Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Wow I'm honestly shocked that most us are pretty young. I always thought that everyone else was grown men or women. I'm 16 also.
Yes!
Long live the libertarian revolution!
http://files.meetup.com/1617413/Libertarian%20Revolution.png
I dislike "Anarchism" and Any of that stuff. I'd prefer protection from crime thank you very much.
Anarchists. Go watch the movie "The Purge." Tell me if you want society like that.
At my school it's impossible. Everyone is firmly behind their parents Two-party anti- Socialist beliefs.
In anarchy, there would be no laws, because everyone would work together. :)
OR DIE
Anarchy? Praise Helix!
I don't think Anarchism is necessarily a bad thing. The Purge is about what humans would do with no government. We ARE animals after all. I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to hold a "purge" personally. Crime rate probably would go down with a 24 hour period of no laws every year. I like the extreme leftist Anarchism over Fascism and Totalitarianism anyways.
Side note: The Purge 2 looks awesome, and I hope it is what the first movie SHOULD have been.
And I think most high school kids political ideas are formed from their parents. I have really taken notice of that. Like in debates in History class it's so obvious they are just blindly spitting out ideals. I confront kids all the time with "and why do you think that?" and they usually just say "just cuz" or "Shut up jeeezzzz." It's really funny.
My family is ridiculously liberal. I have made it a new hobby to post libertarian/conservative propaganda all over the place to bug my grandparents.
Right Wing Anarchy= The Purge
Left Wing Anarchy= Utopianism or Communism
Let's make a list.
1. We shouldn't hold a Purge. That's Government endorsed Genocide.
2. Utopianism and Communism over Fascism and Right-Wing Anarchic purges.
3. To bad my religion won't let me watch R movies
4. Well. Mist kids don't care about politics. Thus their only belief is their parents.
5.Happens to me to. Gey in an argument at school with me about Leftism, Libertarianism or Centrism your screwed.
No no. Nothing to do with courts. I just believe that there will always be SOME form of leadership that anyone can equate to a government.
Hallo Island wishes me to announce his campaign switch to Seat Three rather than Five. I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot!
You're lucky I'm out of ammo.
I'm 14 too. *fist bump*
I'll turn 15 in August.
I believe it can work on a small scale, but not on a huge one.
For example, in a largely rural area with a small population, it can work. There are already areas of the USA where Anarcho-Capitalism is the reality. For example, in the bayous of southern Louisiana, there hardly any law enforcement/major government activity going on, but you don't hear of hardly any crime going on down in that area. But I believe Full blown Anarcho-Capitalism can't work on a large scale.
On my political view would either be as a Neo-Conservative, or a Paleo-Conservative.
Amish Mafia
Moonshine
And some other show.....
My Political view is very Libertarian Socialist.
These topics pretty much describe my views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism
Paleoconservatism-- From what I read I share many views with this group. Maybe not with Tradition or Economics but the rest is pretty sound.
Neoconservative--First thing I read:
"neoconservatives played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq"
Joy....In no way do I like this ideology as it supports Imperialism and Aggressive actions to form a democratic Government.
Fusionism-- Meh. Not bad, but I'm not one.
Pretty much these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-rights_libertarianism
I suspect I should post my three descriptions.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
You guys act like I got time to look at all these links. How about nah.
I disagree with Classical Liberalism and only slightly agree with the other two.
Incompatible. Social democracy wants to increase the size of the government (centralization). LL is against that.
Social Democracy wants Socialist ideals within a Capitalistic and Democratic society.
By socialist they mean Wages and Welfare.
'LL believes in social/political freedoms with somewhat controlled economics (dependent on how leftist you are) to bring equilibrium.
to Hallo Island, "U WOT M8?"
