Entitled " libertarians: Seconds out "I called recently to on, or, better, I asked that but someone who is familiar with the matter, here may bring a guest post.
The request was granted.
The following therefore a first article on the subject.
(Affirmative, supplemental, critical comments please as usual down in the comment string Set Who another, longer own commentary -. Happy with partially or completely contrasting opinion - will deliver to can this either, marked as such, suggest there or me via let e-mail to come. In the latter case, please indicate either below it or call short. The other conditions will, who wants, above the link.)
-
Libertarians - all just a dreamer?
Thomas steel
As a libertarian man has's not easy.
Many discussions begin after a short presentation of one's own world view by saying that everything would be much too idealistic, as that such a system could ever be actually implemented. Most still follows the obligatory question that almost always the same answer: "How old are you? - Oh, when I was so young, I also had such dreams. " My counter question is again: "Oh! At what age did you have resigned? This age I have to mark me. "This stimulates often food for thought.
Most people have become so much accustomed to our current system and adapted - or even existentially dependent on this system - that such a different sounding worldview seems hard to imagine. It is so simple and clear ...
A quick run through the economy:
The libertarian idea is that man is born free and that no one else has the right to his body but himself.
Man determines himself.
As a direct result, has a man who has himself also has the right to his own labor. If a person from a piece of wood a utility object ago, is one of these object doubt him. This results in the right of ownership: I have created with my own performance slightly, making it one the result of my performance myself.
Now, if a different person sees my article of manufacture and would like to have him happy, then I have the free choice to give him the object to lend, swap, sell or to deny him my subject. Brings us to the market.
In the market (or markets) are exchanged for common goods and services, so things people have produced through their labor or thoughts performance. Trade in goods and services is basically a peaceful and always brings a benefit for both sides. Only if I see an advantage for me in a trade, I will go into this trade. The other market participants see the same. Both sides always benefit, otherwise the trade would not take place.
Thus not every two apples must exchange them for two rolls, an intermediate medium of exchange was in many places thousands of years ago independently invented: the money.
Through a generally accepted money each product is given a unique (monetary) value, price. With this assignment, the exchange of goods and services simpler. Anyone can now see how many of their own goods, he must sell, so he can afford another commodity. But this only works as long as the money is generally accepted. This money will be accepted by everyone, it must have its own (internal) value and so it should remain as stable as possible, recoverable. Or the general acceptance of money is done by coercion. (Who now thinks of the euro has made the first step, you think of the D-Mark, it has not yet fully understood..) With value-driven and stable money people have the option of purchasing power - thus converted into money, own work force - save for the future.
What money has the greatest possible stability? Gold and silver coins? Yes, because their intrinsic value will never go to zero. However, any other, backed by real disposable goods currency has this property. It is therefore to be paid in this money system with banknotes. One speaks generally of commodity money. (Today's money is backed by nothing of value-containing, so it loses its imaginary value easily and quickly by any strong inflation.)
All these states and facts described so far work unequivocally are logically justifiable and understandable by everyone who lives in our world, through their own experience.
A term appears up to this point but not a single time on state.
Why not?
Because all these described processes and procedures normally be peaceful and function entirely without the state and its regulations!
So why do we need the state?
We need the state actually only that he, the simplest rules pretending all people who are not all and are of course always from scratch good and peaceful, and ensure their compliance. He is supposed to protect our individual privacy rights. He shall preserve our country from enemy attacks of other countries and ensure that every citizen can enforce his fundamental rights if another violates this.
The only rule of the game, in compliance with which the state must insist, is the protection of individual personality rights of citizens.
Every citizen has the right to protection and to the fruits of his own labor.
Conversely, this means that anyone can do and be whatever he wants as long as it does not harm anyone else.
What is the state today and what it costs?
The state prescribes what we are allowed to buy and what not (examples: raw milk in the United States, Brennesselsud in France, light bulbs in the EU) in which packaging and in which not. He writes us how we need to be assured that medicines are approved what size must have the warning triangle in your car, that the book price must be fixed ... and what money we have to use. A money that can generate even in unlimited quantities of state, because he has a monopoly on it.
He distorts the whole market and creates strong imbalances, which he tried to compensate with subsidies. (Example: Calves are fed with milk powder, because it is cheaper than the milk directly from the mother cow.) This fall, entire industries, depending on the country to which that's very pretty. But he wasted huge sums of taxpayers' money that would be wasted never without government intervention and therefore never driven.
Today's state distributed generous but useless and inefficient to doing so brings a lot of people in trouble and has to extend the helping hand to them at the end. Then he takes those who can not care for themselves, even more of their labor by raising taxes, thereby ensuring ultimately that the performance of these people no longer sufficient for their survival and also drives them into the caring arms of himself. This is a vicious circle that is speeding up more and more and gradually approaches the inevitable end.
The costs calculated by the state for its entire "services" are, today at 70% of your income plus annual inflation rate. Yes, you read correctly, not a typo! 70% of your gross income you are stolen by the state now has direct and indirect taxation. ( calculation here ) For the state subsidizes then photovoltaic companies, only to have them at the end by cutting subsidies again go bankrupt while he can migrate the value only so useful generated, the resulting know-how abroad. He also leads like with the taxpayers' money "peace mission" -Angriffskriege or contribute financially to the aggressive wars of other nations. He buys more recently, like stolen goods (tax-CDs), which contradicts its own rules and holds companies that are simply no longer viable, artificially some time afloat. Sometimes he gives even products or money without rhyme or reason to foreign countries.
