Why do libertarians support Republicans?

[Dryxi]

No; face value is consistent with the rest of the Credo. No sale.

Are you suggesting that libertarians favor the abolition of private property and the defunding of police? That’s the only other way this might reckon out.

Perhaps you could provide a citation? I don't remember suggesting anything of the sort. Are you attempting to say things for me? Common fallback.

 

[Antidote Man]

If your complaint is that I was mistaken about you agreeing with what you said, I'll own that mistake. I don't know how I would have known that, so not apologizing. You did a fine job of representing libertarians. I started this post thinking libertarians would be nuts to support Republicans and am now convinced that libertarians are just Republicans who are embarrassed to be called a Republican but hold the same policies.

Still though, kudos for doing a good job of representing a group you don't agree with . I was asking because I didn't understand why libertarians support Republicans and now understand. Thanks for that.

I understand. My actual intention was not to represent libertarians but to show all of these belief systems have things in common. I'm sure there are beliefs of mine that overlap with theirs... but i am certainly not a republican in hiding and I do see the truths with what your saying about that

 

[cannabineer]

Perhaps you could provide a citation? I don't remember suggesting anything of the sort. Are you attempting to say things for me? Common fallback.

If it was sarcasm, it follows that this is an instance where Democrats and libertarians hold different views. Otherwise it is internally inconsistent.

I would not attempt to say things for you (I assume that by this you mean to put words in your figurative mouth) since I am trying to winnow the framework of reasoning from your postings. You are resisting this.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Just to play your game, I guess I will answer. But here we are, actually moving the posts. Originally your response was to equate Republicans and Libertarians as the same in a subjective and bias way that misrepresented what the party's views were. Here I will attempt to answer your question of, actually I don't know. We weren't ever debating the foundations of Libertarianism, or how they can be evil and determintal.

While it is true that the principles of small government, state autonomy, and unregulated big business are central to libertarianism, it is important to understand that these principles are not inherently problematic. The idea behind small government is to minimize the role of the state in people's lives and to promote individual freedom and autonomy. The belief in state autonomy is based on the idea that states should have the power to make decisions that are best for their own citizens, rather than having those decisions made by a distant central government. Unregulated big business is often seen as a way to promote competition and innovation, which can lead to better products and services for consumers.

However, it is also true that these principles can be misused or applied in ways that harm individuals or groups. For example, the lack of regulation in big business can lead to monopolies, price fixing, and other practices that harm consumers. Similarly, the idea of state autonomy can be used to justify discriminatory policies or to resist efforts to address national problems such as climate change or inequality.

Ultimately, the key to understanding the impact of libertarianism is to look at the specifics of each situation and to assess the effects of these principles on the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. While it is possible to point to instances where libertarianism has not lived up to its promises, it is important to avoid making blanket statements or oversimplifications about an entire political ideology.... which has been your motivation since the beginning. Try taking a more holistic view of the world, rather than oversimplification of complex issues and views. It's a little harder than... you know, not.

But they're ALWAYS abused, because in every situation, you eventually run into a person who will game the system, cheat, lie, steal, and possibly kill.
That is human nature. Most people are corruptible. Some resist temptations that would drive the weak wild, and some seek temptation actively,
to exploit it personally. Most people fall somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, though, and in moments of weakness, even the strong can be lured away from their resolve.
When you remove oversight from businesses that make more money than most nations, that is a recipe for disaster.
When you rely on voluntary donations to fund the national infrastructure, that is a disaster waiting, eagerly, to happen.
When you grant States too many rights, they abuse them, reach beyond them, abridge them, restrict them...
None of this is supposition, the facts are readily available...This is what people do when offered the opportunity.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

 

[cannabineer]

View attachment 5259685

 

[Fogdog]

https://reason.com/2015/04/30/19-of-americans-self-identify-as-liberta/

Because you are arguing. And a C- is a passing grade, just not a good one. I am sure total agreement = C-!

Exactly.

That poll. You can't tell us what a libertarian is. Did the "19% who self identify as libertarian" know what that meant. Given your fuzzy logic, my guess is no. Besides the only poll that matters is an election poll. Libertarians drew slightly less than 1.2% of the vote, while Democrats drew 51% of the vote. You can hang your hat on a 2015 poll if you like, I'll stick to a poll that really mattered.

I'm not arguing, so much as repeating back what you said. I can understand why you don't like it and it feels argumentative. What you are saying appears the same to me.

 

[Fogdog]

My view towards Democrats certainly hasn't gotten any better watching the posts in this section. It is at least nice to see there is still a little bit of rationality with some. I think it's just the loudest ones who give the others a bad name. Just as all Republicans or people who once might have voted for Trump are not all a bunch of racist magats.

Regarding the kerfluffle. People get really sensitive when taken at their word. Don't worry, I won't do that with you.

I'm sorry that your feelings where hurt when you were taken for a GOP MAGA. It's my understanding that you voted for Trump, was I wrong about that?

