Libertarian Party

[delusional]

sorry i cant type fast on a psp i didnt even see your post.
i still believe there should be some regulation. im not really sure what insider trading and i dont feel like looking it up. and the government makes more money on oil than oil companies do themselves. oil companies only make 10 cents a gallon while the federal gov makes 18.4 cents my state california makes 25 cents and then theres local tax. and hell my mom works over 60 hours a week.

 

[15357]

BEST ****ING PARTY EVER! (Only on the economic issues)

1. End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap

.

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

End of minimum wage?

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3


But the social issues I don't agree with.

 

[Raziaar]

Without me having to look up a bunch of stuff, what does the party stand for, basically? In the most generalized of terms.

 

[gick]

The only difference between a liberatarian state and a facist state is who is doing the controlling: For liberatarians, the disguise of freedoms and rights provides solace in a society that would ultimately be controlled by big monopolistic corporations that exploit their workers and the government can't do a damn thing about it.

QFT

Thats my biggest problem with these guys. The only thing stopping big corporations from doing whatever the **** they like is government regulation (and competition with other companies - but you can wave goodbye to that when they roll back the anti-trust laws, laws against insider trading etc).

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ye-e-es...as far as I can see, with America's (the entire Western world's?) corporate climate a libertarian state would be pretty cool for about two years, before companies who've read too much cyberpunk fiction start taking over everything.

Hell, if we was to cut that in half, we could build over 20,000 high schools each costing $5 mil. That's only $100,000,000,000 spent...another $100 bil could get you 20,000 more high schools.

But the Libertarians couldn't since they don't believe in government charity.

Like have you read that article on katrina? "Government aid did not do much help and private enterprise had to take up the slack. This teaches us a valuable lesson - that government charity is crap and private charity is awesome!"

NO IT DOESN'T. THE GOVERNMENT WAS CRAP.

 

[Solaris]

That party would ruin america.
The corperations f**k you over already, you want to allow them to do it even more?

 

[MiccyNarc]

That party would ruin america.
The corperations f**k you over already, you want to allow them to do it even more?

Personally, I've never been screwed over by a corporation. The government on the other hand...

 

[No Limit]

Personally, I've never been screwed over by a corporation. The government on the other hand...

Yeah. I guess thats easy for you to say if you didn't work or invest at Enron, Martha Stewert Living, or the thousands of other large corporations that have screwed their investors and employees. And I guess you never paid excess amounts for your gas (delusional, you might want to fact check those talking points of yours about oil companies).

Let me ask you guys something else. What happens if you need a surgery that will save your life but don't have $50,000 in your pocket to pay for it. How are you going to come up with that without the help from your goverment?

I think you guys support the social issues of this party but ignore everything else which is extremely dangerous. I think you are all doing this becasuse you are afraid of being labeled a liberal which the right wing has turned into a curse word over the last decade.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Don't presume to inflict your fisher-price psychology on those who don't agree with you.

 

[No Limit]

Don't presume to inflict your fisher-price psychology on those who don't agree with you.

Easy now buddy :cheese:.

Its a matter of common sense really, ask tron and everyone else here that wants to be a libertarian because they are look for an alternative to liberalism. If they stip down every platform issue by issue they will be a lot more liberal than libertarian.

 

[Sainku]

While it is probably the party my views are closest to, I am still not to fond of it. I am in a posistion similar to BaconIsGood4You, but if I had to go register right now it would probably be as a republican.

 

[No Limit]

While it is probably the party my views are closest to, I am still not to fond of it. I am in a posistion similar to BaconIsGood4You, but if I had to go register right now it would probably be as a republican.

I just puked up my lunch, thanks a lot.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I just puked up my lunch, thanks a lot.

No need for that really.

You're like a stuck record.. we know your opinions, there is NO need to keep trotting them out every 5 minutes, and NO need to belittle those who disagree with you.

 

[gick]

I just puked up my lunch, thanks a lot.

Please, enough of the holier-than-thou, 'all republicans are evil' bullshit. That kind of attitude only serves to make people hate you, and push them towards the opposing view.

EDIT: What CommieBadger said...

 

[No Limit]

ComradeBadger jumping on my ass about something, no, it can't be. :upstare:

 

[Tr0n]

What the other 3 said.

I'm still going LP.

 

[DeusExMachina]

What the other 3 said.

I'm still going LP.

Me as well.

 

[No Limit]

What the other 3 said.

I'm still going LP.

But tron, buddy, talk to me here. Do you really support these people getting a majority in our government and removing all social services and all regulation on business? Deus I'd like to get your opinon too.

