Re: Brucie Girl Minor's Psychosis: Libertarianism: Loveably Kooky or Dangerously Crazy?

Tommy the idea of an obviously ill educated and somewhat dim little fountleroy like you trying to discuss any topic in political economy or political philosophy is laughable

might as well stick you in a tutu and your mom's heels and have your prance about for after dinner entertainment

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:

Brucie Girl Minor's Psychosis:

Libertarianism: Loveably Kooky or Dangerously Crazy?

Libertarians" have discovered this citadel of liberal (or progressive)
thought recently to challenge its users on their ideology. So let's
examine what the libertarians believe to challenge their ideology.

::::::::

This election season put before the nation a philosophy that many
Americans gobbled up without questioning. That philosophy of
"libertarianism" was promoted by Texas Rep. Ron Paul as he sought the
Republican presidential nomination. He gathered little numerical
support for his philosophy but considerable zeal for what he espoused.
But what he proposed doesn't hold up to scrutiny as a solution to the
problems of a modern advanced industrial nation or society.

The two main thrusts to libertarianism are economic freedom (i.e.
deregulation) and no taxes. On other secondary matters, such as
reproductive rights, flag burning as protest, separation of church and
state, morality, censorship, assembly, association, and dying without
government interference, some libertarians may often appear to be
closer to liberals than to conservatives, even if they don't recognize
that.

This article will deal wish the two main factors of libertarianism;
business regulation and paying of taxes (or nonpaying) in which it has
a ironclad attachment with far-right conservatism. If there were a
modern nation operating on the libertarian philosophy it might be the
island nation of Haiti. That nation, is controlled by a small group of
wealthy elites, who live separated from the people and pay no taxes on
the wealth they gained in a regulation-free economy. Haiti, in which
the majority of the population is destitute, is the poorest nation in
the Western Hemisphere. The United States began its history as a
libertarian nation in which the federal government had limited power
of national defense, foreign relations and a uniform monetary system.
That was under the Articles of Confederation (1781-89) which failed
badly. If libertarianism failed in a simpler 18th Century in a nation
of less that 4 million population there is little reason to believe it
would succeed in a nation of more than 300 million people in a
complicated 21st Century.

On deregulation, we have to look no further on the results of such
folly. When I was in graduate school studying constitutional law, one
professor stated that all regulations exist to counter evils present
in the system, and when those regulations are removed the evils
return.

Since the rise of conservative control of our nation, commercial
regulations have been repealed or ignored and the evils have come
flooding back. Ronald Reagan loosened the oversight on banking during
his disastrous reign and we got the savings-and-loan failures and
scandals that the taxpayers have had to clean up. After the dust
cleared from that Reagan disaster, it was estimated that the cost of
getting past Reagan's mess was $500 billion. Anyone with money in a
savings account knows about the cost of that cleanup with interest
payments close to all-time lows as that $500-billion bill was being
paid. Reagan proudly declared that, "Government is not the solution to
our problems, government is the problem." He was wrong. The truth is
that "Reaganism is not the solution to our problems, Reaganism is the
problem."

To see the folly of commercial deregulation we need not look past the
frauds and crimes surrounding corporations as Worldcom, Adelphia, Tyco
and Healthsouth. In each case, executives of the corporations looted
the companies so they could live lives of kingly splendor while those
who actually made the money for the companies lost their jobs,
careers, homes and retirements. Owners of the corporations, the
stockholders, lost much or all of their investments. The frauds and
crimes were illustrated by million-dollar birthday parties in foreign
lands for the CEO or $6,000 shower curtains in the CEOs home to
accompany gold-plated bathroom fixtures.

Now we have the subprime mortgage scandal that threatens the nation's
financial health. In this present mess, mortgages were sold under
false promises to people who couldn't afford the interest rates that
would come years later. The sellers then packaged the mortgages to
unload on the financial market and pocket millions for themselves
while their victims lost homes, credit ratings and reputation.
Financial institutions that wound up holding those unsustainable
mortgages were threatened with bankruptcy. Former Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan ignored the looming crisis with the statement
that bankers didn't need oversight because they would do nothing to
harm the reputation of their industry. He was wrong.

