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

[Ferocious]

<< You can say what you want now, but until you see over a quarter of your hard-earned dollars going to &quot;Uncle Sam&quot; to do with as he wishes, you can't talk about raising taxes with any legitimacy. >>



lol, I seriously doubt you make over $100,000 a year. Actually if you make $100,000 per year and you paid more than 19% in taxes to Uncle Sam...you'd better consider hiring an accountant.

 

[Gandalf511]

Scippy I have paid taxes. I have also seen the poor and the old who rely on governmental help. I have first hand knowledge of the government's attempts to help the disabled, and my grandparents are on social security. I am still in school, and have taken as many history and social science classes as I can. However I do work, and do pay taxes, and do see my hard earned and meager money go to Social Security and the government.

And Bober, you are more right wing than any republican I know. You give me new found respect for the Doles and Limbaughs in the world because they are not quite as big of idiots as you. You are in favor of cutting taxes, all federal regulatory services, and you want greater personal and states rights. If that's not right wing I'm not sure what is.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

napalm....first of i said When was the last time a U.S. President turned against all the people....he wanted to preserve the union which was good intent he didn't turn against the people and try and kill them all. I bet the majority of the north wanted to preserve the Union and get rid of slavery so his action was not against the people's wishes, thus he didn't turn against all the people.

Since you libertarians want to use common sense instead of statistics, lets think of this: If you have a country with guns and a country without guns(or almost no guns), which country is going to have a higher murder rate? The country with less guns of course. The infamous statement guns don't kill people, people kill people is so absurd its laughable. Without a gun it would be substantially harder to kill a person. Yes i realize if you wanted to kill someone you could but guns make it so much easier.

Also, I meant try to get citizens to turn in all guns (not all will of course) and stop the sale of guns in America totally. Of course criminals will be able to get guns, but in few number and at higher cost...plus it would be a pain in the ass to obtain them.

Since you want causation behind our stats, lets see a country that allows any kind of gun you want and has a lower violent crime rate than Britian. Of course you won't find one because thats the kind of thinking that paranoid gun nuts come up.

<< was the statistics based on national average of murders in a city COMMA nation average of murders per 100,000 COMMA OR nation average of percatange of murders to population >>

oh my god i didn't put a commas in there that makes it so impossible to read!!! If you couldn't figure that out without me having to put commas in there, then your intelligence is some where between that of a rock and the moss that grows on the said rock.

Plus we said a country stats not a district's stats, we want to see some stats from a country that proves your point.

Q]Ah, the old &quot;let's raise taxes to increase revenue&quot; argument. Often times a higher tax rate can result in less revenue being collected (1980's being a key examples). You provided the knee-jerk liberal response to problem- raise taxes and spend more![/i] >>



So your saying that we could do better with lower taxes? Face it, the more taxes there are the more you can do with that tax money.



<< Medical Savings Accounts, private insurance among other things. Private market solutions have the incentive to be cost-efficient. Government solutions do not. >>



and how do the poor afford medical savings accounts and private insurance?



<< Libertarians promote churches, shelters, and other forms of assistance ahead of government assistance. While I would not advocate COMPLETELY eliminating government assistance, I would favor a large scale back of our current programs. They encourage a vicious circle of dependancy instead of encouraging achievement. >>



What was that whole program that was passed recently that made people get off wellfare in 2 years and helped people get jobs? Oh ya thats right its not encouraging achievement at all of course not.

fett-
your making no one but yourself look like a jackass, with your weak arguments and your short, irrational, and illogical posts. If you think your winning the battle your mistaken.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Scipio If you had any sort of memory what so ever old man =P
You would rember in our previous conversations I told you that gandalf and i worked together and we get paid and we have to pay taxes. I guess flying all over the country got your head messed up.

The reason you get taxed more is because you make so much more, what a mind boggling concept. So instead of getting 100,000 a year you get 75,000 while we get something 1/7th of that.

In fact, Gandalf and I are probably more well read and caught up on government issues than anyone of our age group.

Btw try not to spend to much time in that flight simulator thing...apparently its causing brain damage.

