I love libertarians. Well, sorta. I believe in some liberal economic policies

Libertarian is the ONLY way to go! Anyone can do anything they want as long as it doesn't impead on the rights of others. YES.

I'm a libertarian, also.

Still, I am afraid of the free market being without certain boundaries... I think that the economy has to be regulated slightly to allow everyone the freedom of oppurtunity.

I think that the current system has too much economic controls though (or rather, inefficient ones)..

   

I beleive in a good fusion of capitolism and socialism, so a decent amount of regulation works for me, but I still want people to have the ability to choose their career path, as well as the existance of a commercial market. The problem with total command markets (Socialism) is that the economy, though stable, is basically unmotivated. The problem with free market (Capitolism) is that though it's very motivated, it is extremely unstable and class-dividing.

So basically your reasoning is this:
1. Socialism/Communism doesn't work
2. Capitalism doesn't work.
3. Therefore, we should have a mix of both.

No wonder our current system doesn't work!

You argue that capitalism is "extremely" unstable. Fist, can you define what you mean by "extremely unstable"? Secondly, can you provide examples of a purely capitalistic market being extremely unstable please?

As for the "class-dividing" nature of captialism, let me ask you this: Should the person that sells cigarettes at a convenience store earn the same amount of money as say, a film writer/director? Should a person that serves beer at a bar earn the same amount of money as say, somone that went through 12 years of medical school to become an ER surgeon? No? People should earn money based on their training, talent and hard work? Oops, that will create a division in classes! Some people will have nicer things that other people...and that's just not fair...

Now what?

As soon as your give politicians the power to regulate the market "a bit", it will inevitably become regulated A LOT. You can look at the history of the United States as a great example of this. Despite the explicit limits on Congress's power as stated in the Constitution, politicians used the tiny bit of power they had to go around this and pretty much control every single aspect of our lives down to the letter.

Also...I need some evidence that a completly free market would lead to "corporatism."

I like to look at "balance" when it concerns freedom like this:

We need to have a "balanced" view of freedom. 24 hours of freedom is too much, while 12 hours is too little, therefore, we should only be free for 18 hours a day.

There are ALOT of corporations out there that I dislike and don't support. Guess what I do? I don't spend my money with them and I tell my friends not to spend their money with them. As an example, I refuse to buy any music from any label that's part of the RIAA because they sue their fans...and I refuse to buy SONY products because Sony thinks it's ok to install rootkits on people's computers and I refuse to buy anything from Apple because Apple sues journalists and bloggers for exercising free speech. I actually have a long long list of companies I don't support. I am not a proponent of corporations. But I am a proponent of freedom.

I have no problem with corporations existing and doing whatever the hell they want...so long as they DON'T get help from the government and don't violate my freedom or my property. Many "evil" corporations get subsidies or protections from the government which enable their bad behaviors from going unnoticed and/or unpunished. Many of these government protections limit my freedom by giving corporations monopolies or unfair positions in a market. Government intervention and regulations damages freedom and it needs to stop.

I appreciate sites like CorpWatch that report on bad companies so that I can add them to my blacklist. I encourage the rest of the media to report bad business and I support boycotting businesses that suck. I also support class action lawsuits when businesses damage people's properties with pollution.

Just because I don't believe in government regulation of businesses does not mean I am a fan of big business. It means I am a fan of freedom without exception.

Fair trade sounds good, but it's not fair. Fair trade is a nice way of saying "protectionist, interventionist government policies that impede the freedom of individuals and business." And "fair' in what context?

Is it fair to the rest of the world to tax THEM when they export products into our country? Is it fair to prevent millions of starving people around the world from working and earning a living because we don't want to "export american jobs"? Is it fair to give farmers in the US subsidies to continue producing farmed goods when there are many farmers in foreign countries that would love to be able to sell us their crops for much much less? Is it fair to the American people to tax them and give this money to a few wealthy corporations so that we can "protect our economy"?

If you ask me, "fair" is rhetoric indeed. I don't think it's fair to use government power to protect the interests of a few people at the expense of the many.

I would really like to see some evidence for this claim of yours, and pretty much everyone that assumes that the "evil rich people" will take over the world when/if free trade really existed. Do you have ANY actual evidence to support this claim? Have you considered the opposite?

