Most Republicans and Many Democrats should be Libertarians

[Tominator]

ICyourNipple...Embarrassed? ME? LOL!!!!

We live in the most prosperous times in earth's history! Take us back to our roots? From what I see from so-called Libertarians is a bunch of single-interest loons that want to do whatever they feel like with no consequences and regardless the effect on anyone else. Most 'dopers' are Libs for instance. Illegal and some legal drugs leave a trail of broken homes and weirdo siblings. Then Republicans and Democrats fight over how much to help those Libertarians that 'could handle it.'

I would bo strictly on your side IF I had not lived as long as I have and had the experiences in life that have influenced my opinions.

Your 'bonuses' only add up to YOU telling others how to think. THAT shows just how flawed your argument really is.

You've also forgotten the Democrat Party. They would fight you tooth and nail as their whole philosphy is based on the opposite of what you say Libertarians stand for. As usual, it is the Republicans standing on the front line fighting a battle the Libertarians have no will or power to fight!

EVERY time I've EVER heard Harry Browne interviewed he only talks in generalities. He NEVER offers solutions to any problems be they private or public. Only 'throw out the current system and start over,' which is NEVER going to happen. He fumbles and he-haws around when asked pointed questions so much that I'm embarassed for HIM!

You are not a party of principle unless you can defend it in the real world where one MUST compromise to get along.

Now, do I sound embarassed?

 

[ICyourNipple]

Format C:,

While I have no problem with any consenting adult doing whatever they wish with their body with whomever or whatever they wish, as long as its not on a public streetcorner or infringes upon anyone else's rights, I do think that complete freedom for individuals that wish to consume mind altering substances is certainly not a good idea. Perhaps if they would agree to give up their right to interact with society on a regular basis they could partake as much as they wished, but I for one do not relish the idea of walking out the door to face a drugged individual behind the wheel of a car, driving the local school bus, or walking the street carrying a loaded gun. If society could be assured protection from the individual during his drugged state then I have no problem with anyone consuming all the illicit drugs they wish.

I've explained this thoroughly in my drug related threads, but I'll do it again. These same issues happen now. Regardless of what drugs are legalized, I seriously doubt the amount driving under the intoxication will change. Alcohol will almost always be the main culprit, and it is legal. The punishment for driving while intoxicated will be there, and I would support strengthening it, myself.

Tominator,

First of all, the embaressing comment was when you said "you know of no Libertarian government." I laughed out loud, WE WERE A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT.

We live in the most prosperous times in earth's history!

This has nothing to do with socialist policies. A comon, and worthless argument used by those such as Al Gore. If anything, this is an argument in favor of Libertarianism. We are so prosperous that you should not have to rely on government handouts and pyramid schemes such as Social Security to get by. If you can't succeed in this day and age, that's pretty bad.

Libertarians is a bunch of single-interest loons that want to do whatever they feel like with no consequences and regardless the effect on anyone else.

Ignorance prevails again. You obviously know nothing about the specifics of the Libertarian platform. Basically, the Drug War is prohibition #2. The first 1 didn't work, and this one isn't going to either.

Most 'dopers' are Libs for instance. Illegal and some legal drugs leave a trail of broken homes and weirdo siblings.

Education, not punishment, is the best weapon. Some people can use drugs responsibly, and prove it. Alcohol ruins more lives than all illegal drugs combined. Here is a chart for you:

Number of United States Deaths per Year

Tobacco - 340,000 to 450,000
Alcohol (not inclung 50% of highway deaths, 65% of all murders) - 150,000+
Aspirin(including OD) - 180 - 1000+
Caffiene(from stress, ulcers and triggering heartbeats) - 1,000 - 10,000
Legal Drug OD - 14,000 to 27,000
Illicit Drug Overdose - 3,800 - 5,200
Theophylline (legal asthma drug) - 50
Marijuana - 0



Your 'bonuses' only add up to YOU telling others how to think. THAT shows just how flawed your argument really is

Explain how being pro-choice, anti-socialism, and being against bigotry and favortism of any kind is telling others "how to think". YOUR the one telling others how to think my friend.

THAT shows just how flawed your argument really is.

I'm challenging you right now, let's see if you come through...

You've also forgotten the Democrat Party. They would fight you tooth and nail as their whole philosphy is based on the opposite of what you say Libertarians stand for. As usual, it is the Republicans standing on the front line fighting a battle the Libertarians have no will or power to fight!

Heh...I'm one of the "no will" Libertarians, eh? Actually we have to fight the media every step of the way, that is what makes it so hard. But Harry Browne got 5% among 18-29 year olds in GA (my home state). We are going to be Libertarian before you know it.

EVERY time I've EVER heard Harry Browne interviewed he only talks in generalities.

To be honest, I've rarely even seen interviews of him, and practically NEVER on TV.

Now, do I sound embarassed?

With some of the comments you made, you should be.

 

[JellyBaby]

To begin with, it would be great to see Libertarian leadership every so often. At the very least it would ofset the decay the democrats, and to a lesser extent republicas have burden us with. Reducing the federal government, forcing it to spend wisely, benefits all of us folks. Rs talk about this but I remind you government increased in size under Reagan, again under King Bush I, and again under Wild Bill and we all got ripped off.

 

[SuperTool]

I am a Libertarian ideologically. Unfortunately I don't want my vote wasted, so I have to pick one of the two. Either a socially liberal Republican or fiscally conservative Democrat. You can't always get what you want though.

 

[ICyourNipple]

Supertool,

If the Libertarians got even 5% of the vote it would move the Republican party as a whole towards the Libertarian platform. The more the %, the more of the movement. Just like Perot in 92'. How people cannot grasp this elementary concept is beyond me.

 

[Gandalf511]

For a good laugh read the Harry Browne's Position's Link on the bottom of IC's posts. The entire party as best as you guys have explained it is, each person gets to keep all the money they earn, and if you have low income, hope someone helps you because the government won't. Also, everything should be run by the people and not the government.

This would be a fine idea in a utopia, but that's not how the real world works. If nothing else, how will roads be maintained? How will the little, every day things be done, let alone the actual running of the government? What happens if you get hurt on the job? There will be no government disability programs (currenlty run by Social Security), and there will be no regulations on the companies. Our current government and nation have been built by learning from the mistakes of the past and trying to correct them. The libertarian idea reverses the advances of 200 years, in order to go back to the "ideal" system, which has no shot in the real world. IC talks about going back to the days when the nation was founded, but those days were a colossal falure. We barely survived the revolutionary war, and the war of 1812, because we had little to no central government, and Britain had better things going on at the time. We had hyper-inflation because of Wild Cat banks, who tryed to back everything with gold (see Mr. Browne's Ideas), there was little to no education system, work conditions were to be about as poor as any other industrialized nation, the enivironment was getting polluted horribly, and things generally sucked. But we have advanced to our current prosperity, and being the most powerful nation on earth and in it's history. Why reverse all the advance? If you're looking for a third party, find one with ideas on how to fix the current situation, not how to pull down the system and start from scratch.

Edited for spelling

 

[Gandalf511]

The rich cannot survive without the poor, nor can they survive the anger of a mob. Beware the hazards of trying to do so.

 

[BoberFett]

Actually, we could all do without the poor. The poor are the way they are because they don't contribute to society. If they did, they'd have value, and thus wouldn't be poor. Even with your juvenile understanding of life, you should be able to grasp that concept.

<< Beware the hazards of doing so. >>

I'll take my chances.

 

[ICyourNipple]

Gandalf,

The entire party as best as you guys have explained it is, each person gets to keep all the money they earn, and if you have low income, hope someone helps you because the government won't.

Basically yes. What, you think a pyramid scheme is a better solution? Or giving money to people who do nothing?

Also, everything should be run by the people and not the government.

Yes. The government is nothing but very corrupt PEOPLE.

If nothing else, how will roads be maintained?

Most things will be state issues, but the Libertarians have made comments that a 10% flat tax would be ok, so there ya go.

What happens if you get hurt on the job?

I would be in favor of supporting people in this instance, but if you are a leech, tough beans.

Our current government and nation have been built by learning from the mistakes of the past and trying to correct them

Ha...more like oppurtunistic politicians taking control and liberal brainwashing.

We barely survived the revolutionary war

And we probably shouldn't have won, we toppled the superpower of the world. What the hell is your point?

because we had little to no central government

BS. The military is still going to be there in the Libertarian system. The difference is the focus would be on defense, not being the world's policeman.

there was little to no education system

The current education system is a failure.

Why reverse all the advance?

We wouldn't be. All technological change would still be there, and that is the main reason for prosperity today. Giving incentives to have babys out of wedlock and disincentives to work and having a &quot;marry the government&quot; philosophy is not in our best interests, open your eyes.

 

[jacobnero6918]

Hong Kong is based on the Libertarian ideal. It took them only 20 years to build an amazing economy. Everbody pays 15% tax no matter how much or little they earn. You can open a business very easy there compared with new york were there is to much red tape and fees. I voted for Bush because I didn't want Gore to win and I know that the coutry just isn't ready for the next revolution that libertarians will bring. That day will come!

 

[Tominator]

ICyourNipple

Gandalf511 beat me to it!

Oh. Have a nice dream-you-are-in-utopia day!

 

[Gandalf511]

Bober, I'm not sure how long it's been since you've taken a history class of any sort, but surely you do remember some of it. The United States was one of the weekest nations on earth at its foundation because it had no tax collection and week centralized government. That seems to be the system you want to return to. Why go from a system which currently hosts the most powerful nation on earth to one which supported the weekest. But moving on.

Every time an aristocracy has risen through out the world, it has been overthrown and often violently. If you turn your back on the poor who do the simple jobs of this nation, the outcome will not be pretty. The rich have often grown powerful because of their exploitation of the worker. The Libertarians support an end to anti-trust laws, so that the great companies can grow larger. However, in what way does this help the people. A company with a monopoly has no incentive to keep prices low or even make advances. The rich grow richer while the poor grow poorer, and are kicked by the libertarians. Remember, even kings have gone to the guillotine.

Also, IC, you said you would be open to an program which supports those injured on the job. Yet this a part of the current Social Security Admin. that you have so vehemently demonized. Are you suggesting we scrap and then rebuild the program, or just simply revise the current one. And again, as Tominator said what country has ever worked with a libertarian government.

 

[BoberFett]

<< Every time an aristocracy has risen through out the world, it has been overthrown and often violently >>

What do you think we're moving towards? Just because they're elected doesn't mean they have the interests of the people in mind. Look at the current election for proof. Choose your master I guess, big business or big goverment. I'd choose big business myself if I had to choose one, as would most Republicans. Democrats would prefer big goverment. Please explain why one type of slaver is better than another.

<< program which supports those injured on the job >>

Tort law would handle that.

As many seem to believe, even when it's completely false, Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't want to remove laws completely. What we do want to do is move to a minimal style goverment.