# A Challenge to Modern Liberals Regarding their Fealty to the Principles they Espouse **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693 "2013-06-11T02:57:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/121 "2013-06-12T23:25:35Z")
Jayarod7, you are conspicuously ignoring the most knowledgeable contribution to the thread, which is Hellestal’s post. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/122 "2013-06-12T23:27:04Z")
And just to clarify: Jayarod7, would fractional reserve banking be forbidden under your system? ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/123 "2013-06-12T23:48:28Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Hello again, **jayarod7**. A question I like to ask about proposed political systems which seem untenable is: _ **What real-world example country comes closest to your ideal?** _ I ask you this question. Please come up with something; even a poor approximation would be better than no example at all. (Some proposed “libertarian” societies seem impossible unless the idea is that everyone would have a brain implant that changes human nature.) > > I do agree with parts of your OP, but draw almost completely opposite conclusions. I would agree with you that the U.S. government has been corrupted to support oligarchs rather than the common people, but see the key problem as **de** -regulation, not regulation. The antique thinkers you approve of weren’t arguing for anarchy; they were arguing for _republics_. To call them advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is at best misleading; John Stuart Mill actually went so far as to espouse “the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” > > I do see that you have utilitarian ideals, and are probably annoyed to be lumped with other “libertarians.” _ **What real-world example country comes closest to your ideal?** _ I doubt if yours would be the Friedmanist examples like Pinochet’s Chile or Cheney’s Iraq. Another Libertarian Doper presented medieval Ireland as a paradigm, though later retracted it. When I mention lawless Somalia as a libertarian utopia, I’m not being sarcastic: it’s very hard to imagine a society without law enforcers, lawlessness, or brain implants. > > _But where you really lose much of your audience is in blaming the Federal Reserve and fiat money._ You’ve latched on to a fringe conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with your other ideals. > > I am amazed that people blame America’s social and economic problems on inflation. First of all, there’s been little U.S. inflation except during the 1970’s oil shock. I do hope you’re well read enough to know that economists consider inflation of 2% or so _to be better (more stimulative) than zero inflation_. Use of gold as money would be _deflationary_ due to the metal’s finitude. > > I’m not sure what you mean by “printed nearly twenty trillion dollars and passed it out in secret,” unless you’ve bought in to a Rothschild-Illuminati theory. I’m not happy about mounting government debt, if that’s what you’re referring to, but that can be blamed on credit crises prompted by **de** -regulation, and America’s peculiar love affair with Tea Party idiots. True, U.S. governments would have less to spend on schools, food safety, etc. if its employees and suppliers stopped accepting paper as payment and insisted on gold bullion. Do you really think that would be an improvement? > > In many ways, your ideals seem opposite to those of the _Greed is Good, Market is God, Property over People_ fanatics. It strikes me as bizarre you’ve bought into the same fantasies about fiat money as those thinkers. I do appreciate the intelligent and well thought out critique. I have significant problems with many commentators that call themselves libertarians. It is unfortunate that the “libertarian” label means so many different things to different people. It has become kind of a cool “third option” that people claim when they feel disillusioned by the two major parties, even though they know very little about classical liberalism or the theories behind the ideology. That is how both Glenn Beck on one hand and Bill Maher on the other can claim to be libertarians at one time or another. I think it is merely a product of the corruption of the modern political spectrum and the dichotomy we are presented between Republicans and Democrats where labels have been distorted to confuse rather than illuminate. For many on the Left, libertarians have been seen as some sort of adjunct political philosophy of conservative Republicans when that is not historically the case. I also vehemently push back on the notion that libertarians are somehow the friends of corporate oligarchs or whose values are contrary to those of civil rights oriented Progressives. That is why I make it clear that historically speaking, opposing the State and reducing its power was always considered a leftist tradition. Until the mid 20th century people did not assume that corporate power and State power were competing factions where to reduce the power of one was to inversely increase the power of the other. I feel the libertarian and leftist tradition has been and should again be to reduce concentrations of power, whether political or economic, wherever they might be. Thus smaller, competing companies are better than large monopolies. And thus smaller, competing political entities (states or local communities) are better than a massive central government that trumps all other political units. I know we agree that the modern State has been corrupted by corporate special interests. Yet you see the problem as deregulation. This is the conventional answer by leftists regarding these problems. We have to first clarify, what exactly is regulation? We certainly have a lot of rules and hoops to jump through to do almost anything in the economy. But we first have to recognize that there are two types of regulations that governments pass. The first is a rule passed that is written and designed