P.S. Just wait till next weekend ill kick ur arse in CS or TFC

 

[Napalm381]

<< I meant try to get citizens to turn in all guns (not all will of course) and stop the sale of guns in America totally. >>

Not all will? How about almost zero will. Unless you REQUIRE that people turn in their guns, nobody is going to. And why should they? Criminals will not be turning in their guns, I can tell you that right off the bat. Your highly theoretical scenario would result in fewer law abiding citizens having guns, while criminals would have just as many. Effect on the crime rate: almost nil. Not to mention the fact that banning the sale of guns would be (a)unconstitutional, and (b)would never pass Congress.


<< Of course criminals will be able to get guns, but in few number and at higher cost...plus it would be a pain in the ass to obtain them. >>

WRONG. Ignoring the fact that your scenario is impossible in the United States, it would not be a pain in the ass to obtain them. It's already a pain in the ass for people to obtain firearms in Washington DC and NYC, yet that has not had a positive effect on the crime rate in the two cities.


<< was the statistics based on national average of murders in a city COMMA nation average of murders per 100,000 COMMA OR nation average of percatange of murders to population >>

You have added words to your original statement. You change what you said (compare this quote to your original quote), and then insult my intelligence? Your inconsistency is amazing. Anyways, you did not address my inquiry. If you have examined the site I referenced (apparently you have not), you would see that it is per capita statistic.


<< Face it, the more taxes there are the more you can do with that tax money >>

Examine your economic data before you make such laughable claims. First of all, are you referring to tax RATES or tax REVENUE? There is an important distinction. More taxes do not necessarily imply more revenue. Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Apparently not. The Laffer Curve is aptly named after Professor Art Laffer. He was an advisor to President Reagan in the early 1980s, but, despite that, he has become quite well known through his 'curve'! He suggested that, as taxes increased from fairly low levels, tax revenue received by the government would also increase. However, as tax rates rose, there would come a point where people would not regard it as worth working so hard. This lack of incentives would lead to a fall in income and therefore a fall in tax revenue. The logical end-point is with tax rates at 100% where no one would bother to work (understandably!) and so tax revenue would become zero. Higher tax rates do not always result in higher revenue. Your simplistic statement ignores incentives for people to earn. Yes, I am saying we could do better with lower taxes.


<< What was that whole program that was passed recently that made people get off wellfare in 2 years and helped people get jobs? Oh ya thats right its not encouraging achievement at all of course not. >>

I agree with this. Such a program is one I support. The 1995 welfare reform was a good start. Why not consider scaling welfare back even further?


<< you want greater personal and states rights. >>

And why is that a bad thing?


<< In fact, Gandalf and I are probably more well read and caught up on government issues than anyone of our age group. >>

And that age group is...

 

[JellyBaby]

Some general comments:

American citizens can turn in guns all they want provided this is voluntary. Criminals will still have the same number, though, and it will be about as easy for them to get new weapons especially in the long term when black market sources outside our borders simply funnel in more guns.

The solution is to create fewer criminals.

Lower tax revenues force the government to spend our money wisely. Higher tax revenues means higher government waste, fraud and mismanagement.

IMO, the government should provide assistance only when citizens can?t manage on their own. Most of this assistance should be temporary (with some exceptions, like those who served in wars). The overriding theme should be to help americans provide for themselves (?feed a person today and he?s not hungry today. Teach him how to grow his food and he can be full for life.?).

Governments become corrupt. Our system has taken a nose dive these past few decades. If I?m able to live my life more or less as I see fit and I can keep most of my earnings, I will do well and won?t need to go to an ?iffy? government for aid.

 

[Gandalf511]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that Bober was a rascist. True Lincoln was in office during the civil war. However, Article IV section IV of the constitution, give the executive the right to use military force to put down and insurrection. Thus, I'm not clear on why he feels a man who eventually ( I know not at first but it was a touchy issue) ended slavery in the US, was turning on the American people. I have a real problem with anyone that supports the confederation.

