Libertarian Party

[Black_Wolf]

The US should have more variety in their partys....like germany

 

[No Limit]

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

Gee, lets see whats wrong with that article. First go ahead and read up about its author, a proven liar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Criticisms

This is a guy that takes things way out of context and completely ignores facts. But lets move on to where he is full of shit in this wonderful article.

The Community Rating System (CRS) from FEMA does not give you flood insurace, it only provides you with a small discount if you live in affected areas. If you live in areas that can get damaged by flooding your mortgage is required to provide you with flood insurance. He completely ignores other aspects of the human involvement in it when he says things like "why not have your house flooded, government will just buy you another one". If you ignore how he has his facts wrong in saying that you can equate that to "women have abortions for the fun of it". It sounds just as ridicilous.

In total the National Flood Insurance Program cost tax payers only $200 million in 2004. Money that will be paid back to tax payers with interest.

I can do the rest of the research about that article for you but I suggest you read up on why price supports for farmers are required for us to be able to eat daily, read up on how much property owners really get to be relocated to develop the community, he leaves so many facts or opposing views points out of that article thats its absolutely ridicilous.

 

[delusional]

since 1982 its discouraged to build in coastal areas before that it was happening and he did say 1980
i looked up farm subsidies heres a different source
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1340

 

[No Limit]

since 1982 its discouraged to build in coastal areas before that it was happening and he did say 1980
i looked up farm subsidies heres a different source
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1340

He said 1980? I missed that, but what does that have to do with the present situtation?

I don't doubt there is abuse in the farm subsidies that are provided and I would be willing to look at what is happening. What Bush has done is certainly not right. The problem that Mr. John Stossel doesn't seem to understand is that if we completely remove these, as he is advocating, where are we going to get our bread, our vegetables, our fruit from? Farmers can not afford to grow these things if they were to charge what is charged right now. We would be paying redicilous prices for bread and other neccessary items grown here at home.

But you are really moving away for the main point of how much role should government play in helping its citizens live normal lives day by day. You have not really answered my question, do you actually support our government getting rid of every social service it currently provides? Should you not be able to get help if you are dying and can't afford it? Should little children born into poverty in this country not be provided with basic items that will feed them each day? Should government not be responsible for your safety? Should we ever allow another Katrina to occur?

I'm not sure if you guys are understanding fully what you are arguing for, and I am not saying that to sound condescending. But what you are saying we should do is remove everything we have achieved over the past century and move back to the late 1800s as for as the function of the government. You are talking about making this country so there is only the extremely poor and the filthy rich, not much inbetween.

 

[delusional]

instead we are paying for it elsewhere, in our taxes.
like i said before libertarians want to privatize social services.
i can see the benefits of individual welfare, but someone shouldnt be able to live off of it indefinetely. i also believe there should be safety laws in work and anti child labor laws but the working age should be lowered to like 14 or 15. and i support a rainy day fund for things like katrina.

 

[Geogaddi]

I agree with most of their platform. Too many Americans are dependent on government support simply because they're lazy and they can.

I also like their support for gun rights. There are parts of rural Alabama with virtually no crime and everyone and their dog has a gun.

Not that that's the reason for it, I'm just saying that guns haven't caused any crime there.

 

[Leonard]

I agree with most of their platform. Too many Americans are dependent on government support simply because they're lazy and they can.

How many is too many? Welfare queens are not as common as you'd think. "Welfare Queens" were a myth perpetuated by the Regan Administration, but later when they were asked to show statistics on welfare abuse and the "Welfare Queens" but they had none.

I'm not saying that people don't abuse the system. My aunt lives off of welfare and government stuff simply because she has no desire to work a normal job. She is very far from being rich, in fact, she technically lives in poverty.

I think that everyone should at least be held above the poverty line. If you don't want to work, fine, you don't have to but you will be slightly above poverty level. If you want more than that, you work harder.

Nobody should be forced to go without health care or food. Doing this would be much cheaper than the tax breaks that we give to the rich.