to protect consumers or hold in check business behavior that is destructive, like some anti trust laws. In this category I would place Glass Steagal and things like the Clean Air Act. The second type of regulation is one that is passed due to pressure from a large corporation to hurt smaller competitors or grant them a monopoly. It is not designed for consumer protection, even though many are put forward with the lie that they are, and they hurt the consumer and protect the biggest corporate firms from failure, from competition or consumer choice. These are very pernicious and bad regulations and any progressive should support their repeal. Regulatory capture happens from the very outset many times. But most leftists don’t even seem to grasp this nuance in regulatory code. We are merely presented with the choice of “deregulation” on one hand or “more regulation” on the other. If you want deregulation you are a corporate crony and a Republican and if you favor more regulation you are a liberal and a consumer advocate. This is a false choice. Objectively speaking, of the hundreds of thousands of regulations and laws on the books governing every aspect of economic life, a great majority are written by larger corporations that don’t want you to start a business and compete with them. Special interests get legislation drafted by themselves all the time. They might get a subsidy or some benefit from it but so frequently the consumer gets shafted. So if your rallying cry was “we need to reinstate Glass Steagal and then drastically downsize and eliminate bad and corrupt regulations that hurt competitors and do nothing to help consumers” I would be on your team on the subject. The problem is that all I hear from the left is that we need MORE laws and MORE regulations without even touching the monstrosity of the current regulatory code and its ineffectiveness and pernicious effect of propping up the Corporate state. This is why I claim that many progressives unwittingly are aiding the corporate cronies they claim to despise. As for the Fed printing trillions of dollars in secret, I already posted this link but in case you missed it: > **[The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-Reported](https://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/)** > > Image by telmo32 via Flickr The media’s inscrutable brush-off of the Government Accounting Office’s recently released audit of the Federal Reserve has raised many questions about the Fed’s goings-on since the financial crisis began in 2008. The audit... I also want to disabuse you of the notion that libertarians want a society with no laws. That is NOT the case. All we want is a society were the laws affect everyone equally, where there is no privileged class that is above those laws. You might think you agree with this, but in every modern society with a central bank and a government, the political class, bankers and corporate cronies are immune from the laws that govern us. We can’t counterfeit, but the Federal Reserve can. We can’t steal but the government can take a third or more of our paychecks at the point of a gun, we can’t murder but our government is legally allowed to engage in assassinations and wars without repercussions. In a libertarian society no government (even ones that some libertarians would allow) is permitted to violate the rights of private citizens who are minding their own business. In a libertarian society, all just and moral laws can be confined to only to. 1. Don’t initiate force or violence against the person or property of another person. 2. Live up to your agreements (contracts). That is essentially all that is needed for a peaceful society to function. I need to make the point that a libertarian sees environmental protection as part of the initiation of force as we all breath the air, drink the water etc. If your person or property has been effected by pollution, the offending party should be punished for the the action. As far as your request for examples of libertarian societies, I think there are plenty throughout history that demonstrate the feasibility of a free society. The absence of any “perfect” example is irrelevant as there is no perfect example of ANY society in history. I refer you to these links: [http://mises.ca/posts/blog/contra-molyneux-history-is-full-of-examples-of-libertarian-like-societies/](http://mises.ca/posts/blog/contra-molyneux-history-is-full-of-examples-of-libertarian-like-societies/) [http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf](http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf) Ancient Ireland is an example of a libertarian approximation that existed for a thousand years. “The libertarian society of Ireland, which lasted for a thousand years was able to resist English conquest for hundreds of years because of the absence of a State which could be conquered easily and then used by the conquerors to rule over the native population.” - Murray Rothbard “PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE”: > **[Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html)** What about the Iroquois Confederacy, a Native American libertarian society that existed before Columbus? > **[1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus)** > > 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus is a 2005 non-fiction book by American author and science writer Charles C. Mann about the pre-Columbian Americas. It was the 2006 winner of the National Academies Communication Award for best creative work that helps the public's understanding of topics in science, engineering or medicine. > The book presents recent research findings from different fields which suggest human populations in the Western Hemisphere—that is, the Indigenous peoples... But back to a central point. I am completely astonished at how the left, under the guise of caring for the “common man”, ends up supporting central banking and money creation by the State. I see that it is nearly an impossible task