Are you people just dense? When did freedom become such a 'bad' thing? When did you all forget the real reason this country was founded? Self determination, the ability to have freedom in all walks of life, and the right to protect yourself, and your country by extension. What part of the message that is so blatantly written in the United States Constitution are you folks missing? It is clearly spelled out that the most important thing in our country is freedom. Freedom to live as you want, to work as you want, to do what you want to do. Liberty and true liberalism (oh no, I said liberal! OOOH SCARY! If you watch Fox News and hear it used like a curse word... you might be a moron). Leftism is not Liberalism. True, real liberalism is related to the word liberal, which is related to the word liberty. "Liberal Ideas" are not socialist programs designed to create a nanny state. Those are Leftist. Liberal ideas are the ideas that socially, everyone is equal. Black, white, jew, male, female, green, drunk, wasted, stoned, everyone is a person and has rights that should never be taken away. A liberal idea is to have a free market. Prosecute felonies, send them to jail, but do not regulate the assets of a market - that will create more corruption, and underhanded tradings, dealings, and undesirable assets than anything else. Liberty is the freedom to fail. That's right. If you have a company that makes a shitty car, and no one buys that car, you fail. People will lose their jobs, yes, but that is because they worked at a place that made a shitty car. You want to succeed? Make a better car. Ford, Chrysler, and GM should be at the mercy of the traders, not given handouts of our taxpayer money to buy cars we never wanted. If 1,000,000 lose their jobs because bad assets are liquidated, it is likely that they will get them back when good assets take their place. A true free market will act in near-Darwinian fashion, the fittest companies will survive, and the weak will be eaten. If we left a niche for car makers open in the U.S. - a better company would come along, or one of the Big Three would adapt, or merge, to make a better company and car. Instead we are awarding failure and in the process bankrupting our county. Our debt is an astounding 55 trillion dollars combined. True liberalism would have a smaller government, and let people be free to choose their own social methods for getting help. We wouldn't be subsidizing health care. Libertarianism. Look it up. Thomas Jefferson will smile upon you for doing so.
The terms liberal and conservative have become nothing more than mere identifiers/labels, which are mostly used so one side can attack the other. The terms really are quite analogous to the uniforms sports teams wear.
Why aren't there more libertarians? HMMMMM.... There are more intellectually challenged people in this country than intelligent people maybe?
Possibly there are people who challenge themselves to think outside the ideology. I once counted myself a supporter of libertarianism, and I still support many of the ideas contained...who doesn't want more freedom? Then I came to understand that certain protections against corporate "people" who exercise control over labor and resources is necessary. Without limitations on the behavior of corporations, individuals can not enjoy liberty. So I support social programs and minimum wage and safety oversight for products. Food stamps prevent crime better than cops. At the same time, I'd still like to see victimless "crimes" removed from the agenda of law enforcement, and a tax structure which is adaptive rather than coercive. I've been calling this philosophy "social libertarianism." The principle feature would be an expanded civil court system and reduced criminal justice system, nationalization of depressed corporate assets, and generating government revenue from competitive industrial economic activity. Health care is a perfect example of a place where the government could do a better job-or at least not a worse one. Health, power, and even food are common needs of the entire society. These services are too essential for the cost to be driven up by the profit motive. Why should we have to pay for the expensive lifestyles of the companies who provide these essential services? This is the worst sort of welfare. The recent failure of deregulated markets ought to send the message that markets do not correct themselves. The reason is obvious. Capitalism is based on exploitation. The system runs on the wealthy deploying society's resources to their advantage. The needs of society itself are secondary. As a result, we have made amazing advances in cell phone technology, but still haven't made real progress toward renewable energy. Some freedoms protect the people. Some freedoms serve to exploit them. The real reason the libertarian party hasn't taken hold is that this subtlety is absent from the platform.
Kind of hypocritical.. you want to restrict a free market in what I would assume is monopolization fears, while monopolizing corporations through government. Do I understand you right?
