Topic: Ive Never Met a Poor or Non-White Libertarian (Read 3375 times)

Hey, Mike!

Long time no see. I can't improve on that so I won't try. Well put.

Correct, which is why we can't have a state: those with the power are too selfish to handle it, unless they're made of metal and wire, and always use it to make themselves rich.


Correct, when you have a state; people can't get rich when you don't give them your money, and if you give them your money then you agree they should have it.  The only time this is not true is when the money is taken from you forcibly, either by taxing you directly or inflating the currency or giving special rights to businesses (i.e. corporations.)  The divide between the poor and the rich without the state depends on how much good you contribute to the world, which I find entirely justified as a poor individual in this society will provide no benefit in being wealthy despite his lack of contribution, i.e. socialist beliefs are anti-humanitarian as they take from those successful in improving the world and give to those unsuccessful in improving the world, even bringing the world down.  This makes 0 sense in a world with a state where rich people get rich because they pillage, but it makes sense in the libertarian ideal where people actually have to do good to become wealthy.


They must, otherwise they'll have no other venue to remain rich.  To be successful in the market is to successfully accommodate people's needs and desires; if you don't do this, you won't be rich.  Except when there's a state.


What'll they do without a military at their beck and call, beg you to donate all your money to them?  You could have a million Dicks and Mitts for every Warren and Bill, it wouldn't matter if they have no justified force.


You seem to be under the impression that libertarianism is "rule by the rich".  All I can say here is that you have a very mistaken understanding of libertarianism (unless you're referring to minarchists and TLP, who are just as confused as you are.)  Libertarianism has a very, very basic and fundamental political philosophy, but a far more expansive economic counterpart which will help you understand what I'm talking about: https://mises.org/

Furthermore, I'm not rich nor white by any means.  Maybe you just happen to be white and know a lot of rich white people.

You could call me a poor Libertarian. I don't make a ton of money, I work one part-time job and do freelance writing on the side, and I want the government and everybody else to just stay out of my way when I start moving up. I can be stubborn when somebody tries to tell me I can't do something. I'm like an articulate version of every trailer trash loudmouthed bitch sometimes, but don't underestimate the power of my right hook when somebody tries to tell me I'm not good enough to make it on my own merit.

"Ive Never Met a Poor or Non-White Libertarian" - no, but if I were the Koch brothers I'd do my utmost to find one - and then get him/her to stand for President.

   And then maybe, finally, it would never again be doubted that the US is, indeed, the Land of the Free  .

In spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary


  A 6'1 ((prerequisite) average height for US Presidents) hispanic lesbian, whose father was unknown and whose mother was a repeat offender TWOCer (thats "taking (motor vehicles) without owners consent" for the US contingent amongst us), who dropped out of school at 12 - only to then, with that protean spirit that lay at the heart of libertarianism and the American Dream, go on to grind their way up from the bottom of society working 5 shitty jobs 25 hours a day. And to grow to espouse and laud all that is great and good in the unfettered free market from which they have emerged triumphant.

  I'd vote for them anyhow  

Crony capitalism? Capitalism between friends?

Well, classical liberalism was equivalent to US libertarianism, so thanks, Chomsky, for throwing stones from your glass house.

That is part of the problem. The "public services" are typically a monopoly - people are not allowed to opt out or are penalized if they do. Then the monopolists play the guilt card - you owe "society" because you used the service they coerced you into using. You used some of them - the neonatal hospital, for example - before you were even sentient. 

Noam Chomsky On The Original Meaning Of Libertarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj793e8Ss4w

...Before the word got co-opted by free market propagandists:

"Remember that the United States is out of the world on this type of thing. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is on Mars. So here, the term 'libertarian' means the opposite of what it always meant in history. 'Libertarian' throughout European history meant 'socialist-anarchist.' The worker's movement--the socialist movement--sort of broke into 2 branches, one statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky and so on; the anti-statist branch, which included left-Marxists like Rosa Luxumberg, kind of merged with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' So 'libertarian' in Europe always meant 'socialist.' Here, it means ultra-Ayn Rand or Cato Institute or something like that. But that's a special US usage having to do with the--there are a lot of things special here."

Freedom ≠ crony capitalism.