 

[gick]

ComradeBadger jumping on my ass about something, no, it can't be. :upstare:

Sorry pal but you deserved it. You jumped on someone else's ass for not being a Democrat. You are being rude, arrogant and downright hypocritical.

 

[No Limit]

Sorry pal but you deserved it. You jumped on someone else's ass for not being a Democrat. You are being rude, arrogant and downright hypocritical.

You guys take my posts way too seriously. Good for you :thumbs:

 

[DeusExMachina]

But tron, buddy, talk to me here. Do you really support these people getting a majority in our government and removing all social services and all regulation on business? Deus I'd like to get your opinon too.

My opinion is scattered around in this thread. Like I said, there'd have to be some compromises with their economic issues, even downright rejecting some. But, I stand by them 99%.

 

[No Limit]

My opinion is scattered around in this thread. Like I said, there'd have to be some compromises with their economic issues, even downright rejecting some. But, I stand by them 99%.

But do you support them getting a majority? Have you ever talked to any of their party leaders? They will not compromise on this, period.

 

[gick]

You guys take my posts way too seriously. Good for you :thumbs:

Given the bullshit you come out with when you're being serious, its sometimes difficult to tell.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Are they pushing total legalisation of all drugs?

 

[No Limit]

Are they pushing total legalisation of all drugs?

Yes.

gick, participate in a discussion with me sometime if you are going to label everything I say bullshit. I'd love to hear your opinion on the "bullshit" topics I bring up.

 

[AzzMan]

If i was affiliated with a party, it'd probably be the Greens right now, I would be all for Libertarian except for the completely unregulated business...I mean there has to be some degree of freedom or else whats the point? On almost all social issues Im pretty much fullt libertarian, democrats and republicans ftl

 

[delusional]

the libertarian still fits me best, when i say im libertarian im not saying i believe everything they do its just i believe most of what they say. i will never be a democrat since i dislike socialist ideas. im a capitalist and nothing is going to change that

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

but owning a gun isnt a vctemless crime ..if I shoot my wife ..well there's a victem right there


disclaimer: Stern does not endorse spousal shootings

Owning a gun != Murdering your wife


"From my cold, dead hands!"



Anyway, for the topic, I support a lot of libertarian ideas but the US Libertarian Party itself is kind of a joke, many stunts for publicity etc. One official died himself purple or some shit.

Lots of people call themselves "Little L libertarians" so they can say they're libertarians in their views on most issues, but not necessarily members of the official Libertarian Party in the US.

I'm iffy on some of the LP's social issues such as their stance on abortion, etc, but the economic freedom they endorse is wonderful.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah, I would consider myself a "libertarian," not a "Libertarian."

And the guy dyed himself blue I believe .

 

[theotherguy]

you see, conservatives support liberatarians because of their economic intrests, liberals because of their social interest.

Liberatarianism is thus a frankensteinian combination of the two.

With conservatism you get economic freedom from the government and your social freedoms are restricted by the government. The basic rationale is that the government's job is to uphold social justice, not regulate buisness. However, this leads to the government's "values" being imposed on the people, and big corporations having more control of the economy. Conservatism in the united states can be tracted back to Hamiltonianism.

With liberalism you get social freedom from the government, yet some of the economic freedom is restrained to prevent monopolies and to provide welfare for citizens. The basic rationale is that the government should let people do what they want socially, but it should control and keep in check big buisness. However, this might cause the government to be more expensive, and may stunt exponential growth of buisness. Liberalism in the US can be traced back to Jeffersonianism.

With liberatarianism you get both social and economic freedom from the government, but eventually you lose freedom because of private monopolies. The basic rationale is that the government is not to be trusted, so it shouldn't be involved in any aspect other than military and political protection. However, this generally leads to an extremely weak lazzie-fare government, and a huge economic gap between the rich and the poor. Liberatarianism can be traced back in the US to Jacksonianism.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Couldn't you also say Libertarianism is a 'purer' ideology - freedom in all things - and that conservatism and liberalism have stuff tacked on?

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

Explain firstly how a monopoly can be private as private implies no government restrictions on the trade.

Explain how monopolies, especially harmful ones, will all of a sudden pop up.

Explain how these monopolies will cause you too lose freedom.

Explain why we should trust politicians with coercive force rather than be free.

There should be no entrenched power, be it business or the masses. Guess where they get power. The government. What else has the power to force people and is controlled by lobbying.


And as to the Social Security comment about not being able to afford medicine- Not being able to afford something does not entitle you to use the coercive force of government to take it from another

 

[No Limit]

And as to the Social Security comment about not being able to afford medicine- Not being able to afford something does not entitle you to use the coercive force of government to take it from another

I will try to get back to your economic posts later, I am a little busy this morning.