Nope. I don't advocate any form of monopoly. The government should enter the critical industries, performing a passive regulatory role through competition, and generating revenue through economic activity rather than taxation. The existing corporations would be free to compete...but they would have to compete with the lower prices of government services. So those who do not care for the government health program would still be able to purchase private care. I do favor abolishing the local energy monopolies and replacing them with a government-run renewable energy program which coordinates production from small vendors as well producing windmils, solar panels, and biofuel for sale. In the case of health care, the value would be expressed in terms of a healthier, more secure population rather than revenue. But the government could operate manufacturing projects, even exporting goods to generate funds for gov. operating expenses. Eventually, taxation could be abolished entirely.
Interesting idea.. but if government ever left these inflated (critical) industries unregulated, the government would have no chance in outperforming the private sector. The only reason they're expensive is because they're so regulated - so here comes government to solve it's own problem.
The competitive edge would be that the government could be its own investor, giving a long-range advantage to the nationalized company. These programs would be overseen by elected officials, so the cost of stockholder dividends and corporate executive bonuses would not be an issue. I'm not sure what you mean about regulation. The government could compete because it is in it to provide services rather than make a profit. Look at the post office. With all the problems, the cost is lower and service more complete than private industry could make it. Regulations on safety and employees' benefits would continue to apply to all such businesses, whether government-owned or private. Of course, there is the huge problem of government waste. This is a young idea, and still idealistic. But I do believe that merging the views of socialism and libertarianism would lead to a superior government than either ideology in pure form. Opposites often have astonishing similarities.
I love the libertarian belief against large government and how it can destroy our freedoms and liberty. We need smaller government and a larger voice of the people. The true classical republican view is not that much different than the views of the libertarian party.
QFT. Besides, if we had our way, there would be LESS law, and more SENSE. If you want to destroy your body and mind, we do not care. It is your decision. Under the train of thought that is libertarianism, it is not illegal to smoke pot, snort coke, or engage in illicit activities with other adults. We don't care. Not that we think it is right, not that we condone it, but what gives us the right to stop it? Consenting adults do what they do. They're adults. They're not children, you cannot tell a 30 year old man that he cannot smoke a cigarette in his own home, why can you tell him that he cannot smoke a joint? Sure, public smoking should be banned - it infringes on my right to breath some fresh goddamn air. However why can't he go out and grow his own for his own use? Why can't he use it because he has early onset glaucoma, or is just retarded? Why can't he be married to three women who are also consenting adults? Who gives a shit? What about the woman who marries three men? Do we care? Why do we care? We shouldn't care if they married each other, smoked pot, or did hard drugs? It is, and it will never be, our damn problem. It's their problem. If they ask for help, fine. If they don't - fine. Let them kill themselves in their own way. Another thing - this right to die crap. Do we really have the moral authority to tell someone that they will go to JAIL if they try to kill themselves? What ever happened to letting people just do themselves in - no questions asked? Why should it be illegal for the man with terminal ass cancer that spread to his brain to end his life peacefully? Of course no one else would ever be allowed to make that decision but him - no hospital or otherwise should ever have the right to end a life. It must be an individual decision. Think about those folks who are in constant never ending pain because of the cancers and diseases that have ravaged them, making them waste away, all they want is peace. Why is that illegal? No, God has nothing to do with the freedom of choice if you remember, it is our government that is prohibiting it. Instead, why not leave these people to go out with some dignity? And if a few Emo jaggoffs end up going out on the way too, that's fine by me - although we all know its only for attention. Suck it up and get a job you long haired freaks. Really - are people that insecure that someone else's lifestyle would get in the way of their own? America, learn to stop giving a shit about other people. Really. I don't mean let the children starve, I mean let the grownups do what they want to do. Unless it harms someone else, it should be allowed.
People, as a whole, are prone to being stupid. Most people think we either need a "god" or the government to take care of us. Or both. Only we bong smoking heathens know true freedom.
Well, I've never used any sort of narcotic of any flavor, and I personally disagree with it - but it's not going to make me tell someone else how they should or should not live their life. If they want to re-enact Cheech and Chong it doesn't bother me a bit. Who is this is?