You use that term freedom...I do not think you understand what it is.

The problem with libertarianism it that it doesn't provide poor people with freedom, only freedom for the rich to get even richer. I'm all up for liberty from the state etc but there has to be some institutions in place to care for the poor, elderly and sick. 

The definition of an honest politician is one who stays bought. Not many of 'em out there.

China is an honest government. They are openly of the opinion that they own the people. Better than hiding it, like "democracies".

LOL, China, which according to post-2010 documentaries, segregates its own people by province/economic status and restricts the right to travel (amongst many other non-train related tyranny), an "honest" government.

It's because you don't know about how powerful common law is in America. Almost nobody does. Search on "Bill Thornton common law" and "Karl Lentz common law."

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

I think if you speak with poor people they want freedom just like any libertarian it can often just be their socioeconomic situation which has led to them being under developed when communicating about the political landscape.

Im not rich either as first world goes and im pretty much wanting a libertarian style system.

I couldn't care less about the US government and I particularly dislike the usual type of US American libertarianism, but hey, it may make sense there...

So, I guess the answer is, people cannot do anything without using public services and infrastructure, correct?

You can also see some on YouTube by doing a search for "Slab City":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpPmT7S4zHE

We have a strong but a dis honest government.

Why is there this "need"?

There has been an invention, they call it the aeroplane. It is faster than a bullet train.

Need a strong and honest government to build up massive bullet train infrastructure like the one in China.

Private company and local goverment do not have the economic power and law on their side to do project at such scale.

That's another of the "basic" questions that libertarians and anarchists get tired of answering. But I'll give you a brief synopsis, and recommend some reading for you, because the subject has been covered in depth from multiple angles.

The basic gist is, that if a service is worth having, it's worth paying for, and if the money has to be stolen, then it's probably not worth having. Most "public services" are completely unconstitutional in the United States, but they exist anyway and we pay for them whether we use them or not. Which creates more of a free rider problem than the system that anarchists envision.

Prior to the "public" (read government) seizure of all roads, most roads in most countries were turnpikes, and the system worked well. That's just one example. I'm tired and not willing to go in depth right this minute, but here's some good resources:

For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
The New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin III

mises.org
lewrockwell.com

They would be able to if there was competition. It is not their fault that the government monopolizes public services and infrastructure.

People should go through their lives with the thought that if they can't take care of themselves someone else will be there to take care of them.

That should lead to some sound decision making.

To think that everyone else is selfish and that you need to take care of yourself will just lead to some sort of crazy self reliance that would be terrible for poor people.

Stay in school? Nah, there are unselfish people out there that will help me...school is too hard anyway.
Choose a major in English (which almost everyone speaks) instead of Engineering? If I don't find a job some unselfish person will get me through life...Engineering requires that hard math anyway.
Go get drunk with my friends instead of studying for that exam? My friends aren't selfish, they'll take care of me the rest of my life..the exam isn't important.
Get off my ass and look for a job? Nah, it's much easier to stay at home playing video games, some unselfish person out there will pay for my rent.

I mean, how is it possible for someone not to use any public services or infrastructure?

Easy, by not being an asshole, oh wait I forgot! That's too difficult for some people!

How is that possible?

I don't think people should be forced to use public infrastructure and services, simply because tax whores won't allow competition.

Don't know what you're talking about.

I just don't think freeloaders should be allowed to take advantage of public infrastructure and services, simply because they don't "believe in taxes."

So you mean one day the bitcoin tax people will shut down the speech they do not like on the network, just like the IRS?

Two things, there's nothing wrong with describing a basic existent human trait, and acknowledging it.  Humans are selfish. 

This is separate from imposing value judgements.  Selfish can be bad, if say in an isolated group of starving people one hoards the food.

Selfish can be good, too.  Usually this is the case.

Unselfish or "altruistic" has been hijacked by politicians and other manipulators who want to see you doing things for free for them. 

My suspicion of attempts to insult selfishness stems from the selfishness of those doing the insulting.

I live below the poverty line and I am a libertarian. And I am Non-White.

So what you're saying is ... if you embrace libertarianism you become a filthy rich white, but if you don't you become a poor minority?!

I'm sold! Where do I sign up?!

