TLZone Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm having some serious thoughts about getting more involved in political activism. I really like the Libertarian party. Particular I like the following:

1) They support creating laws that protect people's liberty. Essentially nothing should be enforced by the government unless it directly infringes on someone else's liberty.

2) Personal responsibility: No government welfare for anyone. No bail out checks to banks, no subsidies for farmers, no free health care, etc. The theory is if people have more money they will donate to private charities who will make the recipitients of the money accountable.

3) No policeing of the world: Unless a nation poses a direct threat to US national security there will be no military base or intervention (unless private citizens want to donate their personal income or support)

4) Ellimination of the drug war: Decriminalize drugs and stop wasting tax payers dollars.

5) The reduction of wasteful government spending


Has anyone studied this group? If so what can you share?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
I don't know anything about the politics of the party, but the classic liberal ideology is certainly appealing and would undoubtedly lead to a much greater standard of living for the country as a whole.

If you want a quick read on the subject, Charles Murry's book, "What it means to be a liberterian" is pretty good.

if you really want to learn more about classic liberalism, read anything and everything by Ludwig Von Mises. Hayek isn't bad either.
 

·
Chief Moderator for my kids Julia & Kristen,
Joined
·
5,503 Posts
I tend to like the Libertarian idea as well as my natual instincts are toward fiscal tightwadism and social moderation.

I summary, I don't give a sh%t what people do, as long as I don't have to pay for it :D
 

·
Scooter hottie chauffeur
Joined
·
4,663 Posts
I'm a Libertarian. Just be prepaired to lose alot. *S* Very VERY few people believe in them selves enough to say, "no thanks, don't need any help". Especially when government seems hell bent on dishing it out.

I would also say you should be willing to accept other people doing stupid stuff (which is pretty easy when the fact arises that you will not be forced to pay for any of the other persons stupid stuff reprocussions.

I'm fully willing to let people smoke dope all day, so long as I don't have to pay for their appartment, food, illigitimate kids, health care... etc.

freedom has responsibility.

Libertarians say I'm willing to take the responsibility, so give me the freedom.

welcome aboard
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I tend to lean towards libertarian/classical liberal with a dash of nationalist thrown in when needed.:devious

The problem with the Libertarian Party, at least in the elections I've voted in, is that the candidates usually do a poor job of promoting themselves and making themselves known. Most of them I just can't find any info on whatever. The few that I can find info on aren't always so flattering. In the last election the one person I could find info on was in with scientology, which sure as hell won't buy you any votes in Texas.


Ron Paul is at heart a libertarian and he has quite a following. He would have more if his speaking style wasn't so whiny and littered with rhetorical questions, he needs to speak more resolutely.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
Don Boudreaux for prez 2012! Stylish, great speaker, from NO, smart (econ PhD + T10 Law Degree + director of Econ dept) and Obama won't see it coming and preemptively send him off to China.... :laugh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Sounds to me like a great idea that won't work in practice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I just pledged my $25 and am officially a member of the party. I need to change my voter registration and begin volunteering and I will be all set.
 

·
Scooter hottie chauffeur
Joined
·
4,663 Posts
all depends on what you define as "working".

I would say people who sit on their azz and starving is a classic definition of a "working government".

The Constitution is pretty limiting as to what powers the Federal government has (art 1 sec. 8) and quickly defines what powers they DO NOT have (art 1 sec. 9) As well as a significant amount of admendments to further identify personal freedomes not to be trod upon by government.

the standard lament is, "well people could go hungry, or be taken advantage of, or... bla bla bla if our government doesn't protect us from the bad men".

People have gotten so far away from taking responsibility for themselves that they actually think the government is there to save them from telemarketers. how about you just hang up on them, or don't answer the phone in the first place. no one puts a cost on how expensive it is for the government to do what you should do yourself.

and how much personal freedome we loose every time we allow the government to tell us to do something for our own good. Wear a helmet, wear a seat belt, don't eat fatty foods, don't drink sugar filled pop, don't smoke, don't drink...

here is an idea, how about I live my life the way i want to, I pay for it all, and the government can just shut the hell up an go do what they are supposed to be doing (I point to Art 1 Sec. 8) Can't secure the borders (an enumerated power) but seems to be more then willing to tax soda pop to tell me how to live more healthy (not an enumerated power)

Harry Browne has it pretty much nailed (Why Government doesn't work, 1995)

both major parties know this and are terrified to let the 3rd voice be heard.

Democrat, "I promis to spend 5 billion dollars to.... bla bla bla"

Republican, "that's an insane waste of tax payer dollars, I would never spend more then 4 billion dollars to .... bla bla bla"

Libertarian, "it is not an enumerated power authorized by the Constitiution. I will spend 0 dollars to bla bla bla"

interesting that the 3rd statement doesn't seem to make it to the debate or on the news....:confused

You get some Libertarians where the people are still individuals that take care of themselves, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota...

but as soon as people see government as a "giver"... Libertarians are considered stupid and loony... They want everyone to smoke pot, have abortions and shoot people (2nd amendment rights)...

maybe it's just that they want to leave the decission up to you the people instead of telling you how to live your life.


and that is an idea that does work, when you define it as such.


Sounds to me like a great idea that won't work in practice.
 

·
Chief Moderator for my kids Julia & Kristen,
Joined
·
5,503 Posts
Actually accepting personal responsibility. There would be a nasty adjustment period, unfortunately, as a large segment of our pathetic population has gotten used to suckling off the government nipple. All the crack ho welfare moms in particular would complain loudly about a Libertarian approach in government. So would the Wall St. gang, with their hands out, looking to socialize losses from their bad investment strategies.