The petroleum industry is now giving us a picture of what could happen
when an important segment of commerce runs wild and does as it
pleases. While it has apparently broken no laws or regulations, the
industry is using speculation on the world petroleum market to enhance
its already record profits at the expense of everything else. Family
budgets are busted over the cost of gasoline or heating oil, shipping
of goods is too expensive for many truckers to make a living, food
prices that depend on that trucking are skyrocketing just as
everything else that must be moved to market.

For the wonderful world of commercial deregulation and tax freedom we
have to look no further than the success of Enron, the giant Texas
energy-trading company that collapsed amid scandal and crime. Enron
had managed to free itself from regulations and taxes through close
affiliation to many politicians, contributing to their elections and
helping draw up the energy program for the Bush administration as it
took control of the nation in 2001.

Because Enron had successfully escaped taxation, it listed any income
it had as profit thereby causing its stock price to soar. Executives
then cashed in on the high stock price to enrich themselves while
everyone else suffered. Employees lost the jobs, careers, life savings
and retirements tied to Enron stock they were forbidden to sell.
Investors lost billions.

Enron was free of regulation and used that freedom to engineer power
shortages in many markets but even the money it extorted from its
victim-customers wasn't enough to prevent its collapse from the crimes
it committed under both deregulation and tax freedom.

Business regulations can rightfully be called "economic law and order"
but those who want to control our private lives with "law and order"
don't want lawful economic behavior, even though we give government
power to confront commercial crimes through our Constitution.
Deregulation basically enables the dishonest businesses to have an
unfair advantage over reputable firms, that then must adopt dishonest
practices to compete and we all lose in the process.

And the destruction of unions in America may do something for the
economic freedom of the aristocratic elite, it has done nothing for
the working class's economic freedom, which should include the freedom
from want.

To justify their disastrous actions, conservative libertarians will
ever argue that regulations either do no good or actually harm the
businesses being regulated.

That's total nonsense. But, if it ever it were true there is a simple
solution that wouldn't lead to the disaster deregulation always seems
to lead to. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18, of the Constitution
says that all laws are to be "necessary and proper" in order to be
constitutionally legal. Corporations have multimillion-dollar legal
departments usually devoted to courting and paying politicians to get
the harmful deregulation they desire. Corporations could use those
legal departments to argue in court that a regulation or series of
regulations that do nothing are unnecessary. The overpaid lawyers in
those legal departments could argue that a regulation that harms the
business is not proper. Any competent judge in America would then void
such unnecessary and improper regulation or regulations. It might be
less expensive to go to court for a corporation rather than legally
"bribe" hundreds of corrupt politicians and we would have a
more-honest government in return. But corporations don't go to court
on these issues because they know they have no, or few, compelling
arguments. It might be noteworthy to observe that George W. Bush has
been busy appointing incompetents to the federal bench.

There is an idiotic notion on the "libertarian" far right that there
is no law requiring Americans to pay taxes on their incomes. For
anyone to believe that they would have to be out of touch with
reality.

The United States first imposed an income tax to pay for the Civil
War, but that tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
after the war because it was a direct tax on individuals, forbidden by
the Constitution at that time, rather than a tax on the states, based
on their population. The states then taxed individuals, which made it
an indirect tax from the point of view of the national government,
which was constitutional. To pay for World War I, Congress proposed an
amendment to legalize an income tax. Congress drafted and passed the
proposal, then sent it to the states, which also passed it to make it
part of "the supreme law of the land."

But righties of libertarian persuasion want us to believe that
Congress then forgot to make a law to collect that tax. The right
propagandizes the point constantly, and yet Congress doesn't notice
and pass an income-tax collection law? Right-wing nut cases have been
arguing, and losing, in court for years that there is no law requiring
them to pay an income tax, but still Congress neglects to pass a law
to collect the taxes? Are we to believe that of the hundreds of laws
concerning taxes that Congress has passed over the years not one
requires a tax collection? That we are told to believe even though the
Constitution says "The Congress shall have to power to lay and collect
taxes on income ..."