 

[PadawanWarrior]

Regarding the kerfluffle. People get really sensitive when taken at their word. Don't worry, I won't do that with you.

I'm sorry that your feelings where hurt when you were taken for a GOP MAGA. It's my understanding that you voted for Trump, was I wrong about that?

It's ok. I had a cookie. I feel much better now. Thanks.

 

[CANON_Grow]

View attachment 5259653

Yes siree Bob, just look at the Republican party for proof of that statement.

 

[EmeraldØsiris]

they’re not so much “pro-business” as “anti-people”. “Less government” is one of the worst shams perpetrated in our nation since the South blocked writing slavery out of the nascent Constitution. It conceals the bottomless cruelty of a sort of Calvinist social Darwinism.

Republicans are more for free trade than democrats, that's what I meant. Democrats want to regulate everything = retarded bureaucracy. There's a vast difference between a large institution and totalitarian government. Also, I don't think anything Darwinistic could be attributed to the Republican Party as they are pretty religious in comparison. They are also stricter constitutionalists, as are the libertarians in extreme, therefore the only noteworty difference is in the realm of social liberalism. Republicans don't score high here because they are mostly conservative. Conservativism isn't just a US phenomenon, you have conservatism in all societies. Some believe the new ways are wrong... I was born in the early 80's, and I'm not much impressed with the way things are these days either. I don't judge though. Also, I don't like to pay taxes, being told what to do, and how to do it.

 

[cannabineer]

Republicans are more for free trade than democrats, that's what I meant. Democrats want to regulate everything = retarded bureaucracy. There's a vast difference between a large institution and totalitarian government. Also, I don't think anything Darwinistic could be attributed to the Republican Party as they are pretty religious in comparison. They are also stricter constitutionalists, as are the libertarians in extreme, therefore the only noteworty difference is in the realm of social liberalism. Republicans don't score high here because they are mostly conservative. Conservativism isn't just a US phenomenon, you have conservatism in all societies. Some believe the new ways are wrong... I was born in the early 80's, and I'm not much impressed with the way things are these days either. I don't judge though. Also, I don't like to pay taxes, being told what to do, and how to do it.

I will restrict myself to the bolded. Social Darwinism has little to do with evolutionary theory. It has everything to do with the Calvinist notion that material success correlates with God’s favor. Basically, it fosters a contempt for the poor that goes so far as to rationalize letting them suffer and die, since that is their ordained fate. It’s ugly.

“Less government” is a cover for this sanctimonious ugliness.

 

[Fogdog]

Republicans are more for free trade than democrats,

You said a lot, some of which I might even agree with. Before diving into that other stuff, let's start with the first part of the first line.

Why I think that fragment of a sentence is false and reduces credibility of the rest of your post:

Tariff Tracker: Tracking the Economic Impact of Tariffs

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place

taxfoundation.org

• The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, which is equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades. Based on 2021 import levels and country exemptions, the tariffs amounted to a $52.6 billion tax increase in 2021.
• We estimate retaining the tariffs put in place under the Trump administration will reduce economic output, income, and employment.
• The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place, except for a five-year suspension of tariffs that were part of a WTO aircraft dispute and replacement of certain steel and aluminum tariffs with tariff rate quotas.
• We estimate the tariffs still in effect will reduce long-run GDP by 0.22 percent, wages by 0.14 percent, and employment by 173,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

In this one area, I actually agreed with Trump's polices. Apparently so do most Republicans and Democrats. The Tax foundation accurately point out that the tariffs Trump enacted and Biden sustained raise prices, reduce GDP and affect employment. Yet, some of those tariffs were levied on China as punitive actions against theft of intellectual property, something that cannot be tolerated between two trading partners. Some of the other tariffs are questionable in the reasons Trump gave for them and Biden will probably eventually roll them back but is now using them as leverage in negotiations. He's doing so to bring back better jobs to the US. I don't disagree with his reasons, so long as his administration works toward ending those tariffs.

All to say that the taxes and economic affects of tariffs are harmful but useful. Trump enacted them in a ham handed way that caused the manufacturing sector to enter recession in 2019, so I did have complaints for how they were enacted but not with the reason given for doing so.

Agree or disagree with whether or not tariffs should ever be used but to say Republicans don't enact them and Democrats do is false based upon the facts.