to harness the power of an expansive government and use it to further the interests of the middle class and poor. It seems inevitable in my mind that the most powerful will become more powerful and the lobbying ability of the rich and influential with always outweigh that of the middle class and labor unions. That is why I put forward that the State is not an engine of human progress but a huge detriment to human happiness and prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/124 "2013-06-13T00:01:26Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > **jayarod7** , I see that you’re referenced von Mises and the Austrian School several times, and seem to endorse their beliefs. Thus, I am puzzled to hear you call for the destruction of the state, as von Mises argued that government was necessary for freedom to exist. Your anarchist theory isn’t compatible with von Mises. > > From _Economic Policy_ > > From _Planning For Freedom_ > > From _Liberty and Property_ > > Von Mises was deeply skeptical of the inherent _benevolence_ of government; he wrote often how governments are liberal only when forced to be by their citizens, and that government was capable of using its power to inflict tremendous harm. But he never doubted that government was necessary. This is true but you are missing a very critical element. Ludwig von Mises ONLY considered a government legitimate IF it was a voluntary association and any party was free to leave at any point. At the founding of our nation, we had that form of government. The principle of secession was defended and not questioned. We had a voluntary union. That is the form of government that I might be able to support. Yet other Austrian economists and thinkers from Hans Hoppe to even Murray Rothbard go a bit further than Mises questioning the necessity of government monopolies of law enforcement and defense. The argument is that if competition leads to better services on the market, why should law enforcement not also benefit from competition? The arguments (and I have read them extensively) are persuasive but I will grant that the concept of anarchy is harder to grasp. Though I call myself a libertarian anarchist, I would not oppose the type of voluntary Republic advocated for my Mises. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/125 "2013-06-13T00:09:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It would lead to the collapse of society since all laws would be ignored, and therefore lead to a massive increase of violence so it doesn’t even fulfill it’s core goal of reducing violence and coercion. The real world is not amenable to ideologically pure solutions. Okay this is very important and I want you to remember this. The non aggression principle only means that neither private citizens nor the government should \*\*\*initiate \*\*\*force or violence against peaceful individuals. Got it? Initiate. That means that laws that punish criminals and use force in defense or to protect the victims of violence are permitted in a libertarian society. These types of laws do NOT violate the Non Aggression Principle. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/126 "2013-06-13T00:21:37Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > So I assume you deny that there were any major avoidable negative impacts on the economy prior to 1971 attributable to the gold standard. There were certainly “major avoidable negative impacts on the economy” prior to 1971, but no I wouldn’t say they were the result of the Gold standard. You have to remember that no one is advocating going back on a gold standard that is exactly like what we had before. But that was a “sound money” monetary system of sorts that prevented the growth of government and the expansion of the money supply. In those respects it created a solid foundation for the most prosperous society the world has ever seen. The remaining fact is that all in all, we did exceptionally well as a nation from 1776 to 1971 I would say. Are you denying this? Even if you were to cite some problems with the gold standard in those years, the hyperbole I am hearing on this thread is that it causes entire economies to collapse, causes the rich to kill all the poor and any other assortment of nonsensical rantings. I am only proving my case that societies can and do thrive under sound money. To turn the question back at you, can you notice any negative economic and social trends during the last forty years that might be related to fiat money creation? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/127 "2013-06-13T00:26:31Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > I also vehemently push back on the notion that libertarians are somehow the friends of corporate oligarchs or whose values are contrary to those of civil rights oriented Progressives. That is why I make it clear that historically speaking, opposing the State and reducing its power was always considered a leftist tradition. Which is opposing civil rights and supporting corporate oligarchs. The State is the only real restraint on them, and is the only reason that rights of any kind have any meaningful existence. > [@jayarod7](#): > > I feel the libertarian and leftist tradition has been and should again be to reduce concentrations of power, whether political or economic, wherever they might be. Thus smaller, competing companies are better than large monopolies. And thus smaller, competing political entities (states or local communities) are better than a massive central government that trumps all other political units. Except that’s just not how the world worlds. Small is not inherently good, nor is big inherently bad. > [@jayarod7](#): > > I also want to disabuse you of the notion that libertarians want a society with no laws. That is NOT the case. All we want is a society were the laws affect everyone equally, where there is no privileged class that is above those laws. Empty rhetoric. Regardless of their _intentions,_ that or outright violent anarchy