Please note, the amendment doesn't specifically say that Americans
have to pay the income tax because that statement would be totally
superfluous as the 16th is clear in stating that Congress has power to
collect income taxes; that is the law. To impede Congress' power of
collection, or subvert its intention, is a crime. The Constitution
states what government has power to do, not what citizens or residents
must do or cannot do.

To counter such a clear statement of purpose, the "libertarian"
right-wingers counter by saying that the Fourth Amendment prohibits
government from requiring the filing of a tax return without a
warrant. But the Fourth says a warrant is required only for "searches
and seizures" and a tax return involves neither. If someone lies
(perjury) about their taxes, government could send someone to examine
all financial papers and information the reluctant taxpayer possesses.
When that agent goes to a home or business to look over information
and takes those papers for evidence, that is search and seizure, which
requires a warrant.

When the righty loses that argument, he or she resorts to the Fifth
Amendment, claiming revealing income facts constitutes testifying
against oneself. But the Fifth pertains to criminal trials, not
collection of information. The Fifth clearly says "criminal cases" and
filing a tax return isn't a criminal case. Most Americans are familiar
with the phrase in the Miranda decision that "what you say can be used
against you" in court. So what you say on a tax return can be used
against you in court. Plus, if one is capable of reading between the
lines of the Fifth, the clear intention of what James Madison was
talking about becomes evident. But when a "libertarian" can't
adequately read what is on the lines, reading between them is
impossible.

To understand the issue, one must be able to use reasoning. Because of
the statement that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes on income ..." we have to understand that any law based on that
statement must also address the power grant in the statement. That is,
all laws must empower the collection of taxes, and don't need to state
what a taxpayer "must" do, although most do. Congress established the
Internal Revenue Service to collect the taxes, and that is all one
needs to know.

Libertarians will claim that if they have to pay taxes to sustain the
nation in which they live they are being "punished" by the government,
usually "punished" for the magnificent success they have created all
by themselves. That is a strange argument for it supposes that the
very nation whose government created and protects the conditions that
allowed this magnificent success doesn't need sustenance to continue
conditions for success. And no one ever achieved success completely
alone. We all need the society around us to succeed in any way. A
business needs customers with purchasing power to succeed. A writer
needs publishers to print and readers to read. An actor needs casting
directors to offer jobs, producers and directors to make the product,
which needs audience members paying money to make it all work.
Teachers needs schools and colleges to have a job, and those schools
and colleges need students and taxpayers. Insurance salesmen need
customers who need insurance. We all need each other.

Then a libertarian refers to taxation as "robbery," which can only be
interpreted as meaning that libertarian thinks the United States of
America is a criminal entity, the men who wrote the Constitution that
authorizes taxation are just a bunch of common thieves and the
Constitution itself is a criminal conspiracy. But the Constitution is
a creation of, "We the people." As James Madison, father of the
Constitution said, "In the compound republic of America, the power
surrendered by the people ..." That means we have given to the
government the power to tax us. This is not a static one-time grant of
power by Americans long dead, it is ongoing grant, and by living in
the United States that authority continues to flow constantly from
each of us. The only way to stop that flow of authority by an
individual is to leave the jurisdiction of the nation receiving the
power.

A libertarian wrote in a recent diary that, "To a libertarian the
difference between paying a person or company for a good or service
one desires and having the government take money by force (against
ones will) is obvious." That is nonsense, because by continuing to
reside in the United States that libertarian continues to give
government power to tax him. That is self taxation, not force, and
staying within the jurisdiction of the taxing government is completely
voluntary.

Holding valid views of the role the Constitution plays on the issues
of commercial regulation and taxation could get one accused by a
staunch libertarian of advocating a police state or being a communist.