Here's the biggest issue with most an-caps; They believe a society should be able to make the switch overnight and that a government should just be eradicated by something like a kill switch. This is where you get crazy ideas like the plot of "the purge" where people aren't ready for a stateless reality. Voluntary association is only a possibility if a society is weaned off the state in increments in something like reverse progressive-ism. Thoreau did a fantastic job of explaining this in his works and ill try and find a link to a summary for those who arent familar with his message.
great quote via civil disobedience, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government... That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
and since we've been in a Wikipedia mood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
Using the capitalist system to bring socialism will only lead to statism and slavery. From an economic standpoint, if property or resources is centralized within one system (the government) and there is no suitable alternative, can you say that you are free? Or reliant upon?
and since everyone is playing the get to know you game tonight, I'm a 17 year old who would most likely be considered a voluntarist
Not true. Placing Socialism inside a Capitalistic society would limit how far the Socialism could go due to the Democracy and Capitalism. Social Democracy isn't like total socialism. No it's Government min. Wage and regulations as well as a few other things. It's not total socialized beliefs.
As for that second sentence. You are equally free with everyone else. But that however isn't what Social Democracy is....
Social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargainingschemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.
Now maybe though I'll stop being called a Communist by some *cough *neo*cough*
Here's what i don't get about left libertarianism. The creed of Liberty is supposed to be all encompassing and focus on securing the rights of the individual so that the society may function healthily and peacefully. So the issue arises that if you allow a governing body to forcefully enter its own potions between to parties, whether that be through a minimum wage or a monopoly in the market place, individual freedom is eroded and coercion enters the society.
I get social libertarians and accept the legitimacy of that claim, but state driven economics are incompatible with an ideology that promotes liberty and peace.
You are not equally free. Taxation, state sponsored gambling, etc. is all used to benefit one small elite of people at the expense of everyone else. The government won't seek to eliminate poverty and create happiness on earth like socdems suggest - only to line its own pockets and keep itself least beholden to the people as possible. It'll only support "progressive" policies when it directly benefits this elite. Universal healthcare? Waiting lines. Welfare? Queues and food stamp dependencies, welfare queens and those who'd milk the system. The government's inefficient and often convoluted regulations on drugs cause thousands of indirect deaths per year on people not getting what they need.
These are at least a few of criticism on the welfare state that socdem often hails. Such novelties can only be afforded to those state's in the right position (literally, e.g. Germany), and they are not without consequences.
I'll respond to you in the morning.
All I can say is.
"Without Equality who can be free? And without Freedom who can be equal? "
I don't care to argue or debate, but let me say, as it is my right (thankfully) to do so: I have never heard a more repugnant and morally bankrupt statement in my entire life, except from the men who originated it.
Post self-deleted by Pevvania.
It's killing me inside to not know how this sentence ends.
1. My political views originated from those of my parents. They've always been fairly pragmatic conservatives, which translates to 'liberal' here in Britain. So for quite a while I was a proud anti-gun, pro-"free" healthcare Obama supporter. But then I started to think for myself, evolving from a party-line Republican to the libertarian you see today.
2. Philosophically, I am an anarchist. I recognise the illegitimacy of the network of institutionalised violence inherent to the existence of the state, and I believe firmly in the natural, inalienable rights of every individual. But at the same time there are two fundamental problems with anarcho-capitalism: a) how will natural rights be protected? and b) what will prevent the rise of another state? I am also uncomfortable with the idea of private law. What would make privately-arbitrated law any more just or libertarian than 'monopoly' law? I'd like to see a tiny state made just by an armed and free populace.
3. I despise neo-conservatism. It is not a type of conservatism so much as it is a mutated form of liberalism. It embraces military Keynesianism, nation-building and foreign adventurism. It doesn't commit itself at all to reducing the size of government, and in fact seeks to expand it even on the domestic front. Blahb, I urge you to reject this doctrine of evil that has derailed the Reagan Revolution and corrupted US politics significantly. There's all the difference in the world between a belief in humanitarian intervention and corporatist warmongering.
4. TTA, your beliefs are founded in circular logic. Freedom and forced equality cannot coexist. Your doctrine of violence is antithetical to the human condition and any conceptions of peace or happiness.
Fixed ^_^
Not really. You can be free Socially without having total market economy. Individual freedom isn't eroded, corporations freedom is eroded. Corporations aren't people and they shouldn't have the same freedoms.
1. Tax each according to their ability to pay taxes. Rich pay more than the poor because they make more.
2. It's not like we're abolishing democratic Government (which if you notice is the same way.)
Libertarian Leftism believes in the Government only being needed for diplomacy, protection and economy.
