Libertarians.....what do you think???

[JellyBaby]

Dan hit on something that's worth repeating:

<< The federal bureaucracy has a vested interest in making sure there is a certain level of poverty in this country >>

And it's not just poverty. Think about it: government typically steps in when there's a perceived problem. Therefore it's in the government's best interests to create problems or maintain existing problems. The explosive growth of federal government beginning 20+ ago made this cycle even more dangerous. One of the best (&quot;worst&quot examples is education. I think I read during the last 10 years, federal government spending on education has tripled. What happened to test scores? They've actually gone down. Politicians, in turn, use that result to requisition even more tax money to spend on new programs and &quot;enhancing&quot; old ones. This just compounds itself year after year. Only libertarians really have the guts to tell this story and stop this nonsense before we're all paying an 80% overall tax rate for a million nonfunctional government programs.

 

[Ferocious]

Government power and Corporation power need to offset each other.

I don't want either having too much. Right now, we have a decent balance....why mess with it?

I don't want a socialistic government. Nor do I want to return to before 1930's where the power sharing was so unbalanced (in favor of corps.) that Americans worked like slaves.

A good balance ensures the middle class will continue.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Right now, we have a decent balance....why mess with it? >>

Buhahahahaha!

 

[ThurzNite]

Thurznite's roommate again:

Corporations are like government. America need SMALLER businesses that don't have the power to take advantage of their workers. Right now Corporations pay a lower percent tax that the people yet they are the ones getting to keep all the money. They have the power because of their size. Reduce the size of everything and your &quot;equality&quot; will return.

Take a visit to www.lp.org and read some of the news stories. Those of you who are already libertarians will be reaffirmed in your choice. Those of you who aren't libertarians, you might find some intriguing reading.

 

[Gandalf511]

I totally disagree with basically everything you people are saying. The time in which the US government had the least power is the time in which the nation did the worst. Under the articles of confederation, the states had all the power, and poverty was the worst of any time in American history. the military was non-existent, small farmers and buisnessmen struggeld to survive at all, and the country was in a general state of chaos. i'm not saying that we need a super strong central government but, a weak one would send this country into anarchy. every other civilized country in the world has a higher tax rate than the US, and each of them have a higher life expectancy, better infant mortality rates, and better education. The American education system is one of the weakest in the world because we underfund it, not because we don't have enough options. In Japan they have no options yet their students come out of highschool with much better grades and work ethics. Every other civilized country has universal healthcare. you are all opposed to any kind of government healthcare, yet it has been shown to work throughout europe.

how about this. let's each of the states print their own money, or better yet go back to bartering. also let's destroy our army and navy, and leave ourselves succeptible to attack by any terrorist that wants. and to prevent this let's arm all citizens so they can go out and shoot their neighbors over land disputes. also let's let people choose what schools they want their kids to go to so that we can have segregation and division of money to the nth degree. while we're at it let's destroy the environment so that we can further f@#$ over the future generations. you don't have to vote for either of the two main parties but find a better ideal structure to support than a weakly controlled anarchy.

 

[KingHam]

Gandalf maybe you should read learn something about Libertarians before you spout your fearmongering BS. Besides why should we depend on government to improve our lives? Pull your head out of your ass :|.

KingHam

 

[jaydee]

<< The American education system is one of the weakest in the world because we underfund it, >>



How come tests have gone down since federal aid for schools has arisen?



<< also let's destroy our army and navy, and leave ourselves succeptible to attack by any terrorist that wants >>



We ARE suspectible to any terrorist, and Libertarians would build up are national defenses, you idiot.



<< let's arm all citizens so they can go out and shoot their neighbors >>



Do you know anything whatsoever?