Tron, anyone else that is reading and wants to convert to libertarianism please read everything Baconisgoodforyou writes, he is completely in line with everything that that party stands for and what they will not compromise on. If you get fatally sick, and you aren't a millionare (I'm guessing most of you here aren't) you are on your own. You get shot you will not be taken to the hospital unless you can pay for the ambulance ride over there, each day stay at the hospital, and the surgery and the months of treatment you will need. Meaning you will be left on that sidewalk to die. Why? Becasue they would rather see you die than take a small percentage of their millions to pay for your treatment.

I know you guys say you aren't democrats and disagree with them on a lot of things, thats fine, you are entitled to that. I myself disagree with a lot of those things. But when election season comes up you have to use a little common sense for the good of your neighboors. Will you vote for the radical that wants the above or will you vote for the guy that is in line with most of your views on society, but not all?

What you guys are advocating, wether you like it or not, are the most extreme of both sides. You are advocating legalizing the worst of drugs with no mendatory rehabilitation, you are advocating being allowed to have a F16 or stinger missles in your driveway, you are advocating removing EMS, police, and fire departments, and removing every aspect of any social service every single one of you might need 20-50 years from now. This is a dangerous party you are affiliating with, a party ran by billionares that don't want the government regulating them, ever.

That's my 2 cents for the day, I need to get back to work. I'll check back later.

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

Tron, anyone else that is reading and wants to convert to libertarianism please read everything Baconisgoodforyou writes, he is completely in line with everything that that party stands for and what they will not compromise on. If you get fatally sick, and you aren't a millionare (I'm guessing most of you here aren't) you are on your own. You get shot you will not be taken to the hospital unless you can pay for the ambulance ride over there, each day stay at the hospital, and the surgery and the months of treatment you will need. Meaning you will be left on that sidewalk to die. Why? Becasue they would rather see you die than take a small percentage of their millions to pay for your treatment.

I know you guys say you aren't democrats and disagree with them on a lot of things, thats fine, you are entitled to that. I myself disagree with a lot of those things. But when election season comes up you have to use a little common sense for the good of your neighboors. Will you vote for the radical that wants the above or will you vote for the guy that is in line with most of your views on society, but not all?

What you guys are advocating, wether you like it or not, are the most extreme of both sides. You are advocating legalizing the worst of drugs with no mendatory rehabilitation, you are advocating being allowed to have a F16 or stinger missles in your driveway, you are advocating removing EMS, police, and fire departments, and removing every aspect of any social service every single one of you might need 20-50 years from now. This is a dangerous party you are affiliating with, a party ran by billionares that don't want the government regulating them, ever.

That's my 2 cents for the day, I need to get back to work. I'll check back later.

Ok, I don't know why you are attacking me since I've had two posts, one that implicitely said that I was not a Libertarian. The whole of this post seems to be founded on emotionalism and class warfare/scape goating (wealthy; Bacon = evil). You do not present a real argument for such social policies, just present an emotional situation intended to inspire fear and hatred of the dehumanized wealthy ([The wealthy] would rather see you die than take a small percentage of their millions to pay for your treatment). And do you really think that Libertarianism would entail assualt victims would not recieve treatment, that the police would just leave them!?!? Crime victims obviously would recieve aid whereas those who have not been harmed would not (ie yes to gunshot wounds, no to AIDs medication). I don't even know why you are assuming that Libertarians are all millionaires or buddies with them. They are just as wary of big business as the people for faction (ie trade tariffs, special privileges, etc.)

Not only is this completely lack any type of rational discourse or objectivity, but is just plain ignorant. Do you even know what libertarianism is? What you just described is anarchism. Libertarianism is not no government, its limited government (ie military, police, judges, etc., no welfare, anti-gay laws, drug laws, regulation). Thus there would be no initiatory coercion, only retailitory. Libertarianism does not mean civilians would have Stinger missles; we have the right to bear arms, not to a vigilante army.


I am not a Libertarian, I'm a classic liberal. Both our political ideologies are based on the works of John Locke, Ludwig von Mises, Adam Smith, etc, however. The argument essentially is that governments are formed by free men in order to preserve their liberty. They are entrusted with supreme power to be used against those who violate the rights of others. Since government is entrusted with such great power the whole sphere of politics should be devoted to how to check faction from usupering the coercive force of government for its own use. Thus government must be checked and limited so that there is no majority/minorty rule and liberty is upheld. Programs like welfare or Social Security violate the rights of citizens as they are a wealth transfer; the money is stolen by the other citizens for the one. To accept these programs is to accept that there is no property rights, and indeed that there is no right to life (Should I be forced to donate a kidney?). Just because someone wants/needs something does not entitle it to the property of another. If you do not accept property rights then life becomes who has the biggest guns (or clout to order the guns around).