Now that, sir, is a very cogent question. One I've given years of thought too. I can't give a short answer, and in fact have to say there is no single answer.

But I have a lot of ideas. My first response was a bit terse. In rereading it, I came off pretty pissed off, which I wasn't. Just had my hands full of 9 month old baby

But to the point you raise, I am of the opinion that government needs to change, and the current forms will have to be abolished for that to happen. I'm more an anarchist than a libertarian, though it was Rothbard that led me to anarchism. I do not have a great deal of time right now, so I'll just leave you some thinking points, because as I said, I don't have proven answers, just some strong suspicions (some backed by history, others by observation).

1. As you noted humans are selfish. This has to be factored into any system, coercive or not, or it will not work.

2. In a seeming contradiction, people can be quite generous, and often for reasons that appear to contradict #1. (in fact, it does not, but that's for later, as I'd like to see your responses first)

3. All current forms of government are predicated on ownership of people, whether admitted or not. ( a dictatorship is generally more honest than a democracy in that)

4. Libertarian and anarchist philosophy rail against three, but largely skate by 1 and magnify 2.

So, as I see it, there can be no ONE solution, but massive decentralization, with small communities who interact with each other on a case by case basis, and a general acceptance of the non aggression principle is a BEGINNING of a solution. That deals well with our social nature, but not AS well with our selfishness. Given that general acceptance is NOT universal acceptance, it is also necessary that a free society be well armed at the individual level. I've long said that philosophy aside, the first requisite of a free society is general armament. It prevents those who do bad things from doing them, and that includes would-be rulers.

At this point in history, talking about what can be is the best we have, but I think it quite probable that libertarians and anarchists could establish communities that become recognized as nations. It won't happen in the west for a long time, but it could happen in Africa, on uninhabited islands, a number of places even in Eastern Europe.

This is of course far from even a complete introduction to the things I've been thinking and talking about for the last 13 years, but to my mind you have raised the big question. As far as how to achieve such societies, I think the agorist attitude is proper.

Looking forward to your reply!

A) Im white

B) I never said that there are no poor or non-white libertarians, I just said Ive never met one

C) I never said libertarians are selfish, I said human beings are selfish


It seems I touched a nerve here. I never asked for your empathy, I just wanted to have conversation about my evolving political beliefs.

I am a libertarian, but I have a high degree of compassion for mankind and the plight of the average person. Furthermore, when civil society breaks down as a result of the endgame of free markets, nobody wins - even with the people who have all the money and property. They will essentially be living in a prison. How could anyone argue for this result?

My issue is, how do we retain total economic freedom without an endgame which results in our society breaking down, the start of which we are currently seeing.

This is a sincere question, its been bothering me for weeks.

What, are you referring to me?

I'm also half-irish, but it's not like that matters to someone who's a blatant moron and can't see past their own brainwashed perceptions of certain groups of people I'm tired of people on this board who are part of mainstream politics trying to fit me in somewhere they're comfortable with and it's funny when I don't fit into anything they've been taught about.

I'm a libertarian anarchist, and flat broke.

I'm also of mixed ancestry, white and Native American.

Widen your scope of investigation, you'll find a lot of us.

That's because there's a subsidy/inflation in place, you need to think long term, way beyond the subsidy.

Wrong. One has a responsibility or duty to provide the next generations a lack of a police state aka 24/7/365 civil rights violations funded by taxes.

Wrong. Almost every transaction I send requires no fee, and confirms in the next block or 2.

Well, it's not "obey or die", but one has a responsibility or duty to provide the next generations with the same or better opportunities that were given to us.

Even the Bitcoin protocol, the liberal/libertarian/anarchist wet dream isn't tax free, one has to pay fees in order to keep the system running...

lol nice, obey or die logic, too bad I never subscribe to that.

Hospitals: not monopoly government-run
Schools: not monopoly government-run
Roads: construction funded privately once upon a time, now usurped and effectively monopolized by tax funding
Electricity: not monopoly government-provided
Water: not monopoly government-provided

Homeland security: right to self-defense infringed, usurped by the government despite longstanding legal precedent of no duty to protect, poorly provided at best, civil rights violations 24/7/365 at worst

Correct.