<< while we're at it let's destroy the environment so that we can further f@#$ over the future generations >>



Guess not. Junior, your a moron

 

[Gandalf511]

On crime, the libertarian party says that the victim's rights should be protected and the offender should have to pay restitution. This is already the case with a provision in the legal system for the offender to pay resitution or the government itself to pay compensationf for any wrongs done to a person in order to &quot;Make that person whole again&quot;. they also say that we need to &quot;protect the rights to self defense&quot; (ie carry guns). this was never stated as a necessity in the constitution but rather the right to have a regulated militia. any of you yahoo's that wanna go join the state run militia in order to defend your property, be my guest but otherwise give up the guns. Britain has no guns other than state run hunting grounds which keep the guns on site, and watch the users. there murder rate is infitely lower than it is here in the US. A crackdown on handguns is what we need, not to hand them out to every citizen. &quot;address the root causes of crime&quot; suggest that poverty and unemployment are running rampant in the streets of america. this is simply not the case. we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the world. the entire point of the libertarian party seems to be to cut the government down to the least possible structure that still works. can anyone at all tell me a country in which this has ever been attempted, let alone worked.

 

[jaydee]

<< they also say that we need to &quot;protect the rights to self defense&quot; (ie carry guns). this was never stated as a necessity in the constitution but rather the right to have a regulated militia. any of you yahoo's that wanna go join the state run militia in order to defend your property, be my guest but otherwise give up the guns. Britain has no guns other than state run hunting grounds which keep the guns on site, and watch the users. there murder rate is infitely lower than it is here in the US. A crackdown on handguns is what we need >>



Your ignorance is well shown here. In order to avoid mis-representing the Libertarian party in this matter, I'll simply cut and paste from their website.

&quot;There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws haven't made America safe by now, why should we think 20,001 laws will suffice?

We shouldn't. Instead, we need to recognize that those 20,000 laws are a principal cause of the current violence in society. They have made our children and all innocent adults much less safe -- by disarming innocent citizens and encouraging armed criminals to take advantage of us. By definition, law-breakers don't obey laws. Hardened criminals do whatever is necessary to evade identification and arrest. So they don't buy guns that can be traced; they buy them in the underworld or simply steal them.

Thus the gun-control laws don't apply to criminals or stop gun violence. They simply make it much harder for innocent people to defend themselves -- encouraging criminals to take advantage of us.

In other words, gun-control laws make the world safer for criminals and less safe for you.

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other people from owning inappropriate firearms. But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence -- and that will never be you or I.

Disarmed citizens encourage crime and violence.

Armed citizens encourage criminals to find a safer line of work.

For safety sake, we must repeal all the gun laws&quot;


As for Britain: I would like to see the actual statistics on that (give em a link) also, whats the population of them compared to the U.S.?

 

[JellyBaby]

What jaydee has said on gun violence is correct. Politicians pander to a mis-educated public's fear about guns. Why? Votes, votes and more votes. Criminals will always be able to get a gun (or knife or aluminum baseball bat) to facilitate their misdeeds. The only proactive way to address gun violence is by figuring out why some in our society are prone to behave that way. Some gun restrictions are fine and make sense but most are BS. In the long term, the only solution is improving education and making everyone feel as though they're a productive member of a family.

 

[BA]

from etech's post
&quot;Support legislation establishing a bipartisan ?Sunset Review Board? to recommend elimination of duplicative and ineffective programs.&quot;
Anyone else find this rather ironic?

Gandalf-
&quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot;

I interpret this based on &quot;the right of the people&quot;; nowhere in there is there anything about people=militia. However, I recognize that there are differing interpretations, so:
I am a member of the kansas militia. Every man 18-40something and every woman in the National Guard is. If anyone knows the actual text of the law, please post it.

 

[jaydee]

Hehe BA, I didn't catch that at first but great point. JellyBaby, hey all I did was cut and paste from their website. I could not of put it any better myself. I think I'd go all the way to eliminate all gun laws, which the exception of a safety lock on CERTAIN guns, but not all. He even makes an excellent case on assult weapons as well, which I agree with. If the criminals can get its hands on it, the public should have a right for it too.

 

[JellyBaby]

jaydee,

Yep, yep yep! Criminals will always get their weapons, whether they be assault rifles, devices to open people's garage doors remotely, car break-in gear, etc. Even if the feds tried to build something like the Wall of China around our country, the black market will still exist.

What we need to do is go to the cause of societal problems: unemployment, poverty, lack of self esteem, government, poor education, etc. This is where tax dollars should be spent, not on penning more under-enforced laws. The two-party system, democrat/replubican has mutated into something that's untrustworthy. We really need third-party leadership and soon.

