The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Libertarianism
Thanatos
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In the hopes that we can get the 2008 election thread back on track:
StephenB.2006 wrote: »Hey, did I say I was a Republican? I think not. I'm a Libertarian. I want the government out of my house, out of my pocket, out of my business. I will gladly pay taxes for road construction, military defense, and law enforcement.
If you want a retirement plan, try investing. Don't take money out of my paycheck because you can't spell 401k. If you want health insurance, there are a number of private firms willing to sell you some and if the government would stop paying healthcare providers whatever they ask for, the price of those services would drop due to natural market forces. America is the most charitable nation in the world. If the government would let go of my wallet long enough for me to make a donation, I'd give a lot more to the truly disadvantaged than the overhead ridden welfare system takes out of each of our bank accounts every day.
Thanatos on
0
Posts
Any way I feel that whilst the welfare systems could use some improvement I think their necessary to protect people who can't make a wage for any myriad of possible reasons. Same for the health services. In fact I feel their should be a system similar to the UK, with both effectively completely free for those who choose to use it but with private insurance for those who can afford it.
As a side note I’ve found pretty much every self declaring libertarian to be a right cunt, who thinks the economy will become perfect looking after all and magically fix every problem facing the world.
Yeah, you get the guy who advocates privatizing the fire department, and everyone dismisses the party as a bunch of loons.
Also, get the thread back on track because nobody would ever vote for a Lib candidate? m i rite?
Even in D&D it's always just Red vs Blue. If it's not a Republican or a Democrat, nobody cares.
I'm having trouble finding actual statistics, but I'm pretty sure Americans are generally profligate philanthropists.
This is fine and well until a Cat 5 hurricane smashes your small town to bits, and no one can help you. People don't want to pay income tax, or deal with The Man, but when disaster befalls you, that tune can change pretty darn fast. It's the entire paradox of the party, and that's why it will never be a serious third party candidate. You can stump speech all day about the evils of the government, and income tax, hit all the high notes - but when you explain that you don't need the government when you lose your job, nature destroys your house, or some other ill wind blows your way- folks start to doubt the credibility of the party and platform.
Then you've got the pot smoking, angry-at-speed-limits, anarchist wannabes.
2003 for US: 2.2% GDP.
Americans are let down by their government however.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=February&x=200502181639511CJsamohT5.593508e-02
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18404/article_detail.asp
I remember there being a big scandal about it because a fire truck for Queen Creek has to come all the way from Scottsdale (30 or so miles away).
Most libertarians I've met don't really give a shit about civil liberties like gay marriage and other stuff.
Or human rights
Or human rights. Thank you.
That's pretty much a necessity of being a libertarian. They probably called themselves libertarians because they thought it was the cool thing to do.
Elaborate?
If libertarians want the government to intervene as little as possible in individual's lives, it'd be pretty strange for them to want an active government overseas.
Yeah, who are we to interfere in Darfur!
I think that's largely accurate, But I suspect they generally want the government to intervene where national security is concerned.
Similarly, I wouldn't put it past a lot of them to have motivations rooted in enlightened self-interest for an active foreign policy.
And that is why, while the supposed ideas of Libertarianism may appeal to me, I could never get behind a libertarian party. Every candidate I've seen or every platform I've heard has seemed to reek of self-interest.
It may be too big for this thread alone, but what's intrinsically wrong with enlightened self-interest? It can (and does) lead to views such as needing to increase stability and freedom and wealth abroad so that we are safer and richer at home.
But then, I'm a lousy liberal...
Edit: Supabeast's post below also reminded me that it seems Libertarians are focused on not paying taxes at the expense of everyone else.
They're actually getting better about that. The Cato institute got the ball rolling by opposing the anti-gay constitutional amendments, and I'm hoping that it catches on.
I'm in the same boat as a lot of you: small government is good, capitalism is good, handouts just to make sure that stupid/lazy/unlucky people don't have to work for a living are bad. I've given a lot of thought to supporting the Libertarian party, but it always comes back to the same problem: Libertarians candidates tend to be the loons who want to completely abolish public schools, privatize the fire departments, and so on.
Most libertarians are still what Ayn Rand called the “hippies of the right,†trying to establish anarchy by acting conservative. Too often they seem to be a bunch of scummy tax cheats who want a government that's limited to only providing the services that they can take financial advantage of.
Personally, I'd be much happier seeing the remaining good Republicans split off into a party that picks up on the good elements of Goldwater conservatism, but ditches the racism, the theocracy, and the corporate corruption. If George Will were a politician, I'd be raising funds to build him a soapbox.
On the upside, this is where Barack Obama seems to be leaning: a humane government that respects civil liberties and individuals without expanding the welfare state. Now if only he wanted to diminish the welfare state!
Anyway, I'm with libertarianism as long as it's pragmatic. For example, I like the idea of that the less power government has the less it will abuse power. I don't like the idea of schools/medical insurance being privatized. Some things aren't power, they're just responsibilities. Government is stupid but they are much more accountable than the private market as long as they're on a tight leash. Both government and companies are more of a reflection of the people they are controlled by than the people they serve.
How exactly does one go about making genocide worse? Is there like, a Super Genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
Krauthammer has made that point a few times lately when discussing the Walter Reed mess. Privatization works for a lot of things, but sometimes Congressional oversight and government bureaucracy is actually a lesser evil.
I'm a big opponent of state intervention in the medical system, tho. As I see it all the government regulation seems to do is create more hoops and paperwork for doctors to deal with, and the high prices set for stuff simply because Medicare is willing to pay for it is pretty scandalous. I'll admit that some countries seem to pull it off, but I don't see that happening here.
Well, there was interference with Saudi Arabia regarding terrorism, and you know what? That's one of the big reasons Osama Bin Laden has every yankee doodle shmuck on his hitlist.
Not that I'm an isolationist, mind you, just defending for the sake of debate.
I don't see anything about genocide before the Americans got involved.
That isn't genocide. You don't accidentally commit genocide.
Unfortunately most of the ones that run for office fall into the wackier category. Probably because the sane ones know that they haven't got a chance in hell of winning.
The Libertarian party line on marriage is that it's not the government's business. Marriage is between you, your spouse, and your church as it is an inherently religious institution. You can, through legal process, name anyone you want on your insurance, in your last will and testament, or in a living will and as such, marriage is not necessary for these things. You can also joint file a tax return regardless of married status. As such, the Libertarian party would rather the government not recognize marriage at all. Then, if homosexuals want to get married, they can because no law would exist to prevent it.
On isolationism, self interest:
The Libertarian party line on foreign policy is blurry at best. Some Libertarians, such as myself, prefer as few binding documents as possible. This is because binding the nation legally reduces it sovereignty. Self interest is good.
On businesses:
Business is good. If businesses abuse consumers, consumers will find a substitute for that business's product or service. There is a substitute for everything. Everything. This is a fundamental rule of economics. As for enforcing common sense envrionmental laws, this is one of the things that Libertarians can disagree on. I'm in favor of government protecting people from externalities but others say that as all resources are privately owned, an abusive company will simply fail due to market forces as people avoid doing business with such a company.