 

[EmeraldØsiris]

Ok, we're talking about levying reciprocal trade taxation on products like solar panels being dumped on the US market by China and the bleeding of our tax payer dollars. Yes, solar is heavily subsidized. When a country imposes tax on a product from another country the cost of that product increases. If that same product is shipped to us the cost of the product may be extremely low, even below the cost of what it cost to produce that product because the Chinese gov't is using the money it's making from taxing our product and tax payers $$ to subsidize production of their product. That's cheating, and cheating is not the desired outcome in a free market. Nor is devaluing currency.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Ok, we're talking about levying reciprocal trade taxation on products like solar panels being dumped on the US market by China and the bleeding of our tax payer dollars. Yes, solar is heavily subsidized. When a country imposes tax on a product from another country the cost of that product increases. If that same product is shipped to us the cost of the product may be extremely low, even below the cost of what it cost to produce that product because the Chinese gov't is using the money it's making from taxing our product and tax payers $$ to subsidize production of their product. That's cheating, and cheating is not the desired outcome in a free market. Nor is devaluing currency.

that's not cheating till both sides agree to play by the same book of rules...something i don't believe has happened.
the U.S. saying "this is the way it is, worldwide." only works if the wide world agrees to it, which they do NOT.
and incidentally, we do exactly the same subsidies thing you are accusing the chinese of....

 

[EmeraldØsiris]

that's not cheating till both sides agree to play by the same book of rules...something i don't believe has happened.
the U.S. saying "this is the way it is, worldwide." only works if the wide world agrees to it, which they do NOT.
and incidentally, we do exactly the same subsidies thing you are accusing the chinese of....

Norway, for instance levies over a 300% tax on some American made cars. The bigger the engine, the higher the tax. How are we supposed to compete with German, Italian or French made cars when Americans over-average drive engines with much larger engine cars? A great example would be the success of Tesla where little or no import tax was levied. So much success that companies like Volvo and BMW now have vouched to only offer electric cars within a set number of years. Tax is a hinderance to sales in this case, and not intended to protect national interests such as jobs, as Norway doesn't even make cars. We do subsidize industry, and a lot of other questionable things, but do we dump subsidized products in China?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Norway, for instance levies over a 300% tax on some American made cars. The bigger the engine, the higher the tax.

another way of saying that is "the more fuel the car wastes, and the more pollution it produces, the higher the tax."...so maybe American car makers should quit trying to shove American choices down the throats of Europe and give them what they want?
I highly doubt that Tesla's "success" is what inspired Volvo or BMW to make that decision. They made a commitment on their own, to help the environment. Don't denigrate that by comparing them to Tesla, which is run by a fascist with little love for the country that is making him even more obscenely wealthy than he already is, his fortune started with blood emeralds, and will end in similar fashion.
China buys agricultural goods and manufactured items from us, and many of them receive government subsidies...i don't know if that qualifies as "dumping"...but it happens, daily.

 

[Fogdog]

Norway, for instance levies over a 300% tax on some American made cars. The bigger the engine, the higher the tax. How are we supposed to compete with German, Italian or French made cars when Americans over-average drive engines with much larger engine cars? A great example would be the success of Tesla where little or no import tax was levied. So much success that companies like Volvo and BMW now have vouched to only offer electric cars within a set number of years. Tax is a hinderance to sales in this case, and not intended to protect national interests such as jobs, as Norway doesn't even make cars. We do subsidize industry, and a lot of other questionable things, but do we dump subsidized products in China?

Why yes we do.

We don't do it smart because multinationals like low cost Chinese labor to manufacture products that Chinese people can't afford but who like low priced subsidized soybeans from the US.

Why did you ask?

 

[cannabineer]

another way of saying that is "the more fuel the car wastes, and the more pollution it produces, the higher the tax."...so maybe American car makers should quit trying to shove American choices down the throats of Europe and give them what they want?
I highly doubt that Tesla's "success" is what inspired Volvo or BMW to make that decision. They made a commitment on their own, to help the environment. Don't denigrate that by comparing them to Tesla, which is run by a fascist with little love for the country that is making him even more obscenely wealthy than he already is, his fortune started with blood emeralds, and will end in similar fashion.
China buys agricultural goods and manufactured items from us, and many of them receive government subsidies...i don't know if that qualifies as "dumping"...but it happens, daily.

Over the last 50 years the US car companies have repeatedly tried to take on Honda and Toyota (the names for good cars that are comparatively cheap to buy and operate) and not done so well.

Problem is, Americans like to buy real pigs.



real world mpg 12

 

[Fogdog]

another way of saying that is "the more fuel the car wastes, and the more pollution it produces, the higher the tax."...so maybe American car makers should quit trying to shove American choices down the throats of Europe and give them what they want?
I highly doubt that Tesla's "success" is what inspired Volvo or BMW to make that decision. They made a commitment on their own, to help the environment. Don't denigrate that by comparing them to Tesla, which is run by a fascist with little love for the country that is making him even more obscenely wealthy than he already is, his fortune started with blood emeralds, and will end in similar fashion.
China buys agricultural goods and manufactured items from us, and many of them receive government subsidies...i don't know if that qualifies as "dumping"...but it happens, daily.

Taxation is a powerful tool to implement public policy. For example, eliminating tax breaks for private schools would go a long way to end the Republican war on public education.

The Hidden Provision Driving Tax Breaks for Private School Tuition

A federal tax provision allowing families to devote money tax free to private school tuition

www.future-ed.org