tuscl

Is libertarianism doomed to be a minority view the world over?

Monday, January 23, 2012 6:03 PM
I am, in general, a libertarian with a "small l" meaning that I do not subscribe necessarily to the agenda of the Libertarian Party in any of its forms. Rather, I believe that the role of government is to make it possible for the citizens to leave as freely as possible so long as one person's freedom does not jeopardize the freedom of others unreasonably.* Thus, while I am willing to accept that some regulations may be necessary for the operation of adult entertainment establishments (for reasonable sanitary conditions, for example), I do not support the use of regulations to effectively prohibit such establishments. Likewise, I believe that there should be laws against those who exploit others in the sex trade (i.e. pimps, sexual slavery, etc.) and against the exploitation of children. That having been said, I seriously doubt that such a view will ever find much acceptance in the United States, and based on what we are seeing in the current election cycle, the pendulum is swinging even further away from the libertarian view and more toward the "government can legislate morality -- provided it is the 'correct morality'" point of view. Moreover, societies where libertarian views were once mainstream (or at least not political death) are now retreating (Holland, for example). Are we facing the dawn of a neo-Victorian age? * I am sure that I will be asked if I can be allowed any reasonable interference with the freedom of others that the government should enforce on my behalf. Yes -- here are two examples. 1. Trespass. I should have the right to keep others off my property and the government should assist me in enforcing that right by making it a crime for others to come on my properly posted land (likewise, the government should support my right to use force to protect my property against any resistance offered by a trespasser) . 2. The government can enforce others' right not to breath my cigarette smoke in a publicly-controlled space (a courthouse or other government building for example) -- contrariwise, I do not want the government to enforce that power for privately-controlled spaces (but agree that owners of such spaces may, if they choose, restrict me from smoking -- just as I have the right not to patronize their establishments. (For the record, I do not smoke, so my view on this latter point is purely academic).

57 comments

  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    Whenever government tries to go overboard & legislate morality, it drives it underground. A major example being Prohibition.
  • Titangs
    •
    12 years ago
    As a lifetime member of the Libertarian party, I'm with you all the way here. I also agree that you have the right to liable yourself with a small "l". For too long, the party has been a bit dogmatic, and thus has limited its own appeal. But, contrary to what you say, regardless of what you think about Ron Paul, he is getting the Libertarian message out there. It seems to be catching on with some younger people. I see a bit of hope there.
  • JacksonEsskay
    •
    12 years ago
    Quite true . . . Victorian London had some notorious fleshpots. However, let us not forget that the "Peelers" in Victorian London, the G-men of prohibition or the Master of the Revels in Elizabethan times, who enforced the morality laws . . . my concern is not the morality-legislators will be able to make others comply, but that they will punish as many as they can (indeed, it may be the desire to punish the transgressors more than to reform them that drives these sanctimonious prigs).
  • JacksonEsskay
    •
    12 years ago
    Well, if Paul was running as a Libertarian, I might have less of a problem with him (as you correctly inferred, I have no use for him as a Republican). I think much of his message is valid . . . it's just being drowned by the noise of the other candidates and the media that has consistently discounted his candidacy. Not that he would get heard if he were to run on a big-L ticket, either, since he would get no coverage at all.
  • snowtime
    •
    12 years ago
    I consider myself a Libertarian as well. I am afraid to say that I do not think the party will succeed in this country. First, as more and more people rely on our government to support them, the Democratic party will continue to receive their votes . Eventually this will lead to a Socialist government. Secondly, the Republican party which is closely alligned with the Libertarian views on economic issues will never support the "hands off" approach to moral and social issues that the Libertarian phylosophy espouses.
  • JacksonEsskay
    •
    12 years ago
    Well said Snowtime. It is perhaps counter-intuitive, but most of the European governments that I consider to be favorable to the libertarian viewpoint are also among the more heavily socialized.