Fucking newborn babies not able to instantly teleport themselves out of tax slavery as soon as they leave the womb!

Do they ever went to the hospital? Did they went to school? did they ever used a road? How about electricity? Water?

We are social animals and we have live in a society, there are many resources and infrastructure that are shared, directly or indirectly, by everyone and they do need to be paid for.

Like I said, there's no free lunch.

Like I said, you're just pushing your own beliefs onto somebody who was simply born into that situation, they don't owe you anything just for living.

Sorry, I'm not following. What does belief has to do with it?

You could make a case that if someone lives in their property and never goes to the outside world and is completely autonomous, that person should not pay taxes on the land they own, well I say they do have to pay taxes, because at some point they do lived among the rest of society and took advantage of all it has to offer. There's no free lunch...

Bullshit. Since when are libertarians required to wear Jew badges and provide their income level for everyone they meet to see?

By not forcing their beliefs on them? As I've said possibly a million times now, I have nothing against people just helping each other voluntarily but when people claim that they pay taxes so that they can have healthcare etc. to make sure people don't get left in the street to die then proceed to bitch and whine when said people are found to not pay their taxes I find that pretty hypocritical because it shows that's not what they meant in the slightest.

It's very, very difficult to live in a place and not take any benefit from it, how do you suppose that can be achieved?

What if they want nothing to do with the shitty system they've been born into? You're simply assuming because they don't want to pay taxes they want to take benefits as well.

Well, just doing Devil's Advocate for a bit, but why people who refuse to pay taxes should not pay a price for that? They sure enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. Are some people entitled to a free ride?

So you have never ever met non-white folks of significant means? Significant wealth increasingly equates to libertarian sympathies regardless of race or ethnicity

Gee thanks, nice to know someone out there in the world views someone's ideology purely based on whether they're white, I truly enjoy it when someone talks about themselves so benignly and then proceeds to spew an incredibly racist and hypocritical rant just because they think it's okay to say that kind of shit to white people, you know, because they deserve it. I also find it even more amusing when these people rant about how selfish people like Libertarians and Anarchists are and completely ignore the fact that they aren't the ones going around and forcing people to pay taxes through either threat of imprisonment or gunpoint, because that's oh so much better for a society to be oppressed through fear rather than letting them be generous to society through choice.

As it stands, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and even Marxists have more fucking empathy from me than people like the OP, when government loyalists acknowledge the fact that you go to jail if you don't pay your taxes then we'll talk.

Well, I am poor, I am non-white, and I am libertarian... nice to meet you

I doubt you'll ever meet one...


Not very likely. Libertarians aren't exactly reknowned for their generosity, it goes against everything Ayn Rand preached

No one can manipulate the market for long. Even entity such as Fed needs to play by the rules or face demise going against market force.

Total eradication of state is non realistic for this century. We are not far enough. Today libertarian - freemarket society would be actually bruteforce market.
gang wars everywhere. Street gangs fighting guerilla style in streets and  higher financial mafia gangs fighting on markets. Ordinary people would be slaves , exactly like in times before creation of state. Who would control public order? Private corporations are obliged to create profit, not to guarantee your rights. They would do whatever is more beneficial to them, you would be just comodity, not human being.

I have.

Maybe you just need to get around more?

Libertarianism has many branches, the one you are referring to is beneficial to a very small group of people, the filthy rich, those are the guys who do not want any regulation so they can manipulate the market for their own advantage.

Here's a small example on why that is not good thing:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/30/3573680/trade-deal-europe-food-safety/

And this has caused me to rethink my views. Im such a believer in personal freedom, but I dont really see how the endgame for freetrade can be anything other than disaster.

There is a selfishness to Libertarianism which is unappealing to me. It isnt explicit, and it isnt necessary by default, but human nature is by default selfish.

When you extrapolate this selfishness out a thousandfold into the future, the disparity between the haves and have nots becomes cataclysmic to civil society.

The only way I can see a libertarian capitalist utopia actually working is when people at the very very top, the .001%, act in a manner which benefits society at large.

But the problem is, for every Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there are 10 Dick Cheneys and Mitt Romneys.

Sadly, the 1% are not a benevolent group: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-rich-are-as-selfish-as-you-think.html