Libertarian economics.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

Ron Paul mentions the Austrian School economics. Ludwig van Mises.

And.... ?

I know RP's positions on issues. I no little about the Austrian School of Economics (other than what can be retrieved on Google in 5 minutes). But what's your point?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's how I am. I didn't sit in an economic theory class, spend 10 years dissecting all the models and decide which one would work best. The more I heard from Libertarians, the more is resonated with what I perceived was the right approach of government.

I may be further along that road than you -- because like other Libertarians, I also am comfortable taking up social positions that I think better support smaller government as well.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Whereas most social conservatives wouldn't support repealing federal laws against marijuana - a libertarian would want the government out of the role of regulating the substances.

Same can be true with abortion. Libertarians and Moral Conservatives may both oppose abortion, and Roe v. Wade but for different reasons. Libertarians are more concerned about the government regulating and involving itself in this, moral conservatives would prefer a law to criminalize the act.

It's all about the proper role of government.

More "for examples" (same-sex marriage included)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0GZznxMC14

[MissBrattified]

So you're saying that you're comfortable allowing individuals to make up their own decisions on matters such as abortion and drug use, instead of criminalizing abortion or drug use?

Or are you saying that these acts should be categorized as crimes so that they don't fall under the umbrella of personal liberties?

I'm rereading the Libertarian Party platform (so I can try to discuss this with a bit of intelligence ), and I noticed the stance on abortion (1.4), which, to me, directly contradicts 1.5 (Crime & Justice). "...Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm."

http://www.lp.org/platform

I definitely agree with section 2.0 - Economic Liberty:

...Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So you're saying that you're comfortable allowing individuals to make up their own decisions on matters such as abortion and drug use, instead of criminalizing abortion or drug use?

Or are you saying that these acts should be categorized as crimes so that they don't fall under the umbrella of personal liberties?

I'm rereading the Libertarian Party platform (so I can try to discuss this with a bit of intelligence ), and I noticed the stance on abortion (1.4), which, to me, directly contradicts 1.5 (Crime & Justice). "...Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm."

http://www.lp.org/platform

I definitely agree with section 2.0 - Economic Liberty:

...Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

Here are some more detailed notes on a libertarian economy.

The lp.org was only a short paragraph on several items.


http://www.syndicalist.org/archives/llr14-24/16f.shtml

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So you're saying that you're comfortable allowing individuals to make up their own decisions on matters such as abortion and drug use, instead of criminalizing abortion or drug use?

Or are you saying that these acts should be categorized as crimes so that they don't fall under the umbrella of personal liberties?

I'm rereading the Libertarian Party platform (so I can try to discuss this with a bit of intelligence ), and I noticed the stance on abortion (1.4), which, to me, directly contradicts 1.5 (Crime & Justice). "...Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm."

http://www.lp.org/platform

I definitely agree with section 2.0 - Economic Liberty:

...Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

Neither. I would fall more closely to the idea that for sure doesn't see the Fed Govt having the write to criminalize drugs -- the exception being illegal importing. Even Paul says in the video he respects the rights of States on how they should protect children. He believes adults should have their own decision on the matters.

I debate and part with Libertarians on this issue in these cases:

1) Free Market drugs means more people exploited, hooked, etc... If they are too expensive, street drugs will still be around. If they are too cheap, the accessibility will not help drug use. The Liquor Store, Check Cashing and fast food combo in low income neighborhoods will now also include a Drugs R Us. However, I see Paul's point about letting adults do what they want and finding other ways to protest or otherwise encourage drug-free neighborhoods.

2) Prostitution -- currently children are exploited, women are abused and are being hustled by pimps. Sometimes I think legalizing will alleviate those oppressive relationships... but at other times I see it becoming an industry that further enslaved women and children.

So those issues I hold fundamental Libertarian values, but on a practical level I fight with how that looks on a State and even City level. I definitely don't see the government as the end-all cure for ending problems, and would place even more emphasis on community programs (funded by the community's own charity).

I would love to have a Q&A with Ron Paul.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's how I am. I didn't sit in an economic theory class, spend 10 years dissecting all the models and decide which one would work best. The more I heard from Libertarians, the more is resonated with what I perceived was the right approach of government.

I may be further along that road than you -- because like other Libertarians, I also am comfortable taking up social positions that I think better support smaller government as well.

So that is no economics classes?
Economics is a high priority to Libertarians because they are absolutists "anything goes" on social issues.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

So that is no economics classes?
Economics is a high priority to Libertarians because they are absolutists "anything goes" on social issues.

I don't understand your question, Professor.

Yes, I've taken economics classes. No, I'm not an economists, nor will I pretend to be one. I also consider myself to have above-average awareness of political issues (an anecdotal comparisons with those in my social circle). I have a minor in Business, I have an undergrad degree and am an avid reader (just not of econ text books).

As far as libertarians being "anything goes," I guess that's one way of putting it. If you believe in small government, feds not having the power to dictate one's personal life, then you got it. We're talking the same language.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I don't understand your question, Professor.

Yes, I've taken economics classes. No, I'm not an economists, nor will I pretend to be one. I also consider myself to have above-average awareness of political issues (an anecdotal comparisons with those in my social circle). I have a minor in Business, I have an undergrad degree and am an avid reader (just not of econ text books).

As far as libertarians being "anything goes," I guess that's one way of putting it. If you believe in small government, feds not having the power to dictate one's personal life, then you got it. We're talking the same language.

What is a minor?
This is the question you didn't understand.

So that is no economics classes?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

What is a minor?
This is the question you didn't understand.

So that is no economics classes?

No, this is your broken-English question that I didn't understand. You have about 10 questions left answered from me today. Good job. Way to deflect and move on.

If you don't know what an accompanying minor is to a degree, I can't help you. Look it up. You're pretty good at that.