100 libertarian online dating
The term "left-libertanism" has at least three meanings.
In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular.
That’s a hefty moral distinction right there: When freedom-lovers move society toward their ideal, mistakes may be made, but people tend to flourish. “If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Libertarianism has never even been tried.” What an odd standard. The idea that rulers — be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos, or wonkish bureaucrats — are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word.
When the hard Left is given free rein, millions are murdered and enslaved. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man’s discovery of fire by millennia.
Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone.
The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens.
Contemporary left-libertarian scholars such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka and David Ellerman root an economic egalitarianism in the classical liberal concepts of self-ownership and appropriation.
They hold that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of natural resources to the detriment of others, a condition John Locke explicated in Two Treatises of Government.
Combined, they killed about 100 million of their own people. Pick a date in the past, and you can imagine someone asking similar questions. It’s a little bizarre how the Left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress.
, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
” Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.
– that is, a tax paid primarily by the wealthy – that increases wages, reduces economic inequality, removes incentives to misuse real estate and reduces the vulnerability that economies face from credit and property bubbles.
George believed that people ought to own the fruits of their labor and the value of the improvements they make, thus he was opposed to tariffs, income taxes, sales taxes, poll taxes, property taxes (on improvements) and to any tax on production, consumption or capital wealth. Early followers of George's philosophy called themselves "single taxers" because they believed the only economically and morally legitimate, broad-based tax is on land rent. Cohen extensively criticized the claim, characteristic of the Georgist school of political economy, that self-ownership and a privilege-free society can be realized simultaneously.