Will we ever have a Libertarian President?

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: Spencer278
(except for allowing those that have committed a felony to vote)

Why should felony not be allowed to vote.

I believe that if you are willing to risk the crime, you should have serious repricussions (sp) if you are caught. Losing your right to vote should be one.

It's ex-felons, i.e. those who had already paid their debt to society by serving their time and/or parole. Only then would they be allowed to vote again.

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

I didn't know that once you were a felon, you weren't allowed to ever vote again?

It depends on the state, I think vermont allows poeple in jail to vote. I don't think it should be allowed to take away any person right to vote or hold public office. It just seems like there is to big of risk when you start doing that.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Eli
Why would welfare, public housing disappear?

Ummm, because libertarians oppose welfare, public housing, and public education?
Duh.

The only thing they think the government should do is protect us from enemies and criminals. They oppose all forms of government assistance, be it housing, education, medical care, or food.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Eli
Why would welfare, public housing disappear?

Ummm, because libertarians oppose welfare, public housing, and public education?
Duh.

The only thing they think the government should do is protect us from enemies and criminals. They oppose all forms of government assistance, be it housing, education, medical care, or food.

Libertarians don't necessarily oppose those things, they oppose federal government-mandated financing of them. If a state or locality wants to establish those things, and the people vote in favor of it, then they would be free to do so with their own pooled monies.

It's one thing to be charitable. It's another to force your neighbor to be charitable against his will.
It's also important to recognize that the federal government is a very inefficient "charity" with an overhead cost exceeding 75% (meaning > 75% goes to give fat bureaucrats jobs and < 25% actually goes to feed and house poor people). Were it a private charity, the government would probably shut it down.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Eli
Why would welfare, public housing disappear?

Ummm, because libertarians oppose welfare, public housing, and public education?
Duh.

The only thing they think the government should do is protect us from enemies and criminals. They oppose all forms of government assistance, be it housing, education, medical care, or food.

All these things were taken care of by charity before the mid 1960s. And quite well, actually. The homeless rate was a tiny % of what it is today.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the "right" to a home, education, medical care or food... only the opportunity to work for and buy/build/make these things. Why? Because all of these require the work of another if you are not willing to work for, pay for and/or build these things yourself. To guarantee you a right to the work product of another makes those others slaves. You cannot have a right that violates the rights of another.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
lol, no. Libertarian policies are amazingly shortsighted.

That's funny. It was libertarian policy that built this nation. We didn't stray from mostly libertarian policy until the 1930s. And even then, we remained far more libertarian than we are today until the mid 1960s.

It is socialism that is short sighted. Not libertarianism.

 

[Red Dawn]

How do Libertarians feel aboput uncontrolled expansion of the Federal Government that we are seeing under this Administration?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How do Libertarians feel aboput uncontrolled expansion of the Federal Government that we are seeing under this Administration?

I'm guessing it goes against their policies...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How do Libertarians feel aboput uncontrolled expansion of the Federal Government that we are seeing under this Administration?

I despise the Patriot Act. I support the war, though, as I feel it is required for our own security. The world has become far too small and interconnected to follow an isolationist policy. Hell, we learned that lesson in WWII. Isolationist policy is one area I strongly disagree with organized Libertarians.

However, to say the government is expanding any faster than under the last admin is silly. Even WITH the war, our budget has not grown at a rate faster than over the last decade. Bush has done a lot of cutting along with his military spending. And military spending is one of the few government expenses I fully support.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How do Libertarians feel aboput uncontrolled expansion of the Federal Government that we are seeing under this Administration?

I despise the Patriot Act. I support the war, though, as I feel it is required for our own security. The world has become far too small and interconnected to follow an isolationist policy. Hell, we learned that lesson in WWII. Isolationist policy is one area I strongly disagree with organized Libertarians.

However, to say the government is expanding any faster than under the last admin is silly. Even WITH the war, our budget has not grown at a rate faster than over the last decade. Bush has done a lot of cutting along with his military spending. And military spending is one of the few government expenses I fully support.

Well this conservative disgrees with you
Despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers

If anyone doubts this guy's dittohead credientials...
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How do Libertarians feel aboput uncontrolled expansion of the Federal Government that we are seeing under this Administration?

I despise the Patriot Act. I support the war, though, as I feel it is required for our own security. The world has become far too small and interconnected to follow an isolationist policy. Hell, we learned that lesson in WWII. Isolationist policy is one area I strongly disagree with organized Libertarians.

However, to say the government is expanding any faster than under the last admin is silly. Even WITH the war, our budget has not grown at a rate faster than over the last decade. Bush has done a lot of cutting along with his military spending. And military spending is one of the few government expenses I fully support.