  • snowtime
    •
    12 years ago
    JE. I assume that if we have to live with the Socialist agenda we might see some benefit as far as strip clubs are concerned. I think the Democrats are, in general, less concerned about legislating morality. The Republicans seem too be obsessed on abortion, religion, anti-Gay and similar "non governmental" issues. I think that is going to be the downfall of the Republican party on the National level. They will never attract the "undecided vote" needed to win a National contest if they continue to press their social agenda. Ron Paul is the only Republican who does not fit this mold (except perhaps on abortion) and we can all see it will almost be impossible for him to get the party's nomination. As Titangs said, Paul is receiving some support from young people, so their may be some hope in the future.
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson
  • sharkhunter
    •
    12 years ago
    I am seeing a shift where more people understand the merits of smaller governments where the people have more freedom, more liberty, less government control over every aspect of their lives. I still don't see that view becoming a majority opinion here in the US where so many seem to be on the government payroll or stay brainwashed into thinking big governments offer more safety and security and don't see any problem with our government tracking and restricting all of our everyday activity. Even now our government is trying to restrict and keep track of everyone's Internet history for the last two years via a new bill. We should have a right to some privacy in our travels whether that is on the highway or online without our government tracking our every move as standard procedure. The Supreme court just ruled the government does not have the right to track everyone without a search warrant via a gps device. Yet now with a new bill, they are getting ready to track everyone online and require ISP'S to keep records and likely act as online police. If enough people fail to act to limit the loss of our freedoms, our country will become like Adolf Hitler's Germany and it will be too late to defend anyone. Already candidates like Mitt Romney defend the recently passed bill which was signed by Obama which allows the arrest of any American to be detained or disappear without trial. The Supreme Court may not get a chance to overturn an unconstitutional law if no one gets to have a case heard in court. Millions of Americans died defending our freedoms this generation is giving up without a fight in the name of security.
  • sharkhunter
    •
    12 years ago
    As an example, if elected President of the US , I could abuse the power given to me and secretly declare or maybe even boldly sign an executive order declaring something stupid like anyone who has more than a 7 day supply of any food item to be a terrorist. Using the new detention law, I could have any person or congressman disappear without trial. I'm sure almost everyone has more than a 7 day supply of something in their pantry or refrigerator. Even if not, no one will be able to question anyone about it or they will disappear too. It might get to be bad and these people who disappear may need to get shot to keep costs down but hey, if the people allow an evil dictator to run this country, then the people will get what they have coming. Of course I wouldn't do this. What candidate for President would say that? Just the other day I heard Mitt Romney say he wouldn't abuse the power. The government should not have this power. I'm talking to the choir here though. Ranting too I guess.
  • farmerart
    •
    12 years ago
    Let me throw in the views of a Canadian businessman. Looking at the US from my vantage point I consider the USA to be one of the most socialist societies in the world. The largest employer in the entire world is US Dept. of Defense. The portion of US economy devoted to the military is grotesque. Add that to other federal agencies with bloated employee counts and you have what is, in my world, a bloated inefficient economy. The woeful public education system is featherbedded with lousy, overpaid teachers and the results in US student performance are there for all to see in international student performance rankings. The bloated US penal system is further socialist idiocy draining blood from the economy. All this non-productive government spending is the pure simple definition of a socialist economy. A brief story of my business sorties into the US oil patch (and there have been only two in my 45 year career). A drilling project in California in 1995 had me dealing with NINE different local, state, and federal governments and their agencies. The paper work was mind boggling. The same project in Canada would have had me dealing with precisely one level of government and the land owner. The regulatory bodies stayed away unless I fucked up. In the USA, the assumption was that I would fuck up and the resultant hoops I had to jump through were just plain silly. The ridiculous US health insurance system was the other reason I chose not to work in the US. Health care spending in your country is almost 17.5% of GDP, and rising relentlessly. Much of that is spent through Medicare and Medicaid. It was easier to operate in Indonesia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and the North Sea countries than in USA. Government interference was much less. I just hated the weather and corruption in the Middle East and South East Asia. From what I see in the current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination no candidate apart from Paul has any understanding of the idiotic underpinnings of the US economy. I weep for your country and I desperately hope that I am dead before the inevitable economic implosion.