3. Universal Healthcare? Everyone gets healthcare. You want better set up a way for people who want to pay to get better healthcare.
4. Welfare? Set up a way so they can't milk it.
5. Why are you bringing drugs in? Drunk drivers, overuse. All drug related problems. Only good thing ( and the reason I want them legal) we can tax them.
And now I'm insane because I'm replying to a post that doesn't exist! Yay!
Seriously though I'm gonna keep that just because it may be entertaining to look back at ages from now.
Pev. Let me ask you this. Freedom should be limited when it interferes with other people's freedoms. And by that I mean real interference, not "Oh he insulted me." But, like a demonstration blocking a major road.
I didn't ask anything. So yeah....
Bullshit. If the government controls a part of your life as prominent as healthcare or education or energy, then you're that much less free. You cannot be 'socially free' if the government controls the better part of the economy.
Perhaps the great contradiction of 'social democracy' is that it has been the greatest force to empower corporations, not the other way around. Government ownership necessarily destroys competition and makes it easier for the private sector to be monopolised by cartels. Social democracy has vastly increased the power of corporations.
1. This is a deeply immoral and hypocritical idea. Why is it OK for the government to take your income by force, but not OK for anyone else to do it? You see, the state has a monopoly on force. And the idea of taxing the poor at all is abominable.
2. So in other words, you believe in government involvement in everything.
3. America had a pretty great system before it was cartelised. As late as 1963, 97% of Americans were covered by health insurance.
4. Welfare discourages work and creates an underclass of dependants that support
5. Terrifying idea. If you want drugs legal purely for the government revenue, then you truly are endorsing an all-powerful state.
You are not 'free' to use force against somebody else. Too often is 'freedom' confused with 'power'.
[B]March Election Monitor[/B]
Incumbents put first.
Seat 1 - [nation=short]Lack there of[/nation] (LP)/[nation=short]The Neo-Confederate States of America[/nation] (RLP)
Seat 2 - [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] (RLP)
Seat 3 - [nation=short]Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes[/nation] (RLP)/[nation=short]Hallo Island[/nation] (RLP) [PRIMARY CHALLENGE]
Seat 4 - [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation] (RLP)
Seat 5 - [nation=short]Alchandria[/nation] (RLP)
Thank you. Let me just form up my interview questions and I'll get on those. I'll respond to you in a few moments.
Other than that.
The Democratic-Republican Party is supporting Hallo Island for Seat 3 and is Supporting Lack thereof for Seat 1
Tell me if I missed anyone out.
As for the Seat 3 race: I like both Board Member Grimes and Representative Hallo at a personal level, but I have serious reservations concerning their policies. In my view, Grimes's non-interventionist views do not belong in the RLP, and I would say the same about Hallo had he not flipped on the issue. I question the sincerity of Island's supposed conversion to a pro-REATO position, but I have little choice if I'm looking for a neo-lib candidate.
The RLP as a party does not endorse any candidate in primary challenges, but I will reluctantly endorse [nation=short]Hallo Island[/nation] to succeed Member Grimes.
Feelin the love guys
I'd like to ask all you non-interventionists: how would you enforce an end to the War on Communism? Would you bar Libertatemites from participating in foreign military activities, or just end all 'official' operations? Both positions are deeply unconstitutional.
Okay lets respond to your super post. I can't quote that beast. So....
-- Socially free is about rights. Employers are about money not rights. Social Democracy isn't the destruction of Corporations by the Government. It's about placing the Government where it's needed and keeping it out if places it shouldn't be in. Remember it's A Socialist Schemes inside a Capitalistic Framework of a Democratic Government.
1. Because the Government uses it (depending on your leader) to help you or they should. Again. I don't trust many charities to run things like payment.
2. I'd prefer regular citizens not represent my nation diplomatically. I'd prefer them not to have a PMC as my only defense.
3. Well. Good for the America that isn't around anymore.
4. Like I said. Prevent milking the system. Only give welfare to those who are either in a job or actively searching.
5. Be strategic. More taxes on Drugs and Corporations there will be less taxing on the individuals. Plus less paying for prisons due to less criminals.
- Then your not completely free.
We can stop endorsing attacks on small miniscule regions.
That's irrelevant. Economic freedom is just as important as 'social' freedom; in fact, the two are intertwined. A totally free market would have everyone completely free socially and economically. It's utterly extraneous what the priorities of employers are. If I can keep all of my income under my system and do what I want provided I do not aggress against others, then I'm inherently more free. This is a fact by any definition. You are endorsing violence and coercion, so I'm not free under your system.
1. Why can't people spend their money how they like? Why do they have to be forced to surrender it to a violent monopoly and hope that it allocates it in a way each individual would like?
3. My point is that market healthcare is vastly superior to state healthcare. Canada's system is atrocious, while the quality of care in America was ranked best in the world by WHO, despite its inefficiency and high costs. If the government should control healthcare, then the government should control agriculture, clothing, housing and entertainment.
4. Ok, fair enough. The problem with welfare is that it discourages private charities which are much more effective at targeting social problems.
5. *Facepalm* Just because it's not direct taxation of income doesn't mean it's not taxation of income. Corporate taxes have been shown to hurt labour more than anyone else, and drug taxes increase the price of drugs and therefore absorb more income of those who purchase drugs.
*Double-facepalm* I just explained that being free does not mean you can hurt somebody else. You have the power to do it but you do not have the freedom to do it if it infringes on somebody else's freedom.
How absolutely hypocritical. This is a practice you have partaken in before, during and even after the whole CB scandal. You've rallied against the War yet continued to aid our military in tagging Communist China and several Nazi regions. Your words contradict your actions, which is very frustrating to those who are working hard to advance the war. Seriously, if you take a position you should stick with it.
I feel it's time to say something. I am not a member of the military. But, why would stop our citizens from PLAYING THE GAME? Who are we to say whether or not someone can raid a region? I personally don't want to raid anybody if absolutely required. But why can't Minerva? Why can't Pev? Who are we to say no? Who... are we... to say... no? Do you get what I'm saying. Completely disregarding that this is a constitutional law, ruled constitutional by regional courts, we have a moral inclination, nay, an obligation. To not stand on the way of progress for progress' sake. We have a moral obligation to not stand in the way of the personal freedom to play this game, the way it was meant to played. I also believe that TTA can come stouting his views around and Pev should stop persecuting him. It's time we stopped dividing ourselves over every issue. We are all here because we are dedicated to the ideal of personal freedoms for all men. And the hope that this ideal does not perish. Let us all remember why we are here. We are here because each and every one of us has the small flame of passion in our hearts, the flame of freedom. And it is our duty to ensure that this flame is not extinguished. Our duty to let this flame grow into a colossal blaze. Let us encompass this Earth in a ball of flame. Let us champion freedom. Let us leave each other the hell alone.
You are correct that an imdediate end to the war would run into issues with our constitution and this is why an amendment would be neccesary change our current policy. I would like to see REATO turned into a purely defensive organization dedicated to protecting liberty regions and the office of MoMA retooled into a manager of defense via replacing the ARMA act. I've got to go to my next class but I will elaborate further at the soonest point
I'm not really a non interventionist, but I do belief that we have been intervening upon circumstances that do not require intervention
The best defense is a good offense. Even the commies main man Mao said the best defense is an active defense or something like that.
In response to your larger post.
- A completely free market wouldn't be equal. Freedom without Equality is freedom of the few.
1. Because people are idiots who care about their drugs and porn and not about important stuff like Education.
2. Trusting international organizations is a step towards heck. You said it yourself: "despite its inefficiency and high costs." Unlike you I owe money to Hospitals. I own thousands. I understand Obama care won't help but my insurance companies aren't doing it. If I could get care for less it would save my life.
3. Like I said before. The government should control as little as possible. Thus it must be allowed a little economic control.
4. I don't trust charities with money. Only with physical actions.
5.Exactly. Discourage drugs and get money at the same time. As for Corporate taxes. That's the fault of employers being greedy. They can afford some taxing.
- Oh. Then we agree on this.
I won't pretend I didn't before CB. but since CB I haven't participated in but one raid which I regret. Don't call me hypocritical because of past mistakes.
Exactly.
My thesis of 3 points.
1. Any Treaty Organization we are in should be pure defensive.
2. We only should attack those who attack us or an ally first
3. We should break alliances with any aggressors or Imperialists.
What a complete waste of time and tax dollars that turned out to be. My AP gov teacher has always portrayed topics with an anti-wealthy view but today was just absurd. "With out welfare we would have people starving in the streets with no other options". "I pay my taxes with a smile on my face, because I believe in what our government is doing". I am so burned out with public education it's not even funny anymore,
But I digress, if the regional laws were changed as previously stated I would like to see the "privatization" of our offensive military groups. For the sake of defending our region and allies from our numerous enemies it would ideal to have a registry of "reserve soldiers," if you will, that are able to be called upon to defend and retaliate against aggression.
For the sake of not gaining any further enemies I propose that all future offensive maneuvers be taken by individuals collaborating without regional sanction. How individuals went about this would be completely up to them. A private organization reminiscent of REATO, but with no official ties to the region, for example.
It would be just as egregious and counter to libertarian principles to outlaw raiding as it is to continue the war on communism as it is now fought.
Regarding how to actually fight the communist menace , as we have seen recently, massive external pressure can effect how regions function internally. The bad press and continua threats have lead us to the point were this discussion is even happening, when 6 months ago no one would even suggested it. This is how we must effectively fight communist aggression, through international pressure to end aggression.
Additionally, it would be insurmountably easier to have civilized debates over RW policies with leftists if we weren't pointing a proverbial gun at the region because of ideological differences.
To win a war you must win through the exchange of ideas not through unending aggression.
In response to Lack thereof....
Your Teacher said what? ""With out welfare we would have people starving in the streets"? We have that WITH the affordable Care Act.
So you propose we initiate PMC's? Now I dislike our current foreign affairs situation but I don't want the military destroyed. We don't need private defenses. We have the military for that reason.
As for the second thing. As long as the Government has NO ties to this organization and it doesn't get tagged for Libertatem I can agree with this.
Next thing. I thought Libertarians liked non-intervention. Anyways what your saying I'd just like to add on. You can still beat the State Socialists and Fascists via Ideas, Pressure, and Diplomacy. We don't have to launch invasions on little small regions like we've been doing.
Freedom is unconditional. Everyone has the potential to be free - from a mining conglomerate to a poor, wheelchair-bound man. The latter has fewer opportunities, but in an ideal society he would be no less free.
1. This is extremely pessimistic about the human condition. I don't think I need to cite much evidence to show that this statement is preposterous. I'll argue based on the simple fact that individuals care about their kids' education, and healthcare and food and defense. You're saying that people are too stupid to think for themselves so an all-powerful institution should do it for them. But every human acts based on their own interests, and continue to do so with or without the state. What guarantees that the state knows just what to do for its people in all situations? Why should a group of planners decide how people live their lives? To quote the great Ludwig von Mises, "To reject laissez-faire based on man's moral fallibility is to reject any system of government altogether."
2. The funny thing about the WHO report is that it's extremely biased against America's healthcare system, which it ranked 37th in the world based on irrelevant factors such as the structure of the income tax and the quality of unemployment programs. But when it comes to the actual quality of health care, "the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality". (From Cato.)
You could get healthcare so much cheaper under a free market system! When the competitive forces of the market are put to work, costs and prices are lowered while quality increases. This was a trend in the US healthcare industry until the mid-60s when the Great Society began and the federal government began to excessively regulate healthcare. The result has been various state-exclusive cartels that wield monstrous, federally-endorsed power over those in need of care.
If I had the choice, I would abolish the British National Health Service in favour of competing private providers. Because contrary to popular belief, we don't have it that great here either.
3. Isn't that contradictory?
4. Money enables them to perform these physical actions.
5. But those who are addicted would spend more towards fuelling their addiction than on helping to cure themselves and on other necessities.
It's an effect of corporate tax rates nevertheless. If there were no corporate rates, we'd see huge spike in wage rates.
I'm not talking about past mistakes. Since your actions at Communist Beach, you've participated in two raids in Communist China and another region, and expressed enthusiasm at raiding a fascist region. You're a hypocrite because you've campaigned for non-interventionism when you're one of the most active raiders in the entire region.
1.) sigh. Yet rich or poor, taxes screw over everybody. If there were no taxes, even the poorest would be 15% richer, and definitely afford basic amenities. Minimum wage could then be abolished which would help small businesses tremendously.
2.) I don't want to abolish democratic government. I want to reduce it to a localized scale. Hence my minarchism goes beyond states rights Republicons.
Also, that is not what Libertarian leftism is. Libertarian leftism is Agorism, participation in grey markets, and self suffiency. You are thinking of left libertarianism. Which does share similarities to the libertarian right, but wishes to change the economic system.
3.) at a cost. People cannot choose their provider, or have no incentive. Those who were happy with their plan are forced to buy insurance they don't need or want. Money that could be used to save is funneled into this system.
4.) no it doesn't. As long as this system exists, creative people who could be using their talents for good use it to abuse the system at the expense of the rest of us. Obstacles make people smart.
5.) so make people more poor by tying in the control of drugs to the state, while monopolizing whether people who are dependent on said drugs receive it at all? Ok
Pev. I'll get to your big post soon.
If you paid attention you would've noticed Both times I withdrew my endorsement before the region became ours. Thus backing out of the raids before they were conquered.
Minerva.
1. Abolish Taxes...... Taxes pay for important stuff. People should be taxed but only based on their earnings. Inheritance should be taxed.
2. I don't either. Okay then. I switched them. I've been meaning Left Libertarianism sorry.
3. THE ACA sucks.What we could've done is let the people keep their insurance if they wanted and only offered it to people who had no insurance but no...... it's taken.
4. There are ways to trap the most creative of people.
5. Tax drugs, get the people who did drugs out of prison. If you "need" drugs you can treat it as a normal health problem.
Okay Pev.
- Not true. Due to not having equality some have less freedom than others thanks to social norms and people infringing on each other's rights.
1. Well then Ludwig. I must be an Anarchist because I don't trust people to be fair without government laws. There are exceptions but if people choose where to spend money your top 3 payments will be Welfare, Education and Healthcare.
2. Taxes have a say in everything if you haven't noticed. And to your claim. Source please.
3. No. They should have as little as possible control. Thus they should have some but not total control of the economy.
4. I mean the ones saying "Donate ...... and we can get this dog a home. "
5. Tax them. That's there fault. You want economic freedom. Let them buy what they want with consequences.
List making. 'Tatem.
Yeah!
They have less opportunity, but not less freedom. Well, under governments as expansive as the ones we see today, the poor are much less free than, say, corporate bosses who are politically connected, because the system is, to an extent, rigged. But nevertheless most people are free to climb the ladder to prosperity. I know this because my father was born in a working class household, but has ascended into a middle-upper income bracket because of his hard work and investment skills.
1. But how can you trust government to be fair in their lawmaking?
2. It's completely irrelevant when judging the quality of a certain healthcare system. And here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/being-classically-liberal/myth-14-usa-is-ranked-37th-in-health-care/671898976177861
3. That is a non sequitur. A government cannot be minimal but at the same time control entire parts of an economy.
4. What's wrong with "Donate and give a homeless man a house"?
5. But this is still a punishment, alternative to simply putting them in prison.
I'd like people to buy what they want with no strings attached.
Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.
- Society limits people's freedoms by preventing opportunity. Of course because Corporations pay candidates. Most but not all. But now I see where your coming from. Your not coming from a place where your under threat of repossession due to not being able to pay for things like Healthcare because the hospital charges too much. Thus hurts that particular group Worse when their kid has a serious medical condition like Cancer or Heart Disease........
1. How can you trust an Employer or a people run government to be fair?
2. Okay first. You used Facebook posts in an argument as proof. Violent crime, car accidents, obesity, and drug use can shorten lifespans as well and thus are a healthcare/safety issue. Mortality rates are as well. To say they aren't is ignorant beyond belief.
3. It can indeed. A government who allows social freedoms for all can control some of the economy, defense and diplomatic relations without interfering in the social or majority of economic freedoms.
4. The fact that not all money goes to charities. http://wafflesatnoon.com/think-before-you-donate-charity-claims/
5. No it's not. It's a bill so the Government can use the money on important stuff.
I'd like it too but it's not possible.