 

[jaydee]

This is a question that has been bothering me recently: What does it matter to the average citizen, if Joe Shmo smokes two sticks of joint a week, in his home and doesn't bother anyone? Is he really a threat to the society? If their is a murderer, thief, burgler, or whatever, they are clearly a threat to those around them. But, if someone does anything that does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else, what right should the government have to outlaw it? Don't get me wrong I'm no druggie, I know what it can do to you, who cares if some people do? If they get convicted of a crime under the influence of dope, they should be tried for the crime, but if they commit no crime other than a personal habit, what's the point of convicting him? Just another feeble attempt of the government to control are lives in my opinion. Another thing, why do people admit prohibition of alcohol was a massive mistake while the same people think that we are winning the war on drugs, and can eliminate drugs with enough federal funding? Could someone explain that to me please?

 

[jaydee]

Check out thisarticle. Some quotes:


<<Browne said converted Libertarians primarily come from a one-third split of Democrats, Republicans and independents who simply stopped voting. &quot;We're appealing to people who want smaller government,&quot; he said. &quot;If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you're just giving up. You're saying, 'We never will have smaller government, so I'm just voting for whoever will take me to Hell at the slowest possible rate.'&quot;>>

<<&quot;The Green Party platform is pure fascism and socialism,&quot; said Browne. &quot;It's either government regulation to the nth degree, or government taking over to the nth degree.&quot; >>

 

[Napalm381]

Washington DC has some of, if not the, most restrictive gun laws in the US. Yet it has a crime rate far above the national average. GUN LAWS DON'T WORK.


<< Under the articles of confederation, the states had all the power, and poverty was the worst of any time in American history. >>

You are comparing the economic system of over 200 years ago to our current one. This is not a valid comparison.


<< Every other civilized country has universal healthcare. you are all opposed to any kind of government healthcare, yet it has been shown to work throughout europe. >>

It works, in the sense that it leads to long waits for routine treatment, a lack of access to advanced care, and a shortage of specialists?


<< every other civilized country in the world has a higher tax rate than the US, and each of them have a higher life expectancy, better infant mortality rates, and better education. >>

And we have higher economic growth rate, lower unemployment, and lower inflation than many of them.

You have conclusively proven yourself to be an ignorant asshole. Go away.

 

[BoberFett]

As far as foreign medical systems...

I live in Minnesota, home of the Mayo clinic in Rochester. It's not uncommon to hear about the leaders of foreign nations coming here to get treatment. What's the problem with their countries health system? I thought they were so advanced? Obviously they're good for the common folk, but when somebody important gets sick, they come here.

It's rather telling isn't it? Kind of like politicians who vote to tax and spend more money on education, then send their kids to private schools.

 

[Crimson]

Thank god, a political topic that Red Dawn hasn't trashed.. there is actually some intelligent conversation going on here..

 

[yata]

Libertarian stance does not understand the underlying importance of foreign relations/intervention and appreciate government workings in the economy. Globalism also applies to security. Silicon Valley was raised by the federal gov.

IMHO, it's very Ayn Rand-ish. I'm not opposing the ideals. In fact I completely support and agree with them but only when they are upheld by individuals. One cannot have those kinds of ideals running for office. Serving for the public needs a different attitude and behavior, perhaps those seen in Gore and Bush.

At most lp will stay as a third party, if not a small one. Not bad, being an elite that knows what's really going on. Or sucking 'cause lacking in political power. Depends on how you see it.

 

[BoberFett]

<< One cannot have those kinds of ideals running for office. >>

Only because it's nigh impossible to get elected if you're not promising &quot;free&quot; goodies. Libertarians think it's about damn time that elected officials started to think this way.

 

[Gandalf511]

while i'm finding all the statistics, someone answer my question from earlier. name me any country in the world today that has uses a system anything like what the libertarians are suggesting.

 

[jaydee]

Probably no one does it exactly, but the closest I could think of was Switzerland. Pretty similar if you look at them both. Still waiting for your sources...

 

[jaydee]

Still waiting Junior....

 

[slipperyslope]

Still waiting......

Jim

 

[jaydee]

I'm beggining to think Junior over here, makes up his 'facts' as he goes along, and papers them over when challenged to prove it. What do ya think Jim?