  • m00tpoint
    •
    12 years ago
    In order to support Libertarianism, one must subscribe to the mindset that man is intrinsically good. This simply is not the case. We are all sinful people with everything that entails. Psalm 51:5 states, "For I was born a sinner--yes, from the moment my mother conceived me." NIV translation. Art - yet Candadians cross our borders for medical care because the Canadian government-run medical system won't give them treatment or they can't even get off the wait list to see a doctor. A Canadian (or European for that matter) saying America is headed Socialist is laughable as Canada is alread most of the way there. Regardless of your assertions, the USA was not founded on governmentatl regulations. In fact, when things started changing is when the government decided their responsibility was to "care for" its citizens instead of govern them. We can thank a Democrat for that. Republicans have been trying to get back to less regulation, more free enterprise ever since. Ronald Reagan took us in that direction. It is time to go there again. What blows my mind is that a large percentage of the population respects Warren Buffet for his accomplishments yet does not seem to understand that Warren Buffett would not be where he is today if he had tried to build his business under an administration like Obama's. You got one thing right, we are moving in the wrong direction. I only hope the lemmings that allowed the media to tell them who their next savior was going to be (and was dreadfully wrong) will start to think for themselves, take a look at history and use some of the brain cells they were given before checking a box or pushing a button on the computer screen. mrs m00tpoint
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    I think Ron Paul needs to be a Republican because if he was a member of a minor party, the major news organizations would ignore him. Hell, they already ignore him as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show already pointed out. If he left the Republican party, his message would be just one of many "screw ball" (aka largely ignored) messages found on [view link]. I have watched a few Libertarian Party nomination conventions on CSPAN, but when Harry Browne died, I pretty much brushed them off. From what I saw, they looked like amateurs. Another problem with being libertarian (small l) is this need to be "one's own." This simply does not work in a country ruled by the people. What I mean by that, is it's hard to be one's own and part of a party organization. Also, it's an ideal that might work in a society that grows it's own food, but we are long into an interdependent social network. I do think we are getting an out of touch aristocracy in the 600 some people who rule over 300,000,000. Some of those guys have been in there since Reagan and they perceive the country far more in terms of where it was than where it is and where it is going. The upcoming $1,000,000,000,000,000.00 debt ceiling upgrade during an era compared to the gilded age and recession certain speaks to that. I remember when numbers like that were used in astronomy classes, not government economics! In much of the world, especially the middle east, it seems "westernized governments" (monarchies really with Tunisia and Egypt, but they were western) are falling to Islamic governments. If they are not falling, they are in violent conflict with many groups that are Islamic in governmental practice. That is definitely a pendulum swinging in a given direction. I do think there is some misunderstanding of democrats being more open minded, at least to the adult industry. The party is full of feminists, politically correct goons, and those who try to govern by how it should be instead of looking at what is happening and reacting to feedback in terms of not only opinion, but how programs are working. I saw a statistic where nearly 33% of black men have been imprisoned. I saw another statistic where nearly 30% of all races and genders 25 and under have been at least arrested. We have the largest prison system in the world. We've gone long past soviet check points with nudie scans of little children and grab and grope inspections in air travel lines. We have school systems arresting 8 year olds for sexual assault because they kissed a classmate. These are not the elements of a free country, but a police state. All of this is academic until you come face to face with it. I use to travel by air A LOT. Not anymore. After September 11, I became immediately aware of the reality of a police state. War against poverty? War on the poor. War on Terrorism? War on the citizen and privacy. War on drugs? War on the constitution. And talking about this War on ____ - it is more and more civil war. I am no Branch Davidian, but I was disturbed by a bunch of militarily armed "men in black" shooting automatic weapons at a church - and then the use of an actual tank that burned the place down?!?! Military drones being used against fellow citizens as happened in Montana if I remember right? And if one reads the comments on the internet around various news stories - a lot of them are outright revolutionary. Throw in the greatest gun sales ever, as well access to the internet for explosives education... man. Maybe the Mayans had it right, cause when the US finally lights up, a lot of the components of "western civilization" is going to be on their own.