But that does not infringe on an individual's freedom. It could only infringe on his freedom if he was barred from seeking care; it does not infringe on his freedom if he cannot gain care because the price is too high. This limits his power, but not his freedom.
1. I'm not trusting individuals to be fair, I'm trusting individuals to make the right decisions concerning their own lives. I think I know what kind of foods I like better than my government does.
2. It's a good hub for better sources on the subject. It clearly sources Cato and the WHO report. And no, those factors are not necessarily connected. You could have a world-class healthcare system, but at the same time an extremely violent, gluttonous population that indulges in pizzas and killing people. It's not an effective means of judging a healthcare system. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
3. But that's not the point. You're advocating limited government while at the same time endorsing significant state economic control. That doesn't make any sense.
4. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that welfare has monopolised the helping of the disadvantaged when charity is a much more effective means of helping the poor. The reason comparatively little is spent on charities is because international welfare states have become bloated enough for everyone to expect to rely on them. But what's interesting is that US private charity spending (12% of GDP) doesn't lag too far behind US welfare spending (15% of GDP). Imagine how much good could be done without welfare.
5. Ok, I'll concede this point, and I'd initially tax drugs if they were legalised, but not too steeply.
Why? To an extent, that is what we do now.
Oh no. That last part was me recognizing where your beliefs came from. It's not part of the argument. The first sentence though is.
1. Is the Government controlling your fruit intake? No. Am I suggesting it should? No. I'm more worried about people being shoved around without consequences more so then personal preferences. Both are equally important.
2. When I want something off Facebook I'll read the Onion. Anyways. You can in no sense have goid Healthcare if everyone is unhealthy and dying every few minutes due to crimes, Obesity, Malnutrition, abuse, Car accidents ect.
3. What I just said mattered completely. Read it again and tell me how what I said didn't fit with our discussion.
4. Imagine what could be done..... WITH BOTH! Public and Private charities. And little? Those "Charity" owners are sitting high and mighty right now. Maybe they should give their money away make it a real charity.
5. Then we have reached another agreeance. I'm not wanting a large tax. Just a tax of some kind.
1. And who has been the biggest 'shover' in history? That's right, the one, the only, Government! Big round of applause, everybody, for the biggest mass murderer in history!
2. These are consequences of individual actions, not side-effects of healthcare systems.
3. It fits in the discussion but it doesn't make sense. You're advocating both limited government and extensive state control. It's like saying "I'm a minarchist, except in believing that the government should provide food, clothes and housing."
4. That's the current system. Public 'charities' have a tendency - like any other government intrusion - to crowd out private spending, which is exactly what has happened. The charity market would need to be competitive, then. Donors expect results, and if they don't get them then they'll donate to a competitor.
1. Adolph Hitler and Stalin take the stand. "Peace and love." "SIEGEL". But no. The government isn't a "murderer" anymore than a normal corporate owner.
2. What treats these actions. Healthcare.
3. Limited government in personal affairs and Small Government affairs in the economy. That's not asking much. And they should be able to distribute housing and food maybe.......
4. Then they find the competitor is sitting just as high and mighty. Look you can't just ignore the facts most Private charities are there just so the owners can get money. I brought the source. There are good charities like Red Cross (which I volunteer at frequently. )
1. I didn't know individual corporate bosses were responsible for the deaths of billions of people.
2. Whether treatment is received is based on the individual's will to seek it. Just because Britain has a decent healthcare system it doesn't mean there are no fat people. There are a lot, actually. Again: the factors mentioned are irrelevant; American healthcare is the best in the world. The system is poor, but the quality of care is top-class.
3. How is the domination of energy, housing, food, medicine, pensions, unemployment allowance and energy small government by any stretch of the imagination?
4. I am speaking of a free society uninhibited by welfare.
1. I didn't know democratic Governments were either.
2. Fine. I guess I can agree although those factors are still important.
3. Well lets see.
Energy........ Should provide to those who TRULY Can't afford energy
Housing...... Private Industry. Government should only be involved in helping charities build houses. Or set up their own place for them
Food.......Food drive. I trust charities just enough.
Medicine......No. no government there please.
Pensions.......No corporate states please. Government shouldn't pay rich business owners.