 

[jaydee]

You know, Red Dawn, I never thought I'd say this, but you look genius compared to these two profoundly pathetic newbies. Napalm, Boberfett, JellyBaby, ect. I applaude you efforts, but logic and reasoning don't come easily with astounding stupidity, let alone grammar, the ability to decipher between tanks and supplies, or the most basic U.S. history. While I mind not as much attacks on myself, to call Boberfett a racist must be the most ignorant piece of english I've seen. You clearly have no case, so you start calling people racists. You have nerves, I'll give you that. Now before I'm accused of not producing anymore evidence for our case, let me remind you of everything you've avoided thus far.

<<<You say, ?show me stats. where gun ownership results in less crime?. I?m sure you?ll find some but why can?t we simply rely on good old common sense here? If the normal populous has the ability to protect itself and criminals know this, it?s a deterrent to crime plain and simple>>>

<<<exactly what part of the libertarian platform screws poor people? >>>

<<<Look around you and ask if poverty is better after billions and billions of dollars spent. Ask if drug usage has gone down since this war on drugs began. >>>

<<<You keep failing to recognize that other elected leaders around the world have turned on their citizens. Please explain why the US is immune from that?>>>

<<<With respect to &quot;Medicad&quot; (is that like AutoCAD?): Medicaid and Medicare are overrun with fraud and high costs, yet provide substandard care. Social Security is headed for the trash can, yet we resist offering people the option (option, mind you, it would not be a requirement) of using THEIR money to invest as THEY see fit. Such a system has worked in other countries. Most other government social spending programs are in similar conditions. Why do we continue to support programs that have proven themselves to be ineffective?>>>

<<<The president has no authority to declare war, that power belongs to congress. Lincoln postponed the convening of congress so that he could side-step that little piece of red tape in order to further his agenda. Whether that agenda had good reason behind it or not is immaterial. I only posted this fact to show that the president can seize power and put himself in a dictatorial position, even in this country.>>>

<<<You posted statistics. You did not prove causation, i.e. that the limit of access to guns was the specific cause of the lower rate of crime. I have read the posts, and do not feel that you have sufficiently proved your case. Merely posting the numbers does not constitute proof.>>>

<<<As I stated before, private citizens are effectively barred from owning firearms in the DC area. The police are already doing their best to eliminate guns I presume, yet the murder rate is far above the national average. Short of indiscriminately searching peoples residences for illegal weapons (a clear violation of the Constitution), I can't see any way the police can do anymore than they are already doing. >>>

<<<You said you could provide a reason why certain situations would not be able to happen in the USA. The reason is the very right you are denouncing so strongly, the Second Amendment.>>>

<<<Private market solutions have the incentive to be cost-efficient. Government solutions do not.>>>

<<<Ignoring the fact that your scenario is impossible in the United States, it would not be a pain in the ass to obtain them. It's already a pain in the ass for people to obtain firearms in Washington DC and NYC, yet that has not had a positive effect on the crime rate in the two cities. >>>

<<<Examine your economic data before you make such laughable claims. First of all, are you referring to tax RATES or tax REVENUE? There is an important distinction. More taxes do not necessarily imply more revenue. Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Apparently not. The Laffer Curve is aptly named after Professor Art Laffer. He was an advisor to President Reagan in the early 1980s, but, despite that, he has become quite well known through his 'curve'! He suggested that, as taxes increased from fairly low levels, tax revenue received by the government would also increase. However, as tax rates rose, there would come a point where people would not regard it as worth working so hard. This lack of incentives would lead to a fall in income and therefore a fall in tax revenue. The logical end-point is with tax rates at 100% where no one would bother to work (understandably!) and so tax revenue would become zero. Higher tax rates do not always result in higher revenue. Your simplistic statement ignores incentives for people to earn. Yes, I am saying we could do better with lower taxes. >>>

<<<American citizens can turn in guns all they want provided this is voluntary. Criminals will still have the same number, though, and it will be about as easy for them to get new weapons especially in the long term when black market sources outside our borders simply funnel in more guns.>>>

<<<Lower tax revenues force the government to spend our money wisely. Higher tax revenues means higher government waste, fraud and mismanagement>>>

Of course I could probably dig around and find more, but considering the idiocy of you two, your hands will be full for quite awhile. You seem to think one statistic eliminates any need for logic. Thats more than three lines for you need I say more?