  • farmerart
    •
    12 years ago
    Back to you Mrs. m00tpoint: You throw anecdotes about Canada's health care system at me. I can do the same to you about your health care system.. Many Americans come to Canada for health care services as do Canadians go to USA for services. Here are some uncontestable facts: Life expectancy is longer in Canada than in US. Infant mortality is lower in Canada than in US. Percentage of GDP devoted to health care in Canada is much less than in US. 100% of Canada's citizens have health insurance. Your country? Doctors spend much more time on paperwork dealing with various insurance companies than do Canadian doctors who deal with a single payer. Health services are delivered much more efficiently as a result. And here is something that Americans do not understand about universal health insurance. It makes businesses more competitive when health care is funded from the general tax revenue. A small guy like me competes on an even playing field with Exxon. Shell, etc. in this area. Everybody receives the same health coverage regardless of employer or employment status. When I took contracts in USA I could not buy health insurance for my employees at the same rate as my larger competitors. The difference came right of my profit margins. Taxes are lower in Canada than in US; income taxes for high income earners, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes are all lower in Canada than in USA. Total government debt is lower in Canada. Canadian tax code is infinitely simpler than in the US. How does any of this make Canada more socialist than your country? From my vantage point I see a much lighter federal footprint on the economy in Canada than in US. To be sure, there are government idiocies in Canada. The mandated bilingualism drives me absolutely bananas even though I do speak my country's two languages. The division of powers between the federal and provincial governments is a serious problem for my country. The level of government with the most power is not the level of government with the taxing power. You can imagine the wrangles that this causes. My experience working all over the world has made me appreciate the two countries occupying the North American continent. I do not denigrate your country. I can make jokes about your idiot politicians but we have our share of dolts in Canada as well. Once in a while each of our countries can produce a genuinely great leader. At the moment, Canada does not have a great leader and I don't think that your country does either. All things considered, I am a happy proud Canadian (even with our ridiculous winter weather).
  • jackslash
    •
    12 years ago
    Art, you make some great points about Canada. If I were choose to live in a country outside my beloved USA, I would choose Canada.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Go moot ! All the way !
  • Otto22
    •
    12 years ago
    Jackson- While I believe that many persons are basically sympathetic towards libertarianism (small l as you note), I also believe that libertarianism can never be a governing philosophy because it is simply not government's style to leave us alone. It is kind of like trying to build a church for atheists. The points on which they agree are not cohesive but profoundly individualistic. It would be our best hope if the Republicans would embrace more of libertarian ideals, perhaps by practicing more federalism and sending the moralising back to the states to regulate (or not) matters such as abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc. Thanks for starting an intriguing thread.
  • skibum609
    •
    12 years ago
    Canada has relied on America for protection forever and as a result has virtually no military expenditures. Their dreug companies create no new pharmaceuticals so we subsidize their healthcare as well. They have a huge neighbor to the south to buy their oil and goods. They don't have a huge open border with an impoverished southern neighbor as we do. Reverse the geography and things change. Nothing special about Canada, other than their arrogance in failing to acknowledge they get a free ride off us.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    12 years ago
    @OP: "Is libertarianism doomed to be a minority view the world over?" Yes, because stupid, lazy people, and the power hungry demagogues who want to control them, far outnumber the rest of us. And you know, "majority rules" is a moral imperative, right?
