Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Hey if most of you want to believe the solutions to our problems will come from Washington you are more than welcome to that opinion.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Hey if most of you want to believe the solutions to our problems will come from Washington you are more than welcome to that opinion.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Libertarians are actually very consistent in their philosophy. They don't think the government should make what they see as personal decisions. At times that comes off as very conservative... they don't want the government telling them what kind of light bulbs they can buy or what kind of cars they should drive. At times that comes off as very liberal... they don't want the government telling them who they can marry or what they can smoke. Centrist? No. Consistent? Yes.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Libertarians are actually very consistent in their philosophy.<< So's Westboro Baptist.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So's Westboro Baptist.>> Not really. They base their entire organization on their interpretation of a very few Bible verses while totally ignoring everything else the Bible says. The two are not even close.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think that the solutions to the major problems that cross state borders should come from the decision made by the states assembled in Congress, as the Constitution intended. That doesn't mean that I think that today's Congress has the capability of doing that so long as it is representing business and wealth instead of the people, but the original intent was for Congress to be there to solve problems that crossed state lines.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Just want to make clear that I am not a libertarian and I have never voted for a libertarian candidate. But to equate the Libertarian Party with Westboro Baptist is such a stretch it's ridiculous and the type of thing that makes discussion here a trip to bizarro world.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>the type of thing that makes discussion here a trip to bizarro world.<< The fact that we're discussing the Libertarian Party and Westboro Baptist, period, is what does that.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Libertarians are actually very consistent in their philosophy.<< Irrelevant, history has shown what a Libertarian society is like. I wouldn't want to live in one.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Geez giving people the freedom to live their own lives but being responsible for that freedom, what an awful concept
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But you always need someone to enforce the acceptance of responsibility. And you need to be able to define what responsibility means. And that someone is the government.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 But when does it become too much. I don't want the government telling people who they can marry no more than I want them to tell people what they can eat or drink. So let's put it this way. I'm pro gay marriage. I'm in favor of decriminalizing drugs in this country, I'm not in favor of any additional gun laws, with the exception of letting the mentally insane or criminals obtain them. I'm pro-life however I still support a woman's right to choose because ultimately it's between her and her maker. I believe we should end the War in Afghanistan. I don't believe torture is effective but then again I never have fought in a war so I'm not going to morally judge someone in a situation that I will never be asked to do. I expect able bodied American's to find employment I expect parents to raise their kids in a responsible manner. I would like to see the elimination of income taxes and move to a situation like the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax. I believe we should cut spending. So if any of those things make me seem out of touch, then I will gladly be out of touch.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I would like to see the elimination of income taxes and move to a situation like the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax. I believe we should cut spending. << That's out of touch. Neither of these things are viable. >>I expect parents to raise their kids in a responsible manner.<< Hey, stay out of it, Mr. Buttinsky!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So if any of those things make me seem out of touch, then I will gladly be out of touch.<< Those aren't out of touch, but you keep repeating a few of the same basic social issues, as if that's all libertarianism espouses. It doesn't. So let's look at a couple of real world examples. A single mother in Detroit has divorced her alcoholic husband and now she desperately needs a job to support her kids. And of course, libertarians want her to get a job - they don't want her sucking on government's teat. She goes into the job interview and the man behind the desk tells her he'd be happy to give her a job making t-shirts for minimum wage, but she needs to bring her six and seven year old along and they need to help too. Of course, government doesn't regulate this in a libertarian world; it's perfectly legal. The libertarians message to this woman: Don't turn to government, go get a job, and sorry if the job requires you to work in dangerous conditions, wants you to bring your children in to work, requires you to have sex with the boss in exchange for pay, etc. And if you don't want to work under those conditions, then you have the freedom to starve. If this sounds far-fetched, it's how it was for millions of immigrant laborers at the turn of the 20th century.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It's far fetched in the 21st century and would never happen. Telling someone who has kids your the one responsible for feeding them, clothing them, making sure they have a place to live isn't radical or heartless it's called the truth.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Telling someone who has kids your the one responsible for feeding them, clothing them, making sure they have a place to live isn't radical or heartless it's called the truth.<< Another strawman. >>It's far fetched in the 21st century and would never happen.<< Because of government intervention and regulation changing the culture. Reformers and government changed those attitudes, not the free market. Sometimes, of course, it took tragedies to spur government action. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_fire" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...gle_fire</a> Should it be illegal for companies to chain employees in the building? Or is that just government regulation going too far?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "no more than I want them to tell people what they can eat or drink." The laws aren't telling people what they can eat or drink (except in the case of drugs or alcohol)- they are defining the responsible behaviors of business. That is what libertarians don't get - businesses aren't regulated just for the heck of it. They are regulated so their pursuit of shareholder return doesn't harm the health - financial or physical - of others. Businesses are seeing record profits these days but they aren't hiring anyone. That mother who you'd tell to get a job and accept responsibility for herself wants a job, but the jobs that she would have been eligible for a generation ago have been shipped offshore. The benefits of those jobs that remain make it extremely difficult to work find day care. And if the kid or mom gets sick - because the landlord doesn't want to gummint to tell him that he has to provide a healthy environment to his renters - she could get fired for missing work. So government steps in and tries to find a way to help. Free or reduced cost day care. Nutritional subsidies. FMLA. If businesses accepted responsibility to pay their employees a living wage and to treat them fairly, the government could be much smaller. It's all about promoting responsibility, and reminding those who focus mainly on the bottom line that they have a responsibility to society as well.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Hey if you want Big Brother constantly watching you and your families then be my guest.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Reformers and government changed those attitudes, not the free market.>> The free market DOES respond to the needs of employees. Today over 90% of business with 50 employees or more provide employee health insurance. NOT because the government says they must (yet), but because they know it is good business to have happy, healthy and productive employees. They also know that to attract GOOD employees, that type of benefit must be provided. Same thing goes for flex-time. job-sharing, on-site daycare, etc. Government never told them they had to do it. They do it because they know that in the long run it is cheaper to attract AND RETAIN quality employees than it is to hire and train a constant parade of low-quality employees who leave the minute something better comes along. Your belief that only government can do that is sadly out of touch in my opinion.