What would happen if all the middle class people had about 40-50% more money each year because taxes were abolished. First, hundreds of billions of dollars wouldn't be litterally blown up in foreign countries. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that would now be inside the American economy, probably creating millions of new jobs and providing hundreds of millions of Americans with a better lifestyles and more economic security. Second, the other TRILLION dollars that is spent every year on various politician's boondoggles will now be back in American's pockets. This money can be used to buy private health isurance, private schooling, and charities (if charity is your thing).

People would have more money and more choice...and I can gaurantee you that money will be spent more wisely and efficiently than politicians currently spend your money. Think about it...when someone hands you a blank check...do you penny pinch? Do you make sure you get the best value for your dollar? Hell no. What makes you think politicians are careful? Their only interest is to make sure they get that check every single year...and they'll do whatever they can to make sure that check gets bigger and bigger too. Politicians don't care about you or your money...they care about themselves and their criminal buddies.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think trade regulation "works" because ultimately beaucracy is bloated, cumbersome and inefficient. Whenever a government siezes power from the marketplace, you can be fairly sure that you won't just be paying increased taxes, you'll be paying higher prices because businesses have to offset the inefficiencies of adhering to government regulations. Whenever one has to pay artificially high prices because of government intervetion, or whenever one is forced to buy from uncompetitive businesses that hold state-sanctioned monopolies, I don't think this can be considered "working." Aside from the real economic negatives of regulating trade, there are also the philosophical negatives: you are abridging peoples freedom to trade with each freely. It is a violation of privacy as well. This is definately not somethings that "works."

It did a perfectly good job doing that until 1913, when the income tax was created. In fact, it was the fastest growing nation in the world. From just before the American Revolution to WW1, America had probably become the world's biggest super power...all without income taxes.

Poor people have obviously always survived, especially in countries with strong economies (like the US). But even so...how are poor people MY personal responsibility? I have been flat broke before in my life, and I went out and got a damn job. The job sucked and only paid 5 bucks an hour, but it was still a job. There are plenty of jobs out there if people really needed them. Mexicans, who aren't even allowed to work in our country, miraculously survive by the MILLIONS. They come over here with less than 100 pesos to their name and are somehow able to support their entire family by working hard for even less than minimum wage sometimes. I'm sorry, but if illegal immigrants who aren't even allowed to work can survive, then regular citizens can as well.

The people that are too sick or disable to work can always find help with the hundreds of private charities that are for more efficient at managing money than greedy corrupt politicians are.

As for public education: I'm against it big time. Public education is state indoctrination. Politicians decide the curriculum is and they choose the teaching standards. Politicians with agendas and polls to watch. Public education doesn't teach you critical thinking skills, and even CONSIDERS the "intelligent design" theory to be as plausible as the theory of evolution...at least in some states. Public education isn't about educating children, it's about getting votes.

Also, why should I, who has decided not to have kids (at least not yet), have to pay for other irresponsible people that do decide to have kids? Why should I be paying for their kids educations? You want to talk about fair? Does it seem fair to you? When and if I have kids, I will be sending them to a secular private school which goes completely unfunded by tax dollars...yet I still have to pay taxes to send your kids to crappy public schools? No thanks.

People do need to learn skills. It doesn't take "smarts" to know that expanding your skillset will create new and more lucrative oppertunities for you. It takes innitiative. So it is the lazy that don't want to develop new skills. Luck? How much luck does it require to buy a book...or to even go into a library and read a book for free? In the past when there weren't public schools, families and communities taught their own children how to read and perform basic arithmatic. Those families were responsible for their own children. I just want people to be responsible for their own choices.

Says who? Free trade is a subset of politics and government. And that's what we're discussing no?

I'm very well aware of the criticism of free trade and the so-called alternatives. I am the first to acknowledge that free trade is not perfect. But nothing is perfect. You will not encounter a system, at least not under existing human paradigms on planet earth, where every single human being is 100% happy. What we need to aim for however is a system that is rational and dare I say, right.