  • m00tpoint
    •
    12 years ago
    Farmerart, First of all, let me clarify that I am not denigrating either country. I do not like, and have not for many years, the direction the US has been taking either politically or economically. I have no bones to pick with Canada either. I will point out that neither of us has to worry about the post we make on TUSCL ending up with us being interrogated and detained for speaking our thoughts which is still not true in a bunch of countries around the world today. We at least agree that the US does not have a "great leader" right now, nor, IMO, is one likely to come out of the batch of idiots running for the job this time around either. I have long said anyone who was likely to be really good at the job would be too damn smart to run for it. That being said, the reality is that Canada has several issues that have been averted by their concentration of oil and low population. The government royalties on their oil have covered what would otherwise be huge deficits (although I will admit nothing like our current president can seem to spend). Not saying that is not fair or that they should be ashamed of it. Just that it is what it is. Statistics mean very little to me. I am of the belief that one can find a statistic to support pretty much whatever one wants to claim. For instance, you are correct in that the Canadian Life Expectancy at Birth and infant mortality rates are now lower in Canada than in the US. However, why is that? Could it be because Canada's nationalized health care system pays for genetic testing so that the "weaker' or "less than perfect" babies are aborted before birth? Since Canada does not recognize the fetus as an infant, those stats don't impact infant mortality rate. Could it be because third trimester abortions, which are not done in most Canadian provinces (and good for them) are sent to the US where those stats don't count? You also say tax rates are less. Well, maybe the national one is but the provincial rates are all higher than our highest state tax so I am not sure we are comparing apples and apples. Here in the USA state tax rates seem tied to governmental regulations as well. CA, for instance, the most restrictive of any of our states is also the highest tax rate. IL seems hell-bent on following in their footsteps if recent years are any indication. So, rather than use empty numbers, I am going to talk to you about real life people that I know or with whom I have had direct personal contact. I agree our current health system, and indeed much of the government, is currently not working well. However, I submit that NEVER in the history of any country have government intervention, subsidies and regulation worked well for much of anything. Want to increase the hoops someone has to jump through? Make it a governmental program. Want to increase the length of time it takes to get anything done? Put the government in charge of running it. Want to ensure that an individual is over looked in the interest of "standard operating procedures"? You get the idea. The more the government runs and controls its citizens, the more socialist the country. The more a people depend on the government for basic life needs, the more socialist it is by intentional design. This is why I so hate and resist Obama's vision for America. Socialism is not defined by the intricacy of a country's tax code, the amount of taxes paid or the national debt. Socialism is about how much influence the government has (or takes) in determining what an individual citizen can do and the means for which they can provide for/care for themselves. When all of the doctors, for instance, in a country are required to participate in the government health care system, what choice does a patient have if they need an operation but are put on a wait list for years and years or if, God forbid, the agency running the health care system decides they are not a good candidate for the surgery because the cost outweighs the quality or quantity of life the patient has left? None. They can, I guess, go to Mexico or, as you assert, to the US if they can afford it. You assert "Health services are delivered much more efficiently as a result." ?? Try telling that to the family that was put on the wait list for tests to find out what was wrong with their 36 yr old wife and mother of three. She was told it would be 2.5 years before she could get the brain scan to even find out what was wrong with her. They flew to Helena, MT (not exactly the medical capital of the US let alone the world) because they had the type of equipment needed to do the scan. Her tumor was found and removed and she was home back in Canada in 6 weeks. And, yes, my husband personally met this family because he was in the same hospital with my step-son who had just had open heart surgery and ended up in ICU at the same time. I have to say I personally know of no one who has gone to Canada for health care. If you happen to know of some, I would be willing to be enlightened. I DO, however, know Canadians who came to the USA. (Several of them worked for my former employer in our Canadian stores in both Calagary and Toronto.) I DO know US people who went to Mexico, Costa Rica and even India for medical care. I don't mean 'know of' or heard about, I mean personally know. I am not throwing anecdotes or empty statistics. I am talking real people with real medical problems who had to make a choice in whether to get medical treatment, sell their house (assuming they could have sold it when they needed the treatment), or to just give up. Not one of them considered going to Canada and they could not afford it here. Lose-lose in my book. As far as my statement about Canada being more socialist than the US, I stand by it. One thing I should have done was differentiate between political socialism, economic socialism and socialistic programs. For that I apologize. Neither the US nor Canada has an openly socialist political system. (Although the US is at the closest it has ever come with Obama at the helm. He believes, despite some rhetoric to the contrary that he throws out at times, that the government is responsible for providing for its people. He wants the US government to be the employer of the majority of people or he would not be all about creating more government agencies and departments for jobs. He would free that $$ up for small business owners and business expansion.) Until 1950 Canada was much more socialist than it is today. It was under Brian Mulroney Canada that began adopting free market policies. Whether that movement from the 50’s will continue is up for grabs since in 2011 the social democratic party the New Democratic Party gained a significant number of seats in the Canadian federal election. That party now controls roughly 1/3 of the federal seats in Canada.(102/308) That is certainly not true of the political system in the USA. Like Farmerart, we are small business owners. I wager we are even smaller than he because we employ only two employees currently. Sometimes that goes up if we need to hire someone for a short-term project but normally there are two - three of us. We would, by definition, be exempt from Obama-care because of our number of employees. I can’t really address how much more difficult or how expensive that health care plan would be from our perspective because we just don’t have any info on it yet. What I can tell you is how hard it was for a NON-Canadian company to be able to set up shop in Canada. I was on the team which did the assessments before we built our first store/warehouse in Calgary. Canada is not a free business country. For instance, if a US based/owned company goes into Canada, they cannot bring in more than x amount of their own employees. They must hire Canadians. The only exception is if the Canadian government will give them an exception for a field in which there are no Canadians remotely suitable for the job. In addition, if it is deemed acceptable to bring in a US worker to do the job, only one person in that family may work. The time that worker may stay in Canada to work is limited to 6-12 months (depending on the field). The length of time is whatever is determined by the Canadian government to be necessary to train a Canadian to do the job. That is not a free market policy. As a general rule, countries built on the French revolution philosophy of “"Egalité, Liberté, Fraternité" – which overthrew absolutism and ushered industrialization into French society, are promoted as essentially socialist societies despite the fact that they have had to adopt at least some free-market strategies. Thanks for an interesting and non-name-calling discussion. Mrs m00tpoint
  • Prim0
    •
    12 years ago
    This has to be the most intelligent conversation ever held here on TUSCL...except perhaps the discussions on whether or not you like shaved pussies. LOL
  • JacksonEsskay
    •
    12 years ago
    Prim0: LOL! I agreee 100%. Otto22 "It is kind of like trying to build a church for atheists." I hope you don't mind, but I am going to use that in a future debate. Great anology.
  • Tiredtraveler
    •
    12 years ago
    The real problem is that the more money the government steals from us the more they look around for things to regulate to justify the money they take. It is a viciuos circle. The older I get the Libertarian I become. BUTT out. If a girl wants to take off her clothes for a living or even sell it that living is light years more honest than anything associated with Washington DC. I say take away the money from DC and the whores there will have to find another way to live. Ol Barney Frank will have to go back to two bit bj's LOL. Give my money back and I will share some of with a poor impoverished dancer on more regular basis.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Jackson lol....that's what I've kinda started in my home town a church for the outsiders lol ! Moot don't foget psalms 14:2-3 "The lord looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if there is even one with real understanding, one who seeks God. But no, all have turned away from God; all have became corrupt. No one does good, not even one !" NLT But let's not forget Romans 11:32-36 "But some day they too will share in Gods mercy. For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone !.....Oh, what a wonderful God we have ! How great are his riches and wisdom and knowledge ! How impossible it it for us to understand his decisions and methods! For who can know enough to be his counselor ? And who could ever give him so much that he would have to pay back ? For everythang comes from him: everythang exists by his power and is intended for his glory. To him be glory evermore. Amen." NLT
  • m00tpoint
    •
    12 years ago
    Juice - You got confused here. It is not about DOING good or bad but BEING good or bad. One is a state of birth and one takes an act on our part. I am sure this is a theological difference that will escape many. Along the lines of being able to participate in one's own salvation..... And I agree with Tiredtraveler, nothing that comes out of Washington is honest. Doesn't matter which party is spewing it - it's all pretty much crap. Just have to determine which crap is more palatable and swallow hard.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    I love both you moots and I'm glade to have some strip club theology friends ! :b
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    And no I'm not confused I believe in the birth defect but I also believe in universal salvation on an unconditional basis not conditonal....so wither one believes or does not its all good in the end ! Witch is y I quated romans : )
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    But then agaain I give myself some play with my bible....its called the write your own bible lol ! That was a good one but so fuckin true !
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    "For instance, if a US based/owned company goes into Canada, they cannot bring in more than x amount of their own employees. They must hire Canadians." To be honest, I don't think this is such a bad idea.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    So if johnny is driving his ford f150 60mph and sally is makeing lunch at 12pm....what time does johnny need to leave work ???
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    The only bible reading I ever focused on was Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Two books with some practical-for-modern-day stuff.