 

[delusional]

then how do you detirmine the poverty line?
lets look at the causes of poverty
mental illness/disability - i can see them getting welfare since they cant help themselves
substance abuse - poor choice/look at drug use in amsterdam
poor education - government forces children to go to poor schools
poor work ethic - choose not help themselves
basically if you can help yourself but choose not to then you dont deserve welfare.

 

[gick]

basically if you can help yourself but choose not to then you dont deserve welfare.

I think we can all agree on that. Im not sure how things work in the US, but IIRC in the UK you have to be actively seeking a job to qualify for certain types of welfare.

 

[Tr0n]

I agree with most of their platform. Too many Americans are dependent on government support simply because they're lazy and they can.

I also like their support for gun rights. There are parts of rural Alabama with virtually no crime and everyone and their dog has a gun.

Not that that's the reason for it, I'm just saying that guns haven't caused any crime there.

Where in Alabama do you live? D:

 

[Ome_Vince]

I think it has something to do with the density = If i read it correctly its an average of 1 per 33.84/km².
When you chuck rats in a small cage they also go slay each other

I dont think guns necessarily create crime, but they sure as hell up the deathtoll when things go wrong .
I have yet to see somebody get knifed in a drive-by.

 

[delusional]

anyway if you ban guns it'll create a black market and criminals will take advantage of no one being able to defend themselves

 

[gick]

anyway if you ban guns it'll create a black market and criminals will take advantage of no one being able to defend themselves

Which is why gun control (in the US) is pretty damn stupid. The only people to hand in their guns will be the law adiding citizens, giving the criminals free reign.

 

[CptStern]

anyway if you ban guns it'll create a black market and criminals will take advantage of no one being able to defend themselves

which is the case in every other country in the world that's banned guns ..yet for some inexplicable reason they have less gun crime than the US (pretty much everywhere does ..including the worst places in the world ..like baghdad) ..who'd have thunk it?

 

[DeusExMachina]

I blame television.

But guns are here to stay. One of the few things I'll never support is the banning of guns.

 

[Ome_Vince]

anyway if you ban guns it'll create a black market and criminals will take advantage of no one being able to defend themselves

whu? Gun violence costs the US an average of almost 4x 9/11's a year!
Who would you be protecting yourself from??

I can tell you from when we lived in Africa, that there its kill or be killed for the robbers. Guards/Civies often have free reign to kill robbers.
You'd think they would think twice before robbing, stealing or killing??
Result -> robbers swallow alot of drugs to gain courage, then run around blasting their way through shooting ppl, including my dad (survived btw).

Like i said, it probably doesnt increase or decrease criminality, but it sure as hell ups the casualty rate.

And lets not have any fantasies of being John Rambo when a robber walzes through our house, your always caught offguard, and all you'd most likely do, is ensure he'll pull the trigger, since he's not stupid enough to rob your house without a gun....

heh, this reminds me of a funny story by my dad's collegue. He was robbed twice in a row while going home. He decided to buy a gun to "protect himself".
He marched around with it like a real cowboy. Then they robbed him while he was in the shower, and stole his gun too. lol

 

[Angry Lawyer]

VOTE TECHNOCRACY!

That is all.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[delusional]

technocracy isnt a political party so you cant really vote for it

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, you've got the idea.

*Kirovman destroys delusional with Scalar waves

 

[delusional]

ow

 

[Geogaddi]

Where in Alabama do you live? D:

Mobile, but sometimes I go with my dad on hunting trips to these little hick-ass towns.

 

[Rupertvdb]

You should vote libertarian and let the democratic process prevent them from ****ing your social network. Jesus, it sounds like the US needs better social services. P.S. Guns are just not necessary. I used to love shooting, I was in the combined cadet force at school, won marksmen awards, kids gun stuff etc. Anyhow, I truly believe guns should be banned. Why the hell does anybody need them...just get rid of them full stop. Why the hell do human beings need to be able to cause so much carnage? It's a selfish, evil impulse to shoot and I there is no possible argument to make otherwise. But i'm getting all utopian.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Mobile, but sometimes I go with my dad on hunting trips to these little hick-ass towns.

Oh mama, can this really be the end?
To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again...

 

[Tr0n]

Mobile, but sometimes I go with my dad on hunting trips to these little hick-ass towns.

D: