If only this would actually happen in America...

Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Apr 2011, 6:11 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
Aren't libertarians and conservatives cousins anyway?
Liberals are about social freedom
Conservatives are about economic freedom
Libertarians are about both

The best of both words baby

Yes. Libertarians are all about economic freedom. They want to make sure everyone is free to starve on the street.


As opposed to the government taking 40% of your wage against your will to blow up Iraqi's for s**ts and giggles?

I am strongly opposed to militarism and violence of any type. But to be honest, I view taxation as necessary. Especially for the rich--no one needs to be making millions of dollars per year. That money would be better spent on health care, education, and social programs. Of course, if the USA cut military funding they could probably lower taxes and increase social services at the same time.
Libertarians aren't anarchists. I'd much rather reform education and social welfare than throw more money at it. Whoever is able bodied and mentally functional should be put on workfare instead of welfare Education is fundamentally a complete joke and the whole system needs to be reformed. So what if no one "needs" to be making millions? Why are they less deserving of the fruits of their own labour than anyone else? One thing I differ from most libertarians on is that I am militarist to an extent. If another country has a tyrannical government, wipe it out. If it's a pissing contest between two nations, let em sort it out themselves.

I don't disagree that workfare seems better than welfare--I am a rather strange liberal in that way. I also agree that some reform is needed. However, I think that more money should be spent in addition to reform.

I am strongly opposed to overthrowing someone else's government--even if you don't like them. First, it could be that the people like that government. Even if they are misguided, it is that sort of interference which helps spawn terrorists. From a purely practical standpoint, overthrowing other governments doesn't work very well. And it creates a dangerous precedent. Case in point: a few decades back Chile elected a democratic Marxist government. The CIA helped to overthrow it (if is sometimes even claimed that a CIA agent was the one to kill the president) because, although being democratic this seemed a bit too much like communism. What right does the USA have to get rid of a government that had the popular support of the people of another country?

Someone else said that a large military is needed or everyone would be speaking Chinese and be living under Sharia Law. Uh...no. Canada spend very little on its military, as do most countries compared to the USA, and we get along just fine.
Well I wouldn't be in favour of overthrowing a government just cuz it's different, but if it overwhelmingly violates human rights then yes. And our military budget is a joke, 20 billion last time I checked. Our troops are very well trained but under equipped. And we aren't a superpower so our national defense isn't gonna need to be as strong as say the states. I'm not saying there's absolutely no cuts they could do with their military budget but they can't be expected to have an underfunded military.

I mostly believe in a balance when it comes to government intervention. We definitely need regulation for say natural resources so we don't end up with complete deforestation and massive pollution but I lean towards less regulation economically and socially for the most part.

Social welfare needs less money spent on it since so much of it is wasted on people who don't need it. But I wouldn't be against spending more on education as long as the money is going to the right places. I'm not saying most people on social welfare are merely lazy, but being uncomfortable isn't good enough for me. It should only go out to people in dire need.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

18 Apr 2011, 8:44 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
And our military budget is a joke, 20 billion last time I checked. Our troops are very well trained but under equipped. And we aren't a superpower so our national defense isn't gonna need to be as strong as say the states. I'm not saying there's absolutely no cuts they could do with their military budget but they can't be expected to have an underfunded military.

Are you sure it's only $20 billion? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I was always under the impression it's much, MUCH, more. I mean, that's only about 0.6% of total spending (about the same as NASA). Does that include all of the military research though, because there is quite a lot spent there?



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Apr 2011, 9:05 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
And our military budget is a joke, 20 billion last time I checked. Our troops are very well trained but under equipped. And we aren't a superpower so our national defense isn't gonna need to be as strong as say the states. I'm not saying there's absolutely no cuts they could do with their military budget but they can't be expected to have an underfunded military.

Are you sure it's only $20 billion? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I was always under the impression it's much, MUCH, more. I mean, that's only about 0.6% of total spending (about the same as NASA). Does that include all of the military research though, because there is quite a lot spent there?
It was according to the last time I checked which IIRC was a 2008 number. Could be different now, but I doubt it's that much different.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Apr 2011, 5:24 am

Tequila wrote:
Daryl_Blonder wrote:
They aren't socialists, and completely oppose any sort of welfare state.


That's not always true: some libertarians support a small welfare state to look after the most disadvantaged people and to provide a safety net. More and more often though these people call themselves 'classical liberals' or 'moderate libertarians'.


The libertarian ideology is an ideology of limited government. Government should not be doing any more than keeping the peace and guarding the borders. And above all, government should not be getting too chummy with those they are supposed to be regulating and watching very carefully.

One of the central commandments in TNKH is this: Do not take a bribe for a bribe blinds the eye of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. When government and business get into bed with each other and fall panting and moaning on each other's bosoms there can only be trouble for the people. There is plenty of money to made honestly without screwing customers, workers or neighbors. And there is no excuse whatsoever for abusing widows and orphans. Creatures like Bernie Madoff are an abomination.

the ancient Israelites learned the trick. Leave something for the poorest. In their time it was commanded they they do no sow the corners of their fields and leave them for the poor to take grain from. The Rabbis figured this was 16 percent. Leave 16 percent for the poor to get something to eat for themselves and the tithe was a ten percent tax to pay for law, order, the courts and to take care of widows of orphans. Even the poor who gleaned the corners were expected to pay ten percent toward the tithes. And every 49 years the land was returned to the descendants of the original possessors (the Jubilee) and every seven years the bond slave and the indentured servant would go forth free. This was a sufficient safety valve to keep the society from self destruction. When the rich and powerful of Israel forgot this practice they paid a price. They became full of themselves and blind to simple justice. The rest happened as it had to happen.

The gravest sin of all was to rely on government and look to a king to define justice. Samuel warned the Israelites what would happened if they appointed a (human) king to judge all their cases and lay down the law. They did not listen and, sure enough, what Samuel warned befell them. Right here: the book of First Samuel 8:11.

ruveyn