Who would have thought - some of the dumbest slack jawed people on earth would have so much in common with the fancy well educated Wall St. crowd? That concerns me - while less government is appealing in theory, obviously the clowns in the financial world need strict oversight - they don't play very well when left on their own. I wonder how the Libertarians would handle the suits on the street?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Libertarians say I'm willing to take the responsibility, so give me the freedom.
And there is the problem.
Can you really see the majority of the population taking the responsibility?
Like I said,it is a great idea,unfortunately the human factor would doom it to failure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Don't get me wrong,I think we should work towards this form of government (or non-government)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Actually accepting personal responsibility. All the crack ho welfare moms in particular would complain loudly about a Libertarian approach in government. So would the Wall St. gang, with their hands out, looking to socialize losses from their bad investment strategies.
Let's not forget the farmers who are paid millions by the government NOT TO GROW CROPS. And the 143 nations who pose no threat to the United States but we have our military bases there as free protection. The Elderly with no one to take care of them would also complain.

I honestly think the issues would be resolved. American people would be wealthier without the government forcing tax payers to give their money to those to lazy or unable to work. If I had more discretionary income I'd donate it to programs for people who truly needed help and for those getting back up on their feet. Buit no one should be forced to donate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
So what does happen to those who are genuinely unable to support themselves?
 

·
Scooter hottie chauffeur
Joined
·
4,663 Posts
So what does happen to those who are genuinely unable to support themselves?

Private charities. the Church, march of dimes, boy scouts, Habitat for Humanity... all are significantly more efficient at getting the dollars/help to the people who need it.

a normal over head for a 503c charity is about 5-8%. for the Federal government that number climbs to over 80% of the funds are eaten up by the beauracy. Even if half the people don't donate to a charity, the huge rise in efficiency means significantly more help gets to the needy. The draw back will be that the charity can refuse to help people, and they will be forced to get off their azz and take responsibility for themselves....or is that not a draw back?:dowhat

I already donate to a bunch of charities, I'd donate more if I could.

Wall Street would just have to get used to the idea that if they phuck up, they get to sleep in a cardboard box on lower wacker drive for a bit. I find it amazingly funny/sad that Obama found the need to help wall street with huge hand outs, I'm assuming Mcain would have too... thus the 3rd voice come into play again, and is not heard.

it is also a fact that not everything can be "fixed", so things have to fail, break, some people are failures, some business' are failures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Private charities. the Church, march of dimes, boy scouts, Habitat for Humanity... all are significantly more efficient at getting the dollars/help to the people who need it.

a normal over head for a 503c charity is about 5-8%. for the Federal government that number climbs to over 80% of the funds are eaten up by the beauracy. Even if half the people don't donate to a charity, the huge rise in efficiency means significantly more help gets to the needy. The draw back will be that the charity can refuse to help people, and they will be forced to get off their azz and take responsibility for themselves....or is that not a draw back?:dowhat

I already donate to a bunch of charities, I'd donate more if I could.

Wall Street would just have to get used to the idea that if they phuck up, they get to sleep in a cardboard box on lower wacker drive for a bit. I find it amazingly funny/sad that Obama found the need to help wall street with huge hand outs, I'm assuming Mcain would have too... thus the 3rd voice come into play again, and is not heard.

it is also a fact that not everything can be "fixed", so things have to fail, break, some people are failures, some business' are failures.
I'm with this guy. I've always chalked this thought up to older conservatives but if it has a new name - I'm in.

People that are genuinely unable to take care of themselves have those options along with family and friends. If they don't have friends they should have not been so unfriendly to folks (and is still no excuse for charities, the CHURCH, or anyone else really to help out).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
seems all well and good but bigger picture springs to mind. So what is the difference now, when there are people who are still lazy , still want handouts etc and still large amounts of theft etc, crime for example. So your saying that if there were no handouts etc and fended for themselves this would all dissappear? that there was no one to help feed the losers, wouldnt then the losers need to stay alive..hence cause more thefts, break ins, just to get bread etc...
sorry, thats not progress, thats back to the early ages...they did that then, which then indirectly caused disease and deaths.
In theory yes, but even now with the govt and the institutions helping people out etc, you still have homeless people now , and beggers all around the place.
Im lucky were it is not like that in the larger sense, still present, but as they say, how can the richest country in the world, still not be able to look after there own people.
I still dont understand why you dont even have health benefits....
Anyway, as i said, the opinion is ok, but putting it into action, would take a lot more.
Not to mention riots, or larger populations then not letting other people into there areas because they segregate, its human nature to do that. then do only the strong survive and the weak become prey?, primitive actions comes to mind....but why dont you try it and then we can examine. dont see it working...but good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
hey , is it not any different then to join the "Armish " society, they do exactly what your saying...fend for themselves and dont take handouts, just do that...they have no possessions either,,,so ill help you off load stuff you are giving away!... :laugh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Obama found the need to help wall street with huge hand outs, I'm assuming Mcain would have too... thus the 3rd voice come into play again, and is not heard.
I agree with everything you stated. Keep in mind we don't have to assume McCain would have also supported the bailouts. McCain did support the bailouts. He voted for them along with the rest of congress (both republican and democrat) back in October. Both the democrats and republicans believe in screwing the tax payer to bail out their buddies on Wall Street. I used to complain and do nothing. Now I'm trying to get some what active to show I'm doing something about it.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top