is what the results of their proposals would be. > [@jayarod7](#): > > You might think you agree with this, but in every modern society with a central bank and a government, the political class, bankers and corporate cronies are immune from the laws that govern us. We can’t counterfeit, but the Federal Reserve can. We can’t steal but the government can take a third or more of our paychecks at the point of a gun, we can’t murder but our government is legally allowed to engage in assassinations and wars without repercussions. Printing money isn’t counterfeiting, nor is taxation theft. > [@jayarod7](#): > > In a libertarian society, all just and moral laws can be confined to only to. > > 1. Don’t initiate force or violence against the person or property of another person. > > 2. Live up to your agreements (contracts). The inevitable result being either collapse or a society of lords and serfs where the wealthy have near absolute power, and the serfs can’t fight back without the government crushing them - but otherwise, the government leaves them to suffer. It also _absolutely cannot_ be a genuine democracy, or it would simply be voted out of power. > [@jayarod7](#): > > But back to a central point. I am completely astonished at how the left, under the guise of caring for the “common man”, ends up supporting central banking and money creation by the State. Because outside of the goldbugs, no one considers that a problem. > [@jayarod7](#): > > I see that it is nearly an impossible task to harness the power of an expansive government and use it to further the interests of the middle class and poor. It seems inevitable in my mind that the most powerful will become more powerful and the lobbying ability of the rich and influential with always outweigh that of the middle class and labor unions. > > That is why I put forward that the State is not an engine of human progress but a huge detriment to human happiness and prosperity. History demonstrates the exact opposite however. A small government means that the rich simply run roughshod over everyone else, the middle class barely exists at best, unions are either co-opted or killed off, and what government there is is just an extension of the corporations. > [@jayarod7](#): > > This is true but you are missing a very critical element. Ludwig von Mises ONLY considered a government legitimate IF it was a voluntary association and any party was free to leave at any point. > > At the founding of our nation, we had that form of government. The principle of secession was defended and not questioned. We had a voluntary union. That is the form of government that I might be able to support. And it was also dysfunctional, which is why it was replaced. > [@jayarod7](#): > > The argument is that if competition leads to better services on the market, why should law enforcement not also benefit from competition? Because the name for that is warlordism. This is classic “just move to Somalia” stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/128 "2013-06-13T00:27:50Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Well all sorts of things some consider to be “vices”, smoking pot, gambling, prostitution, buying certain kinds of food and drinks, etc for a few quick examples. So you want to disband the monetary systems of the entire world and end any kind of government assurance of the maintenance of organized society in favor of the right to enjoy drugs, games and hookers? Perhaps after reflection you’d like to list some more fundamental human dignities you’re being denied? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/129 "2013-06-13T00:30:53Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > The remaining fact is that all in all, we did exceptionally well as a nation from 1776 to 1971 I would say. Are you denying this? [Yes.](http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/why-libertarian-defenses-confederacy-states-rights-are-incoherent) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/130 "2013-06-13T00:31:12Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Okay this is very important and I want you to remember this. The non aggression principle only means that neither private citizens nor the government should \*\*\*initiate \*\*\*force or violence against peaceful individuals. Which means society collapses, because there’s so many non-violent ways to wreck society. The fact that there’s no way to collect taxes by itself means society is as good as collapsed; no one pays their taxes, the government can’t keep running, and everything falls to pieces when the police and everything else the government does vanishes. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/131 "2013-06-13T00:32:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Repeatedly. Booms and busts were far worse then. Recall the Great Depression? > > They don’t want to curtail it, except for the other guy. “Get your government hands off my Medicare!” The anti-government movement is fundamentally in denial of reality. > > By flinging themselves off cliffs so there’s fewer people to govern. Or something equally self destructive; our government is already too small, not too large to do what we want of it. > > Yeah, suuuure it does. This is conspiracy theory stuff. Let me change the subject somewhat. I am genuinely intrigued by you Der Trihs. I assume you are entirely genuine on this thread and are not being contrary for its own sake. How old are you? Where did you go to school? How did you arrive at your political views? Where do you get your political news and information from? It seems almost staggering that someone could be so removed from the reality that we are living in. You think the government is FAR too small? Nearly four trillion dollar budgets a year not enough? An excess of two hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security not enough for you? Its funny how much more our government spends in 2013 (which you called “underfunded”) than we spend twenty years ago yet the American people are not better off and the economy is not more prosperous. Can you cite ANY wasteful government programs? Do you work for the government? That is one logical explanation for your answers. Are you familiar with Constitutional law? Does it concern you that you have a blatant disregard for the limitations placed by that document on our government? I know you want all the conservatives and moderates and libertarians and anarchists to die off then you can take control of the State and you can centrally plan your workers paradise I mean progressive society through government violence and fiat money creation. It is always fascinating to hear people like yourselves if only as a reminder of the disastrous effects of the American education system on young minds. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/132 "2013-06-13T00:35:17Z")