The bottom line is this: yes, freedom will make some people unhappy. Like the lazy and the uncreative. They will watch the hard working and the creative excel past them in terms of material gain and even emotional prosperity. We just can't make all people work hard. We can't make all people be creative and inventive. In fact, I would argue, that in true free world...you can't make people do anything! Not in a just world anyway.

Freedom means that some people are free to lay around and do nothing. It means that some people will not care about other people's problems. It means that some people will try to acquire as much material wealth as possible and others will scoff at material belongings.

The world will not be perfect because people are not perfect. But you can't force people to do what you want them to! You need to focus on yourself, and what you want. If you want to help the poor children, then help them! Start a charity, start a school for poor kids, raise money...and help them! But don't try to FORCE me to help them. The moment you innitiate force to achieve what you consider "good" is the moment you open the floodgates of force for other issues that might not be so good.

I can't reiterate this enough. It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, government power that is used for "good" today may (and probably will) be used for evil tomorrow. The politicians that you give power to today that are "good" will eventually leave office...and guess what...that power doesn't leave with them...its their for the next party or ideology that you don't agree with to use! The government that taxed our incomes to help feed the poor yesterday is the same government that uses our incomes to bomb innocent Iraqi men, women and children today. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

It comes down to this really: you believe in tyranny or you don't. Is it ok for a select few to rule over and control the many even under the label of "good"? Is it ever ok for me to force someone to quit smoking, to quit drinking, to quit eating meat, to quit listening to Celine Dion, just because it's good for them? Should they have to go to jail because they are doing "bad" things to themselves? Who the hell am I to decide what is best for the rest of teh world? Who the hell are YOU?

"freedom exists in a cage" it means that for freedom to exist sometimes precautions are needed.

Wow..I have Never heard of the libertarian Party.
Politics ALWAYS confused me..So i never took apart of discussions or anything involving them. Also because I didn't know what I fell under with my beliefs.
The video made it so much easier to understand.
My dad always tried explaining Republicans, Democrats, and Comunists to me. And I didn't like the ideas to any of them. Communism apealed to me more than the others..but I still didn't like all the ideals of it.

I think I finally found my party lol.
I definitely want to do some more reading up on it of course. Anyone know some really good books?

edit- ha i just took the quiz to see if maybe there were some other parties i could look into..but sure enough i turned out Libertarian

This is a good and balanced introduction:

Politics: A Very Short Introduction

The Federal Reserve Bank is a monopoly on the money supply (by government decision, not free market). It caused the great depression and all of it's unstability, poverty, and starvation. It's manipulation of the money supply ensured constant unstability. Fiat money is anti-capitalistic. With the Gold Standard and no fiat money, the Great Depression never would have happened.

Mises.org. Learn economics.

You can't talk about wealth in terms of percentages. The economy is not a big pie where one group can only gain at the expense of others. It grows and shrinks. 80% of walth in the hands of 2% is not a bad thing. The 2% almost always invest that 80% in businesses which make the other 98% of the population's lives a lot better in ways that people simply couldn't without pooling of wealth.

Regulations create monopolies. Smaller companies cannot deal with regulations, and go out of business. The larger companies that can tolerate them and maintain a profit inevitably take over the market the lost competitors would have had, and grow larger.

America's greatest growth was pre-1910, in the era of "Robber barons" (which is a spectacular misnomer). Before regulation of business was heavy was when America was becoming an economic power.

And Public education breeds dependency. The private sector can do it better, faster, cheaper, and without stealing your money to do it.

If you were to take the working parts from Capitalism and Communism and put them together, you're left with Capitalism. The working parts of moderate communism (socialism) are all taken from Capitalism.

Labor laws are most detrimental to the poor which are unemployed by those laws (people whose work is not worth $5 per hour cannot possibly find a job with minimum wages, child labor laws were actually enforced by religious nuts if I'm not mistaken (people doing work instead of going to church, couldn't have that)). Laws intended to limit monopolies actually create monopolies. Learn economics. Mises.org is a great start.

The basis for determining whether something is just or unjust, which is also something that you completely ignore, is a matter of voluntary vs involuntary. If it is involuntary, then it is bad. Murder, slavery, and theft are involuntary. If it is voluntary, then it is good. Dying for someone, helping someone else do something, or giving someone something is voluntary. Everything you spoke of is okay for the simple reason that it is entirely voluntary.