Either way, I'm done. I don't mean to be mean, I'm defending an attack (my second post was not attack).

 

[Sulkdodds]

Programs like welfare or Social Security violate the rights of citizens as they are a wealth transfer; the money is stolen by the other citizens for the one.

I'd just like to interject at this point to say: how do you figure that? The money is stolen (which I don't think is entirely the right term) from everyone for everyone. Everyone contributes so that everyone else can be helped, and indeed every single person is, in theory, entitled to that same treatment when they need it. Welfare's a more hotly debated topic, but I think a state-funded healthcare system is absolutely essential. Otherwise, it really does just mean the rich can get treatment while the poor have to make do without. Can't afford cancer treatment? Too bad. Die.

So then we could say "well, it's your own fault for not working hard". We could say that every citizen has a responsibility to look after themselves (conversely we could say that every citizen has a responsibility to care about and help their neighbours, but, y'know...). But then we run into a fundamental problem: everybody doesn't have the same chance in life and everybody doesn't start off equal. Everybody does start off in a certain social strata, be it rich or poor, and if you have a system where, say, rich people have access to very good schooling, and less-rich people can only afford very poor schooling, you suddenly have self-perpetuating oppression within your supposedly 'free' system. Because while everybody in the country has the freedom not to have money taken away to support a decent state schooling system, those kids whose parents were too poor to be able to get them into a decent school will have the freedom to not be able to get a good job. Yes, bad schooling can't always destroy talent, but it can certainly dim it, and what percentage of a population are pure geniuses like Einstein who can totally mess up school and still become one of the most famous figures of their century? And let's bear in mind that often bad schooling actually destroys the urge to learn, making everything worse for everybody (I base this on my experience, and my many friend's experiences, of the British public schooling system).

So then you've broken capitalism and the ideal of total freedom in a quite fundamental way, because if you don't make much money because you don't have a good job because your parents couldn't send you to a better school because they didn't have good jobs because their parents couldn't etc then you have the freedom to die of cancer and, on Sunday afternoons, to play table tennis, if you wish.

As you may be able to tell I believe private schools should be abolished, because all this stuff about competition produces better results is wonderful except when you consider that naturally, in competition, there must be losers, and that those losers are usually the ones without the funding of rich parents to allow them to perform better in the aforementioned competition.

Note that most of this is quite general; generally, going to an expensive school gives you a better chance of obtaining a high-paying job; in most cases going to a 'bad' school decreases your chance of achieving this.

...yeah, my point is somewhere in there.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, I don't know why you are attacking me since I've had two posts, one that implicitely said that I was not a Libertarian. The whole of this post seems to be founded on emotionalism and class warfare/scape goating (wealthy; Bacon = evil). You do not present a real argument for such social policies, just present an emotional situation intended to inspire fear and hatred of the dehumanized wealthy ([The wealthy] would rather see you die than take a small percentage of their millions to pay for your treatment). And do you really think that Libertarianism would entail assualt victims would not recieve treatment, that the police would just leave them!?!? Crime victims obviously would recieve aid whereas those who have not been harmed would not (ie yes to gunshot wounds, no to AIDs medication). I don't even know why you are assuming that Libertarians are all millionaires or buddies with them. They are just as wary of big business as the people for faction (ie trade tariffs, special privileges, etc.)

Not only is this completely lack any type of rational discourse or objectivity, but is just plain ignorant. Do you even know what libertarianism is? What you just described is anarchism. Libertarianism is not no government, its limited government (ie military, police, judges, etc., no welfare, anti-gay laws, drug laws, regulation). Thus there would be no initiatory coercion, only retailitory. Libertarianism does not mean civilians would have Stinger missles; we have the right to bear arms, not to a vigilante army.


I am not a Libertarian, I'm a classic liberal. Both our political ideologies are based on the works of John Locke, Ludwig von Mises, Adam Smith, etc, however. The argument essentially is that governments are formed by free men in order to preserve their liberty. They are entrusted with supreme power to be used against those who violate the rights of others. Since government is entrusted with such great power the whole sphere of politics should be devoted to how to check faction from usupering the coercive force of government for its own use. Thus government must be checked and limited so that there is no majority/minorty rule and liberty is upheld. Programs like welfare or Social Security violate the rights of citizens as they are a wealth transfer; the money is stolen by the other citizens for the one. To accept these programs is to accept that there is no property rights, and indeed that there is no right to life (Should I be forced to donate a kidney?). Just because someone wants/needs something does not entitle it to the property of another. If you do not accept property rights then life becomes who has the biggest guns (or clout to order the guns around).