 

[slipperyslope]

DAMN, I didn't mean to cause this much trouble

Jim

 

[scippy]

<<lol, I seriously doubt you make over $100,000 a year. Actually if you make $100,000 per year and you paid more than 19% in taxes to Uncle Sam...you'd better consider hiring an accountant.>>

Actually Ferocious, I do have an accountant that does the best that he can. I'm an old fart that still goofs around on computers. Getting yourself knocked back to 19% is good, but it isn't always possible, and it isn't always the best thing. Everybody's long-term plan is different, and my plan is to pay more now, but pay less later...kind of an inverted tax shelter I guess, but it's a good plan, trust me. (see, only a true old fart would use the term &quot;long-term plan&quot. Btw, if you knew off the top of your head what 28% means as far as threshold / income, you must be an old fart too.

Gandalf/Lowfatbaconboy(snipes): Okay, you got me there snipes. I forgot you guys did do some side work. And yes the training does take it's toll. The airplane I'm training on right now has a max gross weight of 580,000 lbs, has about 40 miles of electrical wiring, and holds 245,000 lbs of fuel (about 35,000 gallons) ... the old brain gets a little mushy at times, it's like learning everything there is to know about a small city.

My point was really this: Your perspective on things such as political parties, gun control, etc... is going to be changing as you get older. Not just because you pay more taxes as your income goes up either. The older you get the more things you see. I don't mean that to be condescending, it's just life. Life experiences shape everyone. When I was in my teens, then my 20's, then my 30's (I'm not quite out of those yet), I had a different attitude at each phase. Look at all the baby boomers. The same people who were running around in hippy gear, protesting the vietnam war, going to woodstock, etc... are now fixated on their 401k's and low-fat lattes.

You two might be paying some taxes now, but when you hit the 28% bracket I want to see how you feel about &quot;just raising taxes&quot; to shore up Social Security. Hey, you might still feel the same way, and that's great if you do. Just let me know when you get there is all I'm saying.

And btw, what's up with this thread? The last few posts seemed to take a kindler, gentler turn... you guys aren't running out of vinegar are you?
Heh...

Mike

 

[jaydee]

<< Never the less, sniping back and forth over the election is one thing but to label someone as a Rascist just because you don't happen to agree with aomething that person says is stepping over the line, especially when it's a respected member like Bober. >>



While I truly was sincere, lets agree on this one thing and not flame each other in this particular thread. I am content with insulting someones intellect, but as for

<< but I didn't know you were rascist as well. >>

and

<< i'm not real sure what back water bumpkin woods you crawled out of jaydee, but if you hadn't been so busy f@cking your sister >>

is beyond the call of duty. I think most would agree.

 

[jaydee]

Great.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Well scip i think the thread is dead or almost dead. Since we can't budge them and they can't budge us, its quite futile and a waste of time.
I also agree view points will change with age groups and time. Ummm well just make sure you keep your small city(plane) aloft.

I have a question for you about the FAA but ill just start another thread since this one has become the flame war from purgatory.

fett-
It is legal for a president to raise an army to put down an insurrection. The south was not an outside power thus he wasn't declaring war he was putting down an insurrection. So ok now that has been disproven lets see another example. (although id rather you did the research and disproved yourself before posting)

 

[jaydee]

I wonder what two people came here that it became a flamewar. If you'd answer a few of those however, it would be appreciated, I'm interested in your opinion about them since you ignored them the first time around.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Well lets see jaydee, gandalf and I came trying to prove how much the libertarians views are right wing crazy talk, but some people would not listen to a thing we said. People such as fett didn't come up with much arguing so he resorted to flaming us which in turn we flamed back...after a while. If you people wouldn't be so illogical and ignore our posts and just flat out not respond to the things we say we wouldn't have had to resort to fett's level.

--The best arguments mean nothing if the person listening is unwilling to change their mind or is extremely illogical.