You are not bound to your boss by chains. If you don't like what your boss is paying you, quit. You can do that. If he wants to pay you $4.50 an hour and you don't like it, go work for someone else. When you accept a job, you and your boss agree on wages, hours, et cetera. Keyword here is "agree". If you disagree, you don't take the job. If he won't meet your demands for the job, he doesn't give you the job. You can find other employers or try to work independanty.

Now, if you're "intellectually impaired" and can't do work that's worth a whole lot, let's say the most you can do is $5 per hour's worth of work, you might be happy to take a job for $4.50 an hour if the alternative is $0 per hour. If your work isn't worth $6.15 to your employer, you just don't get the job because that's the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment among the people who need jobs the most by preventing them from working. Unions know this damn well and that's why they support minimum wages. They know that cheap labor would displace them from their jobs and drive down their wages. That's why they want minimum wages, to keep the unskilled poor from holding a job, because that keeps them employed for high wages and keeps their employer in a chokehold.

Just look at the illegal immigrants. They would MUCH rather work for $3 per hour picking vegetables than not have a job. If you want to force them into unemployment, hey, go ahead. I hope you feel good about yourself. Fact is, the illegals volunteer for those jobs. Any job you do is voluntary unless you're forced to do it at gunpoint, but that's called slavery.

A common illusion is that with minimum wages, the employer will raise your wages to a minimum. That's now how it works. If your work is worth less than the minimum wage, they just don't hire you. You're a waste of money and they'd rather delegate the task to someone else that has a slightly higher wage and have them do both jobs.

A wage is just a price. If they passed a law saying everything at the grocery store had to cost $6.15 or more, you'd probably either buy in larger packages than you normally do or buy a lot less than you normally do. You wouldn't even consider buying a 6 pack of eggs for $6.15 when you could get a 36 pack for the same price. That's all a minimum wage is. A minimum price. People naturally like lower prices when they are consuming, and naturally like higher prices when they are producing.

Most people spend 8 hours of the day producing, 8 hours of the day consuming, and 8 hours alseep. Why the hell would you pass a law that helps you in the 8 hours of the day you're consuming but hurts you in the 8 hours of the day you're producing? What result do you expect? You could pay $5 for something that took 1 hour of work at $5 an hour or you could pay $6.15 for something that took 1 hour of work at $6.15 an hour. What do you think you're actually achieving?

Besides, I couldn't get a low wage job without trying. Hell, I work for KFC 3 days a week washing dishes and I got $7.50/hr starting, with no real skills and no relevant experience or knowledge. They hired me practically right on the spot. (No, I don't plan to be working there for long. I just need money till I get a better job.)

The same applies for breaks. If you'll take a job where you work 11 hours without breaks, that's fine. You accepted that job. You volunteered for that job. That's why it's okay. You are not their slave, you're their employee. Unlike a slave who has no choice, you can leave and look for a boss that'll bargain with you on hours, breaks, and wages until you can both agree.

And children can operate heavy machinery. One such example is the cardboard balers in the back of a grocery store. Big hydraulic press flattens out the cardboard when you push a button. Because of a law, you have to be 18 to throw boxes in a hole or push the button.

OH MY GOD WE HAVE 17 YEAR OLDS THROWING BOXES IN HOLES AND PUSHING BUTTONS WTF LABOR VIOLATION ITS DANGEROUS TO THROW BOXES AND PUSH BUTTONS

Seriously, can you see how absurd this is? And if the 17 year old thought the work was too dangerous, they'd only have to quit after seeing how dangerous the job is.

Equipment that takes skill to use probably won't be provided to any random 10 year old. A 10 year old would never get a job driving a forklift for example. Forklifts take skill to operate. You can't give a 10 year old a job expecting them to operate a forklift. A baler takes no skill to operate. A 10 year old could easily load and operate a baler (might need help clearing out a full chamber because the bales are heavy though).

These laws sound nice until you apply them and take a look at what they actually do. Then they look absurd.

No I have not read The Jungle. If you know of a free copy online, I'd like a link to it. It's clear as day to me that you haven't read anything abou