Either way, I'm done. I don't mean to be mean, I'm defending an attack (my second post was not attack).

I didn't mean it to sound like I was attacking you, I simply wanted people to understand that the position you are arguing for is the exact position of the LP. This is what I am talking about:

And as to the Social Security comment about not being able to afford medicine- Not being able to afford something does not entitle you to use the coercive force of government to take it from another

What you are saying is if you aren't rich enough to afford having your life saved then you simply aren't worth having your life saved. How am I wrong in saying that? And you say under the LP platform people that are victims of crime would still get help, I hate to say as it sounds absolutely redicilous but the fact is you wouldn't. If you can't afford being saved you would be left to die.

I don't know if you got really sick in your life so far, if you haven't this might be a huge news flash for you but healthcare in this country is ****ing expensive. The only way to live is to have health insurance which is also too expensive for most to have. I make a decent living, I am still young, but I can not afford $200-$300 each month and paying hundreds more in copay to have the luxury of health insurance. Luckily I know that from the taxes I pay on each pay check if something really serious does happen to me I can rely on the our government to help.

This is not an argument of the government "stealing" money from you. Sulkdodds made an awesome post about that. This is about what function should government play in providing basic services to keep its citizens well of. You oppose government providing welfare because you don't think you'll ever need it. Well do you drive on the highways in this country, do you have electricity at a reasonable price in your house, are you able to flush the toilet in your bathroom, does water come out of your sink? This is all stuff you use on a regular basis, stuff that cost more than the couple billion we spend on welfare each year. A lot of rich people have this feeling that they are secure for the rest of their life, but the truth is most will get into some serious shit at one point or another and they will need serious help to come out of that hole. Just because you aren't using something now doesn't mean you won't need it in the future. I pay taxes like every other worker in this country, and where we stand today corporations pay almost nothing. Yet my tax dollars have been used time and again to bail out a corporation. I don't necessarly like that but it has to be done to protect those people that work for that corporation. At the same time a person that might be on social security that this time has worked before and paid their fair share of taxes or they will work in the future and pay their fair share of taxes then.

 

[delusional]

i found this article thats quite interesting
http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml
no limit you keep saying that you dont like libertarianism since it lets companies become monopolies but you'll allow the government to subsidize inefficient, failing companies in the name of protecting the workers from losing their jobs. you do know that your saying your willing to fill CEOs pockets with your money. why improve my company when i get paychecks from taxpayers to cover ineficiency.

 

[No Limit]

i found this article thats quite interesting
http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml
no limit you keep saying that you dont like libertarianism since it lets companies become monopolies but you'll allow the government to subsidize inefficient, failing companies in the name of protecting the workers from losing their jobs. you do know that your saying your willing to fill CEOs pockets with your money. why improve my company when i get paychecks from taxpayers to cover ineficiency.

Where did I say anything about monopolies. If anything I don't support most antitrust laws in this country. I think the microsoft case was bullshit. However, I believe that the laws have to be there, especially how big oil continues to merge in to one single company. If that happens we are all screwed, but the LP would not do a damn thing about.

Do I support government bailing out big business, not most of the time, especially under what the Bush admin has done. However, again, we need that option to be there to save jobs if it ever comes down to it.

What you guys are saying is everyone in this world is on their own. With the exception of how Bush has managed bailing out companies that has always been there to protect middle class and poor people. The same goes with welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. I just do not understand how anyone can actually support removing taxes completely and saying that if you are too poor to get the healthcare you need you can go ahead and just die as we aren't going to help your ass. Do you, delusional, support that?

By the way, if you believe the bullshit in that article you posted you really are delusional.

 

[delusional]

explain to me whats wrong with article, dont tell me its bullshit.
libertarians dont want to abolish they want to privatize it. look at phone companies, the government monopolized the phone industry and phone service was expensive and there were no options. now phone service is privatized, and is now cheaper and you have many options. thats the goal of libertarians. if your not taxed as heavily wont you have more money to decide if you want health care or social security. instead there is no choice

 

[gick]

What you guys are saying is everyone in this world is on their own. With the exception of how Bush has managed bailing out companies that has always been there to protect middle class and poor people. The same goes with welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. I just do not understand how anyone can actually support removing taxes completely and saying that if you are too poor to get the healthcare you need you can go ahead and just die as we aren't going to help your ass. Do you, delusional, support that?

They're being idealistic rather then pragmatic. That goes for a lot of fringe parties these days.