Jaydee weren't you the one who ignored us based on the fact that you were to high and mighty cuz we are juniors at the moment?
Our arguments have been ignored the most...we tried to answer with our views on other people's issues the best we could considering it was what 10 on 2 while some times it appears that none of you even attempted to answer our statments that were crucial to our position on this topic.

 

[Gandalf511]

<<<You say, ?show me stats. where gun ownership results in less crime?. I?m sure you?ll find some but why can?t we simply rely on good old common sense here? If the normal populous has the ability to protect itself and criminals know this, it?s a deterrent to crime plain and simple>>>

Your common sense is different than mine, because your idea of your rights differ from mine. You feel that it is an inborn right to own a gun where as I do not. When people's views differ, their ideas of common sense differ.

<<<exactly what part of the libertarian platform screws poor people? >>>

The part that cuts out all help for the poor without suggesting anything to replace the current system. The current system maybe misrun, but it is far better than no system.

<<<Look around you and ask if poverty is better after billions and billions of dollars spent. Ask if drug usage has gone down since this war on drugs began. >>>

In the common sense idea, my city's drug usage has gone down because of the war on drugs. I think most city's usage have but if you can find anything that says different, go for it.

<<<You keep failing to recognize that other elected leaders around the world have turned on their citizens. Please explain why the US is immune from that?>>>

Other elected officials often have their elections rigged. With 260 million Americans and a well established democratic system, I don't think this can happen in the US. We have learned from our mistics and those of others and fixed them. Also, I believe I established Lincoln was within his rights, so who was the last US presidant, or other civilized world leader that turned on his people?

<<<With respect to &quot;Medicad&quot; (is that like AutoCAD?): Medicaid and Medicare are overrun with fraud and high costs, yet provide substandard care. Social Security is headed for the trash can, yet we resist offering people the option (option, mind you, it would not be a requirement) of using THEIR money to invest as THEY see fit. Such a system has worked in other countries. Most other government social spending programs are in similar conditions. Why do we continue to support programs that have proven themselves to be ineffective?>>>

A socialistic medicare system has also worked incredibly well in other countries (see Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, etc.) and these systems are loved by the people.

<<<The president has no authority to declare war, that power belongs to congress. Lincoln postponed the convening of congress so that he could side-step that little piece of red tape in order to further his agenda. Whether that agenda had good reason behind it or not is immaterial. I only posted this fact to show that the president can seize power and put himself in a dictatorial position, even in this country.>>>

Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution.

<<<You posted statistics. You did not prove causation, i.e. that the limit of access to guns was the specific cause of the lower rate of crime. I have read the posts, and do not feel that you have sufficiently proved your case. Merely posting the numbers does not constitute proof.>>>


Sorry. I'll consider looking for causation stats later.

<<<As I stated before, private citizens are effectively barred from owning firearms in the DC area. The police are already doing their best to eliminate guns I presume, yet the murder rate is far above the national average. Short of indiscriminately searching peoples residences for illegal weapons (a clear violation of the Constitution), I can't see any way the police can do anymore than they are already doing. >>>

I've already answered this one but again demographics. It is a poor city with a high crime rate. The murder rate was far above national average before they tried limiting guns (I think it was number one in the nation in crime) so I'm more interested in how it's done in comparison from before and after.

<<<You said you could provide a reason why certain situations would not be able to happen in the USA. The reason is the very right you are denouncing so strongly, the Second Amendment.>>>

I simply disagree. I do not believe the government will turn on us anytime soon. Sorry.

<<<Private market solutions have the incentive to be cost-efficient. Government solutions do not.>>>

Yes, but private market solutions also have the goal of making money. Government do not. Government simply tries to pay for itself.

<<<Ignoring the fact that your scenario is impossible in the United States, it would not be a pain in the ass to obtain them. It's already a pain in the ass for people to obtain firearms in Washington DC and NYC, yet that has not had a positive effect on the crime rate in the two cities. >>>

See above.