Unemployment Allowance.......Help the unemployed by actually HELPING them.
Energy.....wait....Deja Vu.
4.I'm speaking about reality.
3 wasn't really an answer to the question TTA. Having a government that controls housing, energy, and food is small by no means.
Unemployment insurance should also be privatized.
I said what I thought on the three.
Too much confidence in Private Industry is as bad as too much confidence in the Government.
1. They do it too, sadly. #DeathPenalty #Wars #DeadlyLaws
3. I'm not debating the merits of government getting involved in X or Y. I'm debating your concept of 'small government'. A social democratic government can never be 'small'.
4. But in a competitive charity market, when individuals genuinely care about the disadvantaged when there's no welfare, there'd be much more pressure on charities to help people. And they still help a lot.
Yes! I presented this to my politics class, and they chuckled at the idea. They weren't mocking me; they had just never heard of the concept of privatised unemployment insurance before. It's frustrating because the subject portrays all the basic ideologies - conservatism, social democracy, communism, fascism - but never touches the heavier stuff like libertarianism or corporativism.
1. Okay. Good point. End wars. End Death Penalty.
3. Indeed it can or should. As by definition iy is Socialism inside a Capitalistic Democracy. But those merits are my views on the things represented.
4. We don't have enough people like that.
That seems to be the case with most schools.. I had a teacher who said he was in favor of gun control.. we got into a huge debate for the remainder of the class, and his final statement was "well then, I suppose everyone should be allowed to own tanks too." When I said Yes the class burst out laughing. He never did ask me to elaborate.
Well sure, but at least I'm not being charged for someone else to laze about this way.
Thats awfully easy to say isn't it?
Lol
No one going to compliment me on a good speech? Okay, not like I cared anyway.
I loved the speech Humpheria!! Feel better buddy?
YAY!!!!
How did the dinner with the govna' gi?
Go*
Well, after a lot of formalities I was given my allotted 20 mins. We discussed March Madness, one of his recent job bills, the state of the state and I asked him his views on Libertarian-ism. He said that he wasn't one, more of a cut-and-dry conservative, but he didn't have a problem with them. He likes Paul, Cruz, and Christie, in that order, for the Presidential bid. But, that part is rehearsed. Everyone in local politics knows he's considering a Dark Horse candidacy.
Well, off to a stuffy orchestral concert with my girl. Fun. I gotta go. Be on later tonight.
The 'stuffy' part doesn't sound so nice but the rest seems pretty good.
Have fun. I guess.
1. My point was that government is the most deadly killer in history. You could find a smattering of examples of corporations causing harm or perhaps death, but nowhere even remotely close to the number of individual lives extinguished by the state.
2. Doesn't matter it's not small government, at all.
3. Actually, we do. Put very simply, if there's a demand for social welfare (most people want the poor to be taken care of) then social welfare will continue to exist. Taking the coercion and monopolization of the government out of it would mean that people would be able to choose how the poor were helped.
And I'm a retributivist on criminal punishment, so I believe that the punishment should equal the crime.
The problem with gun control supporters is that they can never cite any empirical evidence whatsoever, aside from "Look at the news channels there are shootings all the time in America!" It's extremely frustrating to debate my mother on the issue because this is exactly what she does. Being anti-gun might seem pragmatic, but in reality it's draconian and pro-criminal.
I actually thought it was a really good speech.
What an extremely odd list of Presidential priorities.
To the region: what are your thoughts on Ted Cruz?
Well, I agree with his positions for the most part, except for his position on same sex marriage, which is obviously kind of a top priority for me.
He made me laugh with his "filibuster".
Speaking of, where do all of you stand on same sex marriage?
This is one of the reasons why Ted Cruz sucks. He's a neo-con in disguise as a Tea Partier.
He doesn't care about the Republican Party, or the Tea Party, or conservatism. The only thing Ted Cruz cares about is Ted Cruz.
Strongly support. Or better yet, privatise.
In a way it's sad that you regard same-sex marriage "legalisation" a 'top priority', because in essence you're asking for the government's approval of a personal affair conducted between individuals. It shouldn't matter what the state thinks; marriage is a personal decision, it doesn't need to have a God-damned legal witness for it to be legitimate.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.