witholding of taxes (so you get screwed again), or maybe even provide benefits or retirement to you without being sure that you'll show up for work tomorrow (having been arrested for the heinous crime of loitering or sleeping on a subway grate).  Businesses hedge their bets instead and hire someone with an address, which at least lets them know that their inflated and forced investment won't be quite so apt to disappear.  They might make a different calculation in the absense of minimum wage, etc.

Re: communications
I've got no patience for government-enforced monopolies; I used to work for Verizon.  At the same time, antitrust law is complete bullshit.  The problem is that you have a company that's initially willing to make the investment to do something like lay copper wire or train track, and all the sudden it becomes a network that the country can't do without.  Then because other companies refuse to put up the initial funds to create alternate networks, the government decides it's a monopoly that needs busting, and requires the original company to share this thing that it paid to build with companies who didn't pay to build it.  As a result, new companies tend to take the easy route, using the preexisting network technology because it keeps their costs down, and innovation (in the form of wireless networks, etc.) is stymied because government is incentivizing exactly the wrong behavior.  My solution?  You build it, you own it.  You provide crappy service, you give someone a reason to invest to compete with you.  As technology progresses, people become more creative about ways to compete and innovation flourishes.

Re: Family discipline
Tough one.  Within reasonable bounds, I believe that parenting is the role of parents--specifically the parents of a particular child.  My child-rearing philosophies have no bearing on anyone else's (with the exception of my husband).  Children are a very difficult issue for libertarians, and I have yet to resolve my own position--certainly out and out abuse is deplorable.  I'm just not sure how to react to it legally.  Spousal abuse is different because a marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and I believe that it's wrong for the government to parent anyone, least of all a grown-up.  In fact, government merely continues the victimization in some sense by continuing to treat the abused spouse as a person who cannot act on his or her own behalf.  Like the song says, "I'd rather my man hit me/ than for him to up and quit me/ Ain't nobody's business if I do."

Re: adoption
Adoption's fine, but I presume it would be private.  No government involvement--again, the no parenting rule.

Overall, my guiding philosophy is this: My right to swing my fists ends at the tip of your nose, and likewise.  The right to self-ownership--which is free will in a nutshell--leads to all other liberties.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

Pseudomancer

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

Good answers.  The whole concept is great to me.  My only concern is of course the 'what ifs' but then I tend to think if even half of the libertarian principles were enacted it would make up for whatever wasn't.   This project's success could very well lead to a libertarian president in the future. 

One of my biggest pet peeves is property tax.  You spend over 400,000 bucks on land and a home and are expected to pay life-long taxes.  You never own anything, it just seems wrong.  I want them to do away with it however there is one hitch in the idea that bothers me.  With libertarian principles it seems many would want no regulation on land giveaways... but what happens when some million/billionaire buys all available land?  Perhaps a limit to how much property one can own?  Perhaps some regulation would be good here?  Afterall you talk about my rights ending where your nose begins -- well if I can not own any land or afford to pay rent to the landowner(s) doesn't that infringe on me a bit?  Just sort of a curious question... we had this problem back in history too, I suspect it would happen again if unchecked.  I don't think un-ending taxes are the cure though. 

By the way, I know that renting land is perfectly fine and hell I am a renter, but there is a difference between owning a bit of property and putting up apartments and buying all possible land plots in the state.  Then we're all slave to a wealthy landowner and things become all about class again.  Rather than government interference in peoples lives... you have the haves and have nots all over again.  So there's a bit of conflict for my mind, probably solvable with an elected position for housing and property management I presume.  So long as the person in charge is accountable perhaps this problem would be avoided.

My 2 cents, I'd like to hear yours,

-B.G.
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident

Does the B in B.G. stand for Bill, by any chance?  ;) If not, please disregard the FSP in-joke.

I would have to say that haves and have-nots are a truth of life, and it's an idea of somewhat dubious merit anyway.  (I'm hardly wealthy--at what point am I a "have-not?")  The idea of making everyone "haves" has led to the declaration of all sorts of "rights" that infringe on plenty of real ones, and one of those would be the property right, as manifested in the ability of an owner to sell however much and to whomever he desires.  Imagine that you own the last twelve chocolate chip cookies in the world, and no more will ever be made.  You have 15 people who want to buy them at various prices, one of whom is willing to pay twice as much as the others and wants all twelve.  What do you do?  If you're me, you sell to that guy, take the money, and see about investing it to make something else that those folks would like to purchase.  (You might be interested in Frederic Bastiat, and I'd point you in particular to "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen" on that page.)

Now, some will argue that land is different because everyone must have somewhere to put his feet.  I happen to give little credence to this argument because I find the possibility of running out of land to either rent or buy as far-fetched as the possibility of acid rain dissolving my house.  And the fact is that real estate is a market which is quite a long ways from becoming a monopoly.  FWIW, you'll find few people here supporting the notion of "class"; I would consider it a pernicious element of socialist ideology--we were individuals when we were throwing rocks at each other, and we're individuals now.

I'm a little uncertain how property tax fits into your question, but I doubt you'd find many fans of it.  It is the main tax in NH, and at least has the benefit of being easily identifiable and therefore attackable.  Folks here will offer many alternatives--my own favorite is the head tax, which I'd set around $100 per person.  There is a benefit to citizenship that I don't object to paying something for, and in my humble opinion $20 billion is more than enough money for the government I want.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2005, 03:55:28 pm by kater »
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

Pseudomancer

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

Interesting.  I still have some reservations on land ownership but I would be interested in seeing these ideas you have put forth in action.  I don't know what the result would be but in the end we would learn quite a bit from it regardless.

The B in B.G. stands for Beldon, I didn't even think about the other B.G. -- the nefarious B.G. of Redmond! (Wish I was in truth  ;D)

Thanks for your response,
-Beldon
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident

Not at all.  :)  We'd all like to see things kinds of things in action--that's why we're here.  Hope you'll join us.

Kate
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

ThomasPaine

  • Guest

Quote
I still have some reservations on land ownership but I would be interested in seeing these ideas you have put forth in action.  I don't know what the result would be but in the end we would learn quite a bit from it regardless.

You might be interested to know that there is a whole section on the forum devoted to different approaches to these types of questions.

http://forum.freestateproject.org//index.php?board=46.0

TeePee
« Last Edit: October 05, 2005, 11:46:38 am by ThomasPaine »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up