<<<Examine your economic data before you make such laughable claims. First of all, are you referring to tax RATES or tax REVENUE? There is an important distinction. More taxes do not necessarily imply more revenue. Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? Apparently not. The Laffer Curve is aptly named after Professor Art Laffer. He was an advisor to President Reagan in the early 1980s, but, despite that, he has become quite well known through his 'curve'! He suggested that, as taxes increased from fairly low levels, tax revenue received by the government would also increase. However, as tax rates rose, there would come a point where people would not regard it as worth working so hard. This lack of incentives would lead to a fall in income and therefore a fall in tax revenue. The logical end-point is with tax rates at 100% where no one would bother to work (understandably!) and so tax revenue would become zero. Higher tax rates do not always result in higher revenue. Your simplistic statement ignores incentives for people to earn. Yes, I am saying we could do better with lower taxes. >>>

Interesting idea but I'm not a big fan of Reagenomics

<<<American citizens can turn in guns all they want provided this is voluntary. Criminals will still have the same number, though, and it will be about as easy for them to get new weapons especially in the long term when black market sources outside our borders simply funnel in more guns.>>>

Inforce current and future gun laws and try to take the illegal guns.

<<<Lower tax revenues force the government to spend our money wisely. Higher tax revenues means higher government waste, fraud and mismanagement>>>

Get your tax cuts from the right wing pork projects. Don't take the money from the poor.

 

[G41184b]

If I'm not mistaken when the south seceded from the United States to become the Confederate States then they became their own country, therefore the members of congress from those startes no longer belonged to the US congress, so congress was a complete body. That means that only Congress can declare war and Lincoln broke the Law.


This thread's not done I just finished reading!

 

[Gandalf511]

Did any one (The US, Britain, France, etc.) ever formally recognize the confederacy as a nation. If not then it would still be classified an insurrection.

 

[jaydee]

<< Well lets see jaydee, gandalf and I came trying to prove how much the libertarians views are right wing crazy talk, but some people would not listen to a thing we said. People such as fett didn't come up with much arguing so he resorted to flaming us which in turn we flamed back...after a while. >>


Yes lets see. Bober and I attack you for stupid comments. You and junior accuse us of racists, and incest. You tell me whose unreasonable.



<< --The best arguments mean nothing if the person listening is unwilling to change their mind or is extremely illogical. >>


Tell me about it.



<< Jaydee weren't you the one who ignored us based on the fact that you were to high and mighty cuz we are juniors at the moment? >>


Oh, no! I called you guys juniors! I didn't know it was such a dangerous mistake. I was trying to ignore you, because you were being idiots.



<< it appears that none of you even attempted to answer our statments that were crucial to our position on this topic. >>


Which ones?



<< The part that cuts out all help for the poor without suggesting anything to replace the current system. The current system maybe misrun, but it is far better than no system. >>


The system now, screws over the people who pay taxes, and makes the unemployed dependent on the gov't, with no motivation to work (besides walking to the mailbox, opening the check, and cashing it in).



<< In the common sense idea, my city's drug usage has gone down because of the war on drugs. I think most city's usage have but if you can find anything that says different, go for it. >>


It is a rare, city indeed. Ask any public school student 9-12 and ask them if they knew who to get drugs from if they wanted any. You'll find almost all of them have the same access, they just choose not to. Doesn't have anything to do with the gov't programs.



<< A socialistic medicare system has also worked incredibly well in other countries (see Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, etc.) and these systems are loved by the people. >>


Then move to Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, etc. The Soviet economy worked incredibly well from the 1930's through the 1980's, does that make communism right? Again I'm going to pull the common sense card here. Why should every tax-paying American be required to pay for every other Americans drugs or medical treatment? How about every American get to keep all their earned money, and save their own money, and pay for their own privae insurance of their choice, and buy their own drugs and medical treatment. That will keep everyone accountable for themselves. Doesn't that make sense?



<< I've already answered this one but again demographics. It is a poor city with a high crime rate. The murder rate was far above national average before they tried limiting guns (I think it was number one in the nation in crime) so I'm more interested in how it's done in comparison from before and after. >>


Yet you give me stats comparing the U.S. and Britain, instead of Britain before and Britain after! Sorry you can't have it both ways.

more later...

 

[Gandalf511]

Jaydee you simply don't seem to understand any of the points stated. Let's move on from guns, and go on to your idea of I wanna keep my money and let everyone else do the same. The poor don't have the money to save. They live hand to mouth. The lower earning 25% of this nation live hand to mouth, using their pay-checks to pay-bills and buy food. They don't have money to save into medical accounts. Where as you I'm sure are not hurting from paying taxes too much from paying taxes. The old rely on government subsidies to pay for medication and hospital bills. When everyone is dumped into a pool and told to find their own insurance, how many companies are going to rush in and offer programs to 80 year old diabetes patients. None. And they would have no incentive to.

As for education, let everyone go to whatever school they want, people can go to whatever school they want. Anyone with enough money can go to any private school of their choosing. By taking out the Department of Education this isn't going to get any better. The poor still won' be able to send their kids to private schools, and the rich will simply cease to care (if they haven't already). Also what's to regulate schools. How do you know you want send your kid and have him sitting on the floor, watching tv all day. Federal regulations are in place to protect the public and without them, companies will rule our lives. Your ideas would make insurance companies even more powerful than they already are and would make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

[BoberFett]

The problem is that you assume that somehow the world owes people a good life. It doesn't.

 

[Raspewtin]

They just had Harry Browne (sp?) w/ the Libertarians on NPR. It may have been local program (San Diego). They were some other 3rd party canditates. Someone called in with a good question about the civil war and the important role in governmental intervention in securing personal rights (even if the Civil war was economic in nature, it abolished slavery).

Harry Browne responded by trying to suggest that blacks were mobile, and even without a protectionist central government, they could go from state-to-state, and pick the state that best represented their needs. I seriously doubt slaves were economically mobile enough to afford that opportunity, not to mention they'd get hunted down by their &quot;owners&quot;. Also if you told slaves before the civil war that the best hope for social change was to come from the private sector they'd laugh their head off. History illustrates several pivotal moments where if we actually adopted libertarian ideals, it would detrimental for our society and our country. Libertarianism IMO only works when either (1) we ignore social problems, (2) or we no longer care. The problem seems to be it is more and more difficult to isolate the suffering of others from affecting ourselves.

 

[slipperyslope]

Gandalf,

My reasoning is this. I don't feel that the government should FORCE me to pay for anyone else's stuff. I donate my time a good amount to Habitat for Humanity for instance. Guess what I also give blood which is not required of me(I know it is a bad example but it is something that is not forced on me). I know that not everyone is willing to give to the poor and such but I do not believe that people should be forced to. There will ALWAYS be the bottom of the ladder. Should we always support them if they have 3 story houses just because they are on the bottom? What program has ever been discontinued by the government. I do not feel the government has any right to take my money and give it to people I don't think deserve it. I can find many people in my area I would much rather help out.

Jim

 

[Gandalf511]

I guess that's where you and I differ. First, the poor do not have 3 story houses, and if they ever do, it will be a much better world. Second, as you said not everyone volunteers. While you and I do, most of the people in the nation don't. It is an age old idea of helping the poor. It is a part of Islam and a staple of Christianity. Religions around the world require and reward the act of giving. Why you guys are so opposed to doing this I do not understand?

&quot;It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Good Afternoon gentlemen.&quot;

 

[JellyBaby]

My feeling is this: government's job is to provide a certain level of education for all citizens. If everyone gets a quality education poverty should all but evaporate. Obviously, we're doing a fair job at this now but improvement is needed (through reform, btw, not additional funding). This is the best way to tackle the &quot;poor&quot; class.

Government should also provide a minimum safety net for when we &quot;fall&quot;. But I'm against addictive, pro-poverty programs like welfare. Unemployment benefits are iffy but generally a good idea provided they too aren't addictive.

But to create, on a federal level, programs to elevate a certain group of people by taking a lot of something away from other groups of people is just plain wrong. I really believe we'd all be surprised at the level of charity in this country if government tax oppression was lifted off the middle class.

And finally the sad part is that there's plenty of help available if people would just get off their asses and look for it.