Following **Hellestal** ’s lead, I located [the GAO report](http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf) which was misrepresented in the Forbes article. Table 8 is the one with the $16 trillion total \* but it is prefaced with the caption\*: > [@](#): > > Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts … For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion … It seems very clear that Forbes’ $16 trillion figure (amplified to $20 trillion by OP) is bullshit, as **Hellestal** already explained. (OP, is this clear to you?) A trillion dollars is a lot of money but it isn’t the same as $16 trillion. (If this isn’t clear, the former averages out to $3100 per American, the latter to $50,000.) BTW, I learned long ago that [forbes.com](http://forbes.com) is in the same category as American Enterprise or Faux News. It’s just _not_ a go-to website for factual info. Even if you initially acquire info via such a source, _please have the courtesy to track down a reputable cite before posting._ **jayarod7** posted a very long response to me much of which could be summarized as “good regulations are good … bad regulations are bad.” I was ready to stipulate to that before his post. 😃 I’ll just excerpt a little to show his _tone_: > [@jayarod7](#): > > … We can’t counterfeit, but the Federal Reserve can. We can’t steal but the government can take a third or more of our paychecks at the point of a gun,… Much of the money “stolen at the point of a gun” goes for Social Security, schools, law enforcement and other things even **jayarod7** might approve of. _But why do we need to speak of “the point of a gun” ?_ :smack: Another Libertarian already has a thread going equating tax with violence. **jayarod7** , would you mind putting this kind of comment in that thread and leave this one for adult dialog? > [@hansel](#): > > And just to clarify: Jayarod7, would fractional reserve banking be forbidden under your system? A Savings & Loan where Mr. and Mrs. Smith earn interest on their savings after paying off their mortgage, with their funds then turned over to Mr. and Mrs. Jones to buy a starter house _ **creates new money** _ in exactly the same way that commercial banks create money via “fractional reserve” checking accounts! The main difference is the former is M2 money, the latter M1. Through the magic of simple arithmetic, money creation can multiply. Yet laymen whose understanding of money creation comes from sensationalist YouTubes think that banks’ money creation is some sort of illusion or fraud. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/133 "2013-06-13T00:41:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If that’s your way of saying I live in the real world, then yes, I agree. I’m living in reality and you’ve chosen a different path. > Actually I counted and that was no examples. You said coercive violence on a day-to-day basis and I asked for examples. Paying taxes doesn’t count unless an IRS agent punches you in the face everyday for a year. Sigh. Okay, the threat of violence is equally as pernicious as enacting violence if it is threatened against peaceful individuals. If you are a completely obedient person subservient to the State you might get away with never having overt physical violence used against you by the State. But you wouldn’t be free. Police forces doing drug raids, drone strikes, imprisonment for victim less crimes, kids dying in illegal and immoral wars are all examples of overt physical violence by the government that occurs every day. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/134 "2013-06-13T00:43:15Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > In a libertarian society, all just and moral laws can be confined to only to. > > 1. Don’t initiate force or violence against the person or property of another person. > > 2. Live up to your agreements (contracts). I presume that in Libertopia, there is no commons; all property is privately held, and use of that property is controlled by the owner. So I would have to pay a toll every time I left my driveway. I just want to go from my property to the marketplace, but if all the property in between is privately owned, I have to submit to the demands of the owners. I have no contract with them, yet if I cross their property without paying the toll, they can respond with violence to prevent me or collect the toll. How is this society superior to what we have now? ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/135 "2013-06-13T00:48:14Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’d like to see better evidence for this. I don’t dispute it as such: I’m not going to declare “That’s Not True” without better evidence myself. I just am dubious, and would like to see this defended more rigorously. > > Yes, I sometimes speed on the freeway. > > California’s three-strike law was originally sold to us as applying only to violent felonies. They lied to us, and put a different proposition in front of us, which we, being idiots, passed. The “third strike” didn’t have to be a violent crime. People were put away for insane lengths of time for writing bad checks, or shoplifting. It was a stinking mess. Recently, we changed it to do away with that insane loophole. > > However, at no point could “any of us” be locked up without due process of law. You took what could have been a good argument, and ruined it by exaggeration. Rein in the extremist rhetoric, and you have some good points. Your immoderation makes you much harder to take seriously. You have a point. I shouldn’t have stated that the way I did. No of course they cannot lock us up on anything without a trial (unless they declare us an enemy combatant or a “terrorist” in which case they can). I was merely making a point that there are so many laws on the books that should be there that law enforcement practically cannot enforce all of them. So they make priorities. If they chose to shift priorities, we might easily be targeted from prosecution for doing something we have always done. For example, in California medical marijuana is legal, but it is illegal under federal law. For quite a while they didn’t enforce federal law, but then they started doing raids and prosecuting people, destroying their property and their lives. This happens. I will take the criticism about exaggeration and hyperbole but the point I was making still stands. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/136 "2013-06-13T00:58:10Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Its funny how much more our government spends in 2013 (which you called “underfunded”) than we spend twenty years ago yet the American people are not better off and the economy is not more prosperous. Of course we aren’t. Not only is there a global economic mess, but we’ve let the rich hog most of the money in the country. We need a _major_ tax increase on the rich. > [@jayarod7](#): > > Are you familiar with Constitutional law? Does it concern you that you have a blatant disregard for the limitations placed by that document on our government? Somehow I doubt that you and I agree on what those are. > [@jayarod7](#): > > I know you want all the conservatives and moderates and libertarians and anarchists to die off then you can take control of the State and you can centrally plan your workers paradise I mean progressive society through government violence and fiat money creation. :dubious: Seeing “government violence” and “fiat money creation” lumped together like that is just so _bizarre._ Like the next printing of dollar bills will be red…_because it’s made with the blood of the innocent!_ MWHAHAHAHA! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/137 "2013-06-13T00:58:18Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It seems very clear that Forbes’ $16 trillion figure (amplified to $20 trillion by OP) is bullshit, as **Hellestal** already explained. (OP, is this clear to you?) **jayarod7** , I do hope you understand this point. You may feel that your essential argument is similar whether the amount was twenty trillion or just one, and whether the loans were “secret” or public. But if you have the integrity to admit that your sources are bullshitting you, you may achieve enlightenment. (\* - Based on my impression of [forbes.com](http://forbes.com) competence, their bullshit number may be less a matter of Machiavellian propaganda then simply some junior reporter told to browse through the PDF and look for the largest dollar amount mentioned. :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/138 "2013-06-13T01:03:37Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I’ve smoked plenty of marijuana. Never had any problems, mostly because I was smart enough not to do it when there were cops around. It’s a remarkably good rule of thumb. Thats not the point. The point is you were doing something illegal and it should NOT be illegal. You could have gotten caught. You could have gotten in plenty of trouble. To argue against what I am saying by claiming “I am really good at evading the law” is silly. We shouldn’t have to hide from law enforcement. We should eliminate tons of laws that should not have been laws in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/139 "2013-06-13T01:19:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Yes.](http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/why-libertarian-defenses-confederacy-states-rights-are-incoherent) What is this link supposed to prove? It seems to say that secession might be a reasonable principle but that libertarians shouldn’t support the Confederacy in the Civil War. Fine. Sign me up for that. I certainly don’t support the Confederacy. But I am saying that our nation did quite well **with a dollar pegged to gold**. What does the Civil War or the principle of secession have to do with that? Of course, slavery was the most abhorrent violation of libertarianism and the non aggression principle imaginable. Can you please respond to the totality of how the United States evolved and became more prosperous and built a large vibrant middle class with a dollar pegged to gold? ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/140 "2013-06-13T01:23:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which means society collapses, because there’s so many non-violent ways to wreck society. The fact that there’s no way to collect taxes by itself means society is as good as collapsed; no one pays their taxes, the government can’t keep running, and everything falls to pieces when the police and everything else the government does vanishes. So you are assuming that if the government doesn’t perform a function, no one will? This is absurd. Policemen should be a local institution. There are plenty of ways for the government to collect revenue that don’t depend on the income tax. There are import duties, toll roads, optional taxes levied against people for engaging in activities they could easily avoid if they chose. I limited Republic could be funded in a libertarian way that does not involve the non aggression principle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693.md?page=8)