There is no single definition of "patriotism." To some, waving the
American flag or wearing a flag pin on a lapel is patriotism. To
others patriotism is howling support for a war regardless of its
justification, but that's militarism, not patriotism. Some think
patriotism is sporting "I Support Our Troops" on the bumper sticker of
a gas-guzzling SUV that keeps us dependent on imported oil. To others
patriotism is merely the political party one belongs to or adherence
to their political ideology; blindly following a political leader
regardless of what kind of, or how many, crimes he commits; shouting
down anyone who holds a differing opinion or expressing disdain for
anything foreign, even subjecting foreign nations to US demands or
control. My definition of patriotism is two-part: putting the needs of
the nation ahead of personal interests and strict adherence to the
Constitution of the United States (which would include paying taxes,
correcting and atoning for national sins and admitting the nation was
founded on secular principles not religious). By this definition, no
libertarian can be a patriot.

(Author's note: I grew up with libertarians and learned a valuable
life lesson from a libertarian family. I became a professional artist
in the fifth grade when David Niskanen paid me a nickel to draw a
ghost for him on his Halloween greeting card being made in art class
at Kenwood Elementary School in Bend, Oregon. David is the younger
brother of William Niskanen, one of Robert McNamara's Whiz Kids during
the Vietnam War, and who served in the Nixon administration's Office
of Management and Budget, was a member of Ronald Reagan's Council of
Economic Advisors from 1981 to 1985 and chairman since 1985 of the
libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, DC, whose "scholars" have
been furnishing crackpot economic theories to right-wing DC
politicians for decades, the theories that continually lead us into
economic trouble. In fairness, Bill is not a fan of the
"starve-the-beast" mantra of the political right and is a
balance-the-budget-before-cutting-taxes advocate, but received his
doctorate degree in economics at the University of Chicago, another
victim of Milton Friedman's economic teachings. The lesson I learned
is that "them what got the nickels pay us who got the talents to do
for them what they can't do for themselves." As mentioned above,
nickel owners need talent possessers just as much as the talented need
the nickel dispensers. It is also noteworthy that the Niskanen family,
which owned the Trailways bus franchise in Oregon for many years, used
the US court system and the economic regulations libertarians love to
hate to sue Greyhound Bus Lines for restraint of trade and win a
$23-million judgment ~ although probably settling for less in an
out-of-court settlement to avoid endless appeals ~ and that represents
a whole lot of brand-new nickels.)

We can end with paraphrasing Reagan again by noting that,
"Libertarianism will not be the solution to our problems,
libertarianism will be the problem."

More:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7535

On 12/13/10, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keith-
>>
>> Your hatred, lies, and false smear are again evident in these false
>> statements.
>>
>
> that's a lie
>
>>
>> I never once said that SPLC was reputable, I simply said that is not a
>> "Hate Organization" as you falsely stated.
>>
>
> it's a tendentious and dishonest smear group and you circulate its
> calumnies
>
>>
>> I did not post any "missive full of lies." That is another false lie.
>>
>
> You are lying.  You only post government propaganda and disinformation,
> quisling that you are
>
>>
>> I am most certainly not out of step with reality, that is false
>> slander, a lie, an insult, and a smear.
>>
>
> Another Tommy lie by the deluded brain dead step n fetchit Obama bot
>
>>
>> I am not a "Marxist", that is yet another slanderous false lie, and a
>> personal smear.
>>
>
> You just felch Marxist ass
>
>>
>> I am not a "Anti-American", that is yet another slanderous false lie,
>> and a personal smear.
>>
>
> You hate American values like individual liberty; you are a fascist
>
>>
>> Mocking me, "making your points", and continuing to spew forth your
>> homophobic lies and personal attacks is nothing to give thanks for.
>>
>
> Tommy hating you is not hating gays; you are a poor excuse for a gay or for
> anything else except a crackpot
>
>>
>> You, Keith, should be deeply ashamed of your hate, lies, smear,
>> personal attacks, and your highly offensive vicious behavior.
>>
>>
>> He should be ashamed he takes the time to reply to a dipshit like you
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.