Just because Libertarians believe that we should live without the interference of government in our daily lives, does not mean that we want to live in an industrial polluted wasteland. Contrary to what many think, Libertarians are interested in protecting the environment. For instance, in Canada, we live in a beautiful country, and all canadians should have the right to enjoy the environment that this country has to offer.
An individual (or corporation) is entitled to manage their life as they see fit so long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. In this case, a corporation could not go to an untouched wilderness, near national (or provincial) parks and exploit and destroy the environment, as it would impinge on the rights of others to enjoy these lands. If a corporation were to build a factory in an area, they would have the personal responsibility to ensure that irreparable harm does not occur to the area.
Since those involved in running corporations may not adhere to this, laws should be established to protect the environment.
Regarding non-renewable resources, it is a common belief that they are finite and eventually they will run out. This is true assuming technology remained stagnant. As technology improves, the process of extracting the non-renewable resources will become more efficient, thus more will be produced in the future than what is produced today (and today we see more efficiency than in the past).
In addition, as technology evolves, areas which were once thought to be tapped out, or which were originally too expensive to access will further extend our existing resources. While I do not have my economics book onhand, I doubt that we are at risk of running out for a very long time.
If that were not enough, renewable resources such as hydrogen fuel cells (which if I'm not mistaken have water as the only waste by-product), are being developed which will lessen the impact on the earth's dwindling non-renewable resources.
While I can't speak for the rest of my party, I would fully expect that Libertarians would fully support and encourage Hydrogen Fuel cell technology, as it would help protect the environment as a clean power source.
As to the reference of Libertarians being tax dodging corporate fat cats, I can make the statement that liberals and other left-leaning individuals are really communists who want to be slaves to the government. Why don't you just give all your income to the govenment and let the state try to take care of all your needs. You'll probably be worse off than we are now.
I could hypothetically make that statement, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.
Ok, I guess I misinterpreted your position believing you thought not protecting things is a bad thing. Sort of like defending socialism. My mistake.
Regarding #12, I agree with your point to an extent, and that is where things like student loans, scholarships and bursaries come into play. The list of situations may be more along the lines of drains on the social-welfare system.
For instance, if you're on unemployment, you can go back to school and continue to collect unemployment. In a situation like this the student should be granted a loan (which will eventually need to be paid back), rather than getting money for free, and still being very dependant on the state.
If you've actually looked at any numbers, in almost everything that the government does it generally costs government twice as much as it would a private organization to provide the same service.
Welfare/Social Security? The problems with welfare is that it does not do what it intends to do. Rather than help out an individual who has fallen on hard times, by giving temporary aid (hand-up), welfare encourages a poor individual to remain poor. Welfare becomes a hand-out, and encourages the individual to remain in his situation rather than trying to climb out of it. You train him not only to expect the hand-out, and therefore you create dependance on the state, and lose the sense of personal responsibility.
The problem these days is that the average person pays alot in taxes. These taxes get funnelled to various social programs, and alot of it gets wasted. After paying taxes, bills, etc the average person does not often have alot of disposible cash available to spend on himself. People are naturally charitable, but their ability to give to the needy varies depending on how much disposible inccome they have.
Yes, there will be disasters and people have shown that in times of need they will give to help out. The problem is that social-welfare programs create a dependance on the state to provide, and breakdown the bonds of personal responsibility of family, friends, and community.
After all, why should I be forced to pay to subsidize someone who has no desire to work or get off social assistance. I don't know how it is in the states, but in Canada, much of the money that goes to the "poor" goes to those who aren't really needy. Here is a short quiz
To which of the following people would you give unquestioned assistance if you could?
1. A poor person, with four kids, suddenly struck with a terrible disease. 2. A poor, severely disabled person. 3. A poor person struck by natural disaster such as a house fire, no insurance. 4. A poor, elderly person with no income. 5. A poor person who refuses to work. 6. A poor person who cheats and does not declare all his income. 7. A poor person who continually commits petty crimes, is slovenly, etc. 8. A poor person who wins a substantial lottery. 9. A poor person who makes a lot of money selling his house or land. 10. A poor person who has low income but receives a large inheritance. 11. A poor man who has low income, but lives on his own farm, grows his own food, and has no rent or mortgage. 12. A twenty-year-old working student with eligble low income. 13. A poor woman who continues to have children, qualifying for more welfare support with each.
I can tell you I wouldn't be answering Yes to questions 5-13, and I (like many others) despise being forced to provide for those who don't want to try to provide for themselves.
Social welfare tries to help out the people in #1-4, but had been extended to everyone else.
As to IP protection laws, in many ways it is the responsibility of the content owners to pursue litigation to protect their property. It should not be the role of government to step in to protect outdated business models.
Now with that said, I do feel copyright is important to the proliferation of literature and enrichment of society. The creator goes to alot of effort to create a piece for the enrichment of others. To encourage the creative process, the creator therefore receives a monopoly on his work so that he can be paid and profit from his efforts, for a period of time. The monopoly is only temporary so that it encourages the creator to create *more*.
Likewise do patents encourage inventions and discoveries.
The main problem with copyright are the extensions to the term of copyright which effectively turn the temporary monopoly into a permanent monopoly. The copyright holder is no longer encouraged to create new works, but to sit on older works to try to profit from it.
The original term of copyright was 14 years, plus the creator could apply for a single extension of 14 years.
While I can't speak on behalf of my party, I believe that the Libertarian Party of Canada can and will support all efforts to restore the damage done by our convoluted copyright laws.
For those unfamiliar with Libertarianism, here is some brief information.
Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to live their life as they wish without the interference of government. The role of government can be sumarized as follows.
1. Protect citizens from internal threats (police services). 2. Protect citizens from external threats (military) 3. Settle disputes where private arbitration has failed (the courts)
In addition, while not explictly mentioned on Libertarian materials, I also believe the government should act as our representative to the international community.
I am fairly new to Libertarianism myself, because like many Canadians(*) I didn't believe there was an alternative other than the "big 3". In the years that I could've voted, I chose not to.
(*) Voter turnout in the last federal election was only 60.5% while the last Ontario provincial election was at 52%.
With that said, I discovered libertarianism, and came to the realization that it is the future. As such, I have given serious consideration to running as a candidate in the next provincial election, and depending on how things go possibly the next federal election.
Libertarianism is based on minimal government, and personal responsibility. The Social-welfare programs of the socialist governments create a dependance of the individual to the state, and a breakdown the principle of personal responsibility. Under the free market system, individuals and organizations should be responsible for themselves. When the RIAA and MPAA lobby the government to impose ever restrictive copyright laws, they transfer the responsibility to defend their property to the government so that they don't have to spend more of their time and money in what would normally be a losing battle. With the DMCA and other laws, the hard part has been done for them. They can simply point to someone, say they are doing something illegal, and profit from it.
The economic environment is constantly changing, and those companies that can adapt to the modern times will prosper and succeed. Those companies who insist upon clinging to outdated business models deserve to become outdated and eventually be replaced themselves.
I do fully endorse buying music and movies to support those artists and studios not affiliated with the RIAA and MPAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because Libertarians believe that we should live without the interference of government in our daily lives, does not mean that we want to live in an industrial polluted wasteland. Contrary to what many think, Libertarians are interested in protecting the environment. For instance, in Canada, we live in a beautiful country, and all canadians should have the right to enjoy the environment that this country has to offer.
An individual (or corporation) is entitled to manage their life as they see fit so long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. In this case, a corporation could not go to an untouched wilderness, near national (or provincial) parks and exploit and destroy the environment, as it would impinge on the rights of others to enjoy these lands. If a corporation were to build a factory in an area, they would have the personal responsibility to ensure that irreparable harm does not occur to the area.
Since those involved in running corporations may not adhere to this, laws should be established to protect the environment.
Regarding non-renewable resources, it is a common belief that they are finite and eventually they will run out. This is true assuming technology remained stagnant. As technology improves, the process of extracting the non-renewable resources will become more efficient, thus more will be produced in the future than what is produced today (and today we see more efficiency than in the past).
In addition, as technology evolves, areas which were once thought to be tapped out, or which were originally too expensive to access will further extend our existing resources. While I do not have my economics book onhand, I doubt that we are at risk of running out for a very long time.
If that were not enough, renewable resources such as hydrogen fuel cells (which if I'm not mistaken have water as the only waste by-product), are being developed which will lessen the impact on the earth's dwindling non-renewable resources.
While I can't speak for the rest of my party, I would fully expect that Libertarians would fully support and encourage Hydrogen Fuel cell technology, as it would help protect the environment as a clean power source.
As to the reference of Libertarians being tax dodging corporate fat cats, I can make the statement that liberals and other left-leaning individuals are really communists who want to be slaves to the government. Why don't you just give all your income to the govenment and let the state try to take care of all your needs. You'll probably be worse off than we are now.
I could hypothetically make that statement, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.
Ok, I guess I misinterpreted your position believing you thought not protecting things is a bad thing. Sort of like defending socialism. My mistake.
Regarding #12, I agree with your point to an extent, and that is where things like student loans, scholarships and bursaries come into play. The list of situations may be more along the lines of drains on the social-welfare system.
For instance, if you're on unemployment, you can go back to school and continue to collect unemployment. In a situation like this the student should be granted a loan (which will eventually need to be paid back), rather than getting money for free, and still being very dependant on the state.
If you've actually looked at any numbers, in almost everything that the government does it generally costs government twice as much as it would a private organization to provide the same service.
Welfare/Social Security? The problems with welfare is that it does not do what it intends to do. Rather than help out an individual who has fallen on hard times, by giving temporary aid (hand-up), welfare encourages a poor individual to remain poor. Welfare becomes a hand-out, and encourages the individual to remain in his situation rather than trying to climb out of it. You train him not only to expect the hand-out, and therefore you create dependance on the state, and lose the sense of personal responsibility.
The problem these days is that the average person pays alot in taxes. These taxes get funnelled to various social programs, and alot of it gets wasted. After paying taxes, bills, etc the average person does not often have alot of disposible cash available to spend on himself. People are naturally charitable, but their ability to give to the needy varies depending on how much disposible inccome they have.
Yes, there will be disasters and people have shown that in times of need they will give to help out. The problem is that social-welfare programs create a dependance on the state to provide, and breakdown the bonds of personal responsibility of family, friends, and community.
After all, why should I be forced to pay to subsidize someone who has no desire to work or get off social assistance. I don't know how it is in the states, but in Canada, much of the money that goes to the "poor" goes to those who aren't really needy. Here is a short quiz
To which of the following people would you give unquestioned assistance if you could?
1. A poor person, with four kids, suddenly struck with a terrible disease.
2. A poor, severely disabled person.
3. A poor person struck by natural disaster such as a house fire, no insurance.
4. A poor, elderly person with no income.
5. A poor person who refuses to work.
6. A poor person who cheats and does not declare all his income.
7. A poor person who continually commits petty crimes, is slovenly, etc.
8. A poor person who wins a substantial lottery.
9. A poor person who makes a lot of money selling his house or land.
10. A poor person who has low income but receives a large inheritance.
11. A poor man who has low income, but lives on his own farm, grows his own food, and has no rent or mortgage.
12. A twenty-year-old working student with eligble low income.
13. A poor woman who continues to have children, qualifying for more welfare support with each.
I can tell you I wouldn't be answering Yes to questions 5-13, and I (like many others) despise being forced to provide for those who don't want to try to provide for themselves.
Social welfare tries to help out the people in #1-4, but had been extended to everyone else.
As to IP protection laws, in many ways it is the responsibility of the content owners to pursue litigation to protect their property. It should not be the role of government to step in to protect outdated business models.
Now with that said, I do feel copyright is important to the proliferation of literature and enrichment of society. The creator goes to alot of effort to create a piece for the enrichment of others. To encourage the creative process, the creator therefore receives a monopoly on his work so that he can be paid and profit from his efforts, for a period of time. The monopoly is only temporary so that it encourages the creator to create *more*.
Likewise do patents encourage inventions and discoveries.
The main problem with copyright are the extensions to the term of copyright which effectively turn the temporary monopoly into a permanent monopoly. The copyright holder is no longer encouraged to create new works, but to sit on older works to try to profit from it.
The original term of copyright was 14 years, plus the creator could apply for a single extension of 14 years.
While I can't speak on behalf of my party, I believe that the Libertarian Party of Canada can and will support all efforts to restore the damage done by our convoluted copyright laws.
For those unfamiliar with Libertarianism, here is some brief information.
Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to live their life as they wish without the interference of government. The role of government can be sumarized as follows.
1. Protect citizens from internal threats (police services).
2. Protect citizens from external threats (military)
3. Settle disputes where private arbitration has failed (the courts)
In addition, while not explictly mentioned on Libertarian materials, I also believe the government should act as our representative to the international community.
I am fairly new to Libertarianism myself, because like many Canadians(*) I didn't believe there was an alternative other than the "big 3". In the years that I could've voted, I chose not to.
(*) Voter turnout in the last federal election was only 60.5% while the last Ontario provincial election was at 52%.
With that said, I discovered libertarianism, and came to the realization that it is the future. As such, I have given serious consideration to running as a candidate in the next provincial election, and depending on how things go possibly the next federal election.
Libertarianism is based on minimal government, and personal responsibility. The Social-welfare programs of the socialist governments create a dependance of the individual to the state, and a breakdown the principle of personal responsibility. Under the free market system, individuals and organizations should be responsible for themselves. When the RIAA and MPAA lobby the government to impose ever restrictive copyright laws, they transfer the responsibility to defend their property to the government so that they don't have to spend more of their time and money in what would normally be a losing battle. With the DMCA and other laws, the hard part has been done for them. They can simply point to someone, say they are doing something illegal, and profit from it.
The economic environment is constantly changing, and those companies that can adapt to the modern times will prosper and succeed. Those companies who insist upon clinging to outdated business models deserve to become outdated and eventually be replaced themselves.
I do fully endorse buying music and movies to support those artists and studios not affiliated with the RIAA and MPAA.