Well this conservative disgrees with you
Despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers

If anyone doubts this guy's dittohead credientials...
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan

Yeah, I saw that in the other thread. He's overreacting. Bush never claimed to be libertarian. However, he HAS instituted a LOT of cuts. Hell, his cuts are some of the things liberals are screaming about. Have you not seen the long list they keep passing around that implies all his cuts are bad? (they make me cheer)

No, I do not agree with the Bush admin on everything. And as I said, I despise the Patriot Act. BUT, as I said before, even with all his military spending increases, the total federal budget has NOT grown faster under G.W. Bush than it did under Clinton, Bush's father, or Reagan. Were it not for the war, his budget would be shrinking. A first. So yes, the Cato guy is overreacting and focusing on the negative.

 

[Red Dawn]

Amused, in your opinion would Browne be a good leader or is he the crackpot that many Republicans make him out to be?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Amused, in your opinion would Browne be a good leader or is he the crackpot that many Republicans make him out to be?

Browne is a bit too isolationist for my taste. However, we could use a few Brownes (or less isolationist versions of him) in Congress just to stop the massive expansion of government we've been seeing since the 1960s... and maybe even a bit of cutting.

As I've said before, I do not follow the established Libertarian party line 100%. But when compared to either major party, I lean far more towards libertarian than either Democrat or Republican.

However, in a pinch I will choose Republican over Democrat. Why? Because socialism presents the most danger to our freedom. The Patriot act will be chiseled away at, but socialist policy stays no matter how destructive it is because it creates dependency.

 

[Ornery]

"I lean far more towards libertarian than either Democrat or Republican"

How far different is a Libertarian from the GOP on important issues like:

• SOCIAL SECURITY?
  TAX POLICY?
  HEALTH CARE?
  GUN CONTROL?
  SCHOOL CHOICE?
  AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Night and day from the Democrats!

 

[Turkish]

:beer: 4 Libertarians!

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
God, I hope not. There would be chaos. All the existing private schools would be flooded whilst new, unregulated (and therefore verybad) private schools would pop up on street corners like Starbucks.

Welfare would disappear, public housing would disappear, thousands and thousands would become homeless and, without help from uncle Sam, starve.

Gun production would jump, as would gun ownership. I agree that owning a gun isn't bad, but when its easy to get a gun, lots of bap people will buy them, and guns in the hands of evil men are verybad.

So, yeah, libertarianism is a good idea . . . on paper . . . in a fantasy world.

Why would welfare, public housing disappear?

Why would gun production jump?

You seem to be confused. If a "bad person" wants to get a gun, they will get a gun. Guns are much like drugs in that respect, do you think having laws against owning a gun is going to keep someone that really wants a gun from getting one?

It seems like you're the one living in a fantasy world, at least with that comment alone.

Oh, I agree that it is possible for people to obtain guns that shouldn't be allowed to now . .

But when you get rid of ANY governmental control over gun sales, it well be EASY and LEGAL for them to have, own, and carry such weapons concealed.

And about public schools. Right, so what do you think your average blue collar worker pays in his taxes to keep schools going. What would tuition be at an equivalent private school. Lots more. So when you end public schools, AND change welfare over to a voluntary donation scheme (how many of you would give money? I bet less than ten people on these boards would actually give money) the average worker will no longer be able to send his kids to school that would actually give them an education. The only schools he could afford on the same amount of money that used to be in his taxes for the school system would be so stupendously bad that they would make North Saint Louis schools look like fscking Harvard.

Having a Libertarian president would NOT BE A GOOD THING!!

 

[Siddhartha]

I wonder why the Libertarians do not attract the kind of big money GWB gets. It they ran the goverment taxes would go way down.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Beau
lol. At first glance, i thought the thread said "Lesbian President"

LMAO

Ausm

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I wonder why the Libertarians do not attract the kind of big money GWB gets. It they ran the goverment taxes would go way down.

That's easy: Libertarians offer nothing.

You see, the more government controls and regulates business, the more interest and control business will have in government. Regulations become not only stifling for business, but can be an asset as well. A business can get preferential treatment through over regulation of his competition, or price controls on his raw materials. They also benefit from tariffs and blocks to free trade.

We have separation of church and state to insure not only religious freedom, but that religion NEVER controls government. We need the same policy for business.

Finally, libertarians will never win the popular vote because they offer nothing to any special interest group. No free schooling for people with kids (it's not free, but for some reason people think it is) no safety net for seniors or the unemployed... basically, no entitlements. People vote for whoever is going to offer them the most, for the least. 50% of this country pay less than 4% of the federal income taxes, yet recieve more than 70% of the entitlements. You'll never win their vote by telling them they have to make it on their own.

As I said before, socialism creates dependency. Much of our society has become dependent on government programs and is now not only unwilling to give them up, but is also willing to give up significant amounts of freedom to keep them.