2) Along the same lines as government libraries, each government park should be privatized by distributing shares to the residents/landowners of the area it serves. Conservation groups could buy up shares of parks they are especially interested in preserving. Not-for-profit parks open to the public would be exempt from land value taxes. Government land that is not already serving as a park should be opened up for homesteading, with homesteaders bidding for leaseholds and subsequently paying a land value tax based on their lease. If someone offers them more than their current basis for their land-value tax, they either have to sell or raise their land-value tax basis to match the offer. This of course is the general model of land-value taxation in Libertopia.

3) Pollution is aggression, and should be policed at the most-local practical level of government with Pigovian taxes. Also, depletion of a natural commons — oil, minerals, wildlife, aquifers, streams, lakes — should require a fee paid to the most local level of government that represents the people most impacted by the depletion.

4) There would be no such advantage for wealthy corporations as long as 1) existing assets are distributed as shares to the members of the relevant community and 2) the natural commons is protected with taxes on pollution, depletion, and site monopolization. (Taxing “site monopolization” means a land-value tax.)

5) Artificial monopolies, e.g. on oil, are not sustainable and never last. Natural monopolies — on physical networks like streets, pipes, and wires — should indeed be regulated by local associations of the landholders that those monopolies serve. The distinction between “government” and homeowners’ associations will then be — and indeed should be — quite blurry.

6) According to the geoist analysis, much of existing inequality stems from 1) appropriation/pollution/depletion of the natural commons without adequate compensation to those whose access rights are thus impaired, and 2) labor being taxed to fund public goods/services that increase the value of land which is mostly owned by non-laborers. Depending on how the transition is done, the standard anarcholibertarian scenario would indeed very likely bless and exacerbate these two kinds of inequality. By contrast, the geolibertarian policies described above are designed expressly to restore everyone’s equal liberty and equal right of access to the natural commons.

For more on geolibertarianism, see http://earthfreedom.net/.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=178146

——————————————————————————–

It seems these days the libertarian/classical liberal movement seems to be growing and there are plenty of you on this forum. Some of the ideas and positions I’ve seen advanced from this ‘side’ do seem to be fairly reasonable and I definitely am in agreement on several issues (end of the ‘war on drugs’ and scaling back of military adventurism etc.)

However there are some issues which I think I’m unsure of exactly where some of the libertarians/classical libs lie and which bother me so I’m starting this thread with the hope that some of you may be able to clarify some of these positions.

I understand not all libertarian/classical libs march in lockstep so there could be a wide variance in your answers and that no policy positions are ‘set in stone’ but I would still be interested in your answers, so here goes:

1) Do you believe the government should sell off all public libraries? If private companies bought the libraries and started charging people for using them would you consider this a progressive step towards a better society?

2) Should all national parks be sold off? If private companies or wealthy individuals bought popular national parks and closed them off completely to the public for their own use and/or started strip-mining and polluting in them would you consider this an acceptable outcome?

3) Do you think there should be no government regulation to prevent pollution and that private ownership of all land alone would be enough to stop it from harming people’s health? What about air and sea pollution? How could private land ownership prevent this?

4) What about the companies and individuals who have benefited hugely from current ‘corporatist’ policies? If we switched to a libertarian/ classical liberal society tomorrow wouldn’t they have a huge, unfair advantage over the rest of us because of their ability to buy up all the valuable government assets that would have to be sold off?

5) If government is not to regulate companies in any way what protections are there for consumers if companies, who together have a virtual monopoly of a particular market, decide to collude with each other and fix prices at a level that is far more than optimum on a product which people have practically no choice but to buy (ie oil, electricity)?

6) Do you think that libertarian/classical liberal policies would ultimately lead to a more or less egalitarian society? Would increased polarization of rich and poor be a necessary evil of such a system?

So, all you libertarians, please bring your views to another corner of the net. Sorry, you’ll have to register and get a password:

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=178146

how’s the Son of Hammer of Truth doin’ ………..

http://thenextright.com/stephen-gordon/cpac-report-ron-paul

Trent – since Ron Paul was the Libertarian nominee in ’88, I think this may be good to cover on IPR. Any objection?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/

These are all nice things, but they far from the best brand differentiation we can achieve. Every party promises prosperity. Every party says they favor freedom. Every party but the Republicans says they favor peace, and some of them even seem to mean it.

Our central message should always emphasize that voting Libertarian is the only way to say you are neither Left nor Right.

This is the nature of the beast, Chuck, as I know you know. Everyone knows Ron Paul is a libertarian, but what he was trying to show was that in the 1950s and 60s, he would’ve been considered a “true conservative” by Republicans. Indeed, he is quite right. Paul is speaking to the concerns of the Demographic, and he is smart to do so. He betrays nothing in the meantime except a useless label (libertarian) with lots of baggage.

And I think the McCobin/Sorba/Frazee episode proves that libertarians can attend CPAC, be pleasant, but still stick out and challenge the conservatives. Ron Paul’s speech was NOT the only event, CFL and YAL hosted or were involved (as panelists) in 20 events total.

Barr got quite a lot of support. My understanding is that SFL and YAL activists made some “I support Barr” buttons last night and are wearing them today.

I’m sure he has strong convictions, and I bet he even has some lines in the sand, but we won’t know what those lines are unless we cross them. Until that happens, he’s happy just putting his shoulder to the wheel and letting others try to sort out the arguments.

For those of you who haven’t had the chance to know/meet him, he’s an incredibly impressive person with a thorough understanding of what it takes to run our national office. He’s also the least-condescending libertarian I’ve ever met (and possibly the least-condescending person I know) and is always open to suggestions for improvement.

Hopefully, the Rootites in the LP won’t try to claim Wes’s success as WAR’s in the coming months. While Wayne’s busy fear-mongering and catering to conservatives, Wes is rolling up his sleeves at National to get membership and donation numbers on the rise.

Still, I watched Ron Paul’s CPAC speech on C-SPAN and caught the previous panel. The audience seemed pretty packed with libertarians. Alex McCobin of Students for Liberty spoke praising CPAC for inviting GOProud to attend the event. The very next speaker was hatemongering anti-gay demagogue Ryan Sorba who was loudly booed off stage.

http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-causes-cpac-controversy/

Of course the pre-Paul crowd demographics was probably at its most libertarian of the weekend.

Sadly in Ron Paul’s speech I never heard him mention the word “libertarian”. He kept casting his views as “conservative”… specifically “true conservative” and “old conservative” as distinguished from the neo-cons.

Anyone seen the RENO 911 show where they are building the fence, wind up paying the mexicans to build it, and then when its finished they shoot off their pistols hollerin USA USA…only to realize they are on the mexican side of the fence?
That’s what I’m talkin bout. ROTFLMAO!