How much does a libertarian state?
If the state of its citizens no longer "cared for", but people can take care of itself, the tax burden is reduced considerably. Every citizen would remain sufficient money so that he take care of themselves in all areas and could even secure.
The cost of protecting the privacy rights of citizens amount to less than three percent of GDP. This costing includes judicial, police and firefighters. If all taxes were abolished, so a three percent general tax would be sufficient so that the state can carry out these tasks. ( Source is now left, Table 3) Will Education and Transportation and the State to get to about five percent of GDP.
Now let me think how much tax the state takes today and what kind of sensible spending it trades with this enormous sum tax. We are talking now of more than 70% tax burden in Germany! The state defends our freedom in the Hindu Kush. It subsidizes inefficient technologies and thus distorts the markets. No longer does the Better prevails but the one with the better Lobby. The state pays a huge administrative apparatus, including the EU, which requires us in the end what bulbs we must use and which curvature must have the banana. What do you think would happen if the tax burden of the citizens could be reduced from 70% to 20%, for example, by limiting the state to its sovereign functions and determine the rest back for ourselves? What would you do with her gross salary all, if they could use the gross almost entirely net for yourself? What immense wealth would be created within a very short time, the today's poverty in Germany - we are talking of over 8 million beneficiaries - could overcome the most part without any further action? Even low-income earners would suddenly a solid income when z. B. only the value added tax would be paid on products and services.
Had the citizens also have the possibility to opt for a were-backed, he would also benefit from the technical progress every year. The money would be steadily gaining purchasing power.
A state that protects only the rights and the lives of its citizens is to regulate dirt cheap compared to our present state which usurps everything for us. Citizens remain in a libertarian state, the fruits of their labor and at the same time get the right back, to decide for themselves what is good for them.
This requires a degree of self-responsibility, which has strong habit its citizens the state. Therefore, many do not have the imagination to imagine a world without the strong state and already demonize each batch of such a thought game. But there is basically nothing that the state would have to settle for its citizens. The people are kept as stupid indeed today, but they are not stupid. You are easily able to shape their own lives - if you let them just once.
How does real participation?
Today's State decides on a rotational basis chosen "people's representatives" (the word comes from kicking) laws and regulations that apply to all people in the territory. This has an advantage: clarity. Every citizen knows that in another state, or in the next town, the same (state) rules as to his place of residence. That's it then but already with the benefits. The disadvantages outweigh.
Starting with the fact that certain promotions or rules are useful in a State, in another hindrance, to the fact that the control of individual citizens on the policy, as we have today, is zero. Participation is different than just every four years to have to sink his ballot paper in a "box" and then shut up until the next election.
Genuine participation raises the libertarians as follows: All problems are solved there where they arise: Locally in the municipalities. If a new school building needed to decide the citizens of a city and / or more adjacent municipalities that can unite voluntarily, on the construction of the building. For without the prior approval of a higher authority must, without asking for subsidies, which actually are only a friendly repayment of a small portion of the taxes that had to cede before the citizens and communities. Decide the citizens against the construction, the new building is just not (yet) built. Decide the citizens for the construction and the money available to the municipality (or the municipal alliance) not sufficient for this, citizens can choose a new, regionally limited control that is deleted again after successful financing to finance such. As. Or they may decide that the school by a private company that maybe has expressed interest in mind, will be built and operated. Everything is possible - in direct decision by the concerned local citizens!
How do want to know what people need in a small village and want and how to get the best converting Berlin? Berlin not interested in it also. Berlin makes just his thing.
In libertarian system the people making the policy on the ground. You decide what you need and plan and fund everything under own initiative if they so wish. The voice of the individual has much more weight that tax money is used sensibly and without "friction" by higher authorities and no longer wasted on projects that are adopted without the consent of the people of the (central) government. Lobbying is hardly possible, because it falls in the small circle of a community very quickly and is suppressed quickly by the citizens.
About necessary international agreements, which are then prepared only from the government, decide only citizens by referendum.
Active participation in political and social life of going out, the people soon realize that they can actually make a difference and it will move too!
Our current system creates just from themselves. Because the consequences of regulierungswütigen, control-seeking "welfare state" and the fatal problems inherent in our debt money system inevitably lead to disaster. Most guessed that - many want it (still) does not admit. It is time for a new approach.
It's time for freedom.
For many decades there are the theories of the Austrian School. There are dozens of books on the subject. In the many years the concepts of my knowledge have never been refuted. The conclusion of the economists of the Austrian school is:
Freedom (by the state) produces prosperity.
For this purpose I use me and let me also like to laugh at as dreamers. The so call me today, I can in a few years, even so called because they dreamed of the perfect world of the strong state, by which they lost everything in the end.
Literature recommendations from beginners to advanced (in readability):
Roland Baader , Ludwig von Mises , FA Hayek
Libertarians: Seconds out!
- Ads -
Tags: libertarianism , Austrian School
Finally you are glad to know who I am.
@ Hyena
The article you pretend to comment here, what you do not turn, but make here again everything possible, but are producing only a visible reference, revolves around the libertarian idea, it was written as a commentary of Thomas steel, a man whom I really appreciate.
I can now grant first again.
If you now but still not objectively come to Potte, only around beer men and abpapsten and abjuden, then drag therefore still regard-less Anglesisch, I find very quickly the off button for you.
For this, you may then complain about censorship elsewhere on this site; which then is my schietegal.
Bring yourself, if you want, like very critical, to the point a.
Otherwise ...