  • Cheo_D
    •
    12 years ago
    Part of our problem is that too often Joe Citizen "wants a smaller government" that restricts HIM less, but he wants it to focus its reduced resources on restricting "those other guys who do bad things" more.
  • m00tpoint
    •
    12 years ago
    Juice - it is a bad idea if you are a business that has made your name on exceptional customer service. When you go into another country you can't count on a totally new staff to understand from a customer service perspecive your expectations. That in turn impacts your brand recognition in more than the new country in this day because of the internet. Or the customers that supported your US based company don't have the same experience now that they are being served in theirs. Lose-Lose Cheo - agree that is some of it. Oh, and Juice, what time Johnny needs to leave depends on how far it is from the SC where he usually stops in before lunching....and how afraid he is of pissing off Sally if he is late. :-)
  • JohnBuford
    •
    12 years ago
    "That government is best which governs least."...Henry David Thoreau (although often attributed to Thomas Jefferson).A quick story.Prior to going to law school my daughter worked as para-legal in a big,"buton down" law firm.If an attorney had a deposition/court date the next day she was required to work until the attorney was satisfied that he/she was ready.If that meant my daughter working unto 10 or 11 pm,so be it.(The firm would give her a limo ride home and not require she come in until noon the following day).She is now in her last year of law school and this summer interned for the Department of Commerce in [view link] night she stayed until 7 to get a project finished,only to be "scolded" the next day for "working late." And that in a nutshell is how and why private industry always trumps government in terms of efficency and getting the job [view link] 5pm a civil servant will drop the pen if they're signing their name.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    M00t I've got no clue what you r saying on the first part ??? But on the second part that was fuckin epic girl ! Good one !
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Deo those r very good books man and if one can take the christian views out of those books and just look at them from jewish ideas so those books proverbs and the preacher gets even better !
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    Christian, Jewish, Islamic... all the same thing in my mind...
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Deogol I agree and its y I study and teach as if it is all the same...........brothers from other mothers :b
  • mjx01
    •
    12 years ago
    Federal government exist to: 1) Protect against all threats foreign and domestic (examples: put murders in jail, and obilerate countries or 'groups' that pull pearl harbour's or 9/11's on us). But at the same time are prohibited from using these powers to opress peaceful lawabiding citizen. Whether you like it or not, this does necesital a strong and probably large military. 2) Provide infastructure (as in interstate highways, ports, boarder crossing, air trafic control) that are beyond the legal and logistical and financial means of local/state governments. 3) "to make regular" NOT "to regulate." cir. September 17, 1787, the commerce clause was intended to give power to provide a level playing field. If 'State A' was selling corn to "State B" and 5 cent pern bushel, then then "State A" could not refuse to sell (make regluar commerce) with "State C" and the price of the corn for "State C" would have to be comparable to the price for "State B" (with room of course for difference in things like delivery costs.) No politician and not even the supreme court understands this anymore. 4) Allow there citizen to be free. Not everyone is going to agree 100% on everything, but the government needs to support tolerance and not micro-management. Any power not explicitly given to the federal government by the people (via the states) remains with the states.
  • thesamurai
    •
    12 years ago
    libertarian ideals are severe minority and always will be because deep down, more people than not want to be one of two things: 1. controlled 2. controlling Wanting neither 1 nor 2 is rare. People admitting to wanting 1 or 2 is even more rare. Actions, however, speak louder than words. The Libertarian party is a farce and can't be taken seriously by anyone who hasn't smoked a joint in the last 2 hours.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    If 2 waas going into 4 and 3 was takeing from 4 what the fuck am I left with ?
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    Well said mjx01. Why is this so difficult for so many "smart" people to understand.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    12 years ago
    @motorhead: It is not now, nor has it ever been, about the "smart" people understanding the principles of true liberty. See thesamurai's item number 2. The controllers understand it perfectly. *Following* those principles is not the way to power and control.
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    This is all that needs to be said: Today Michelle Obama announced new rules for government subsidized lunch programs. Now, I'm not 'anti-healthy eating', but I don't think the framers of the Constitution had this in mind for the role of the Federal Government.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    12 years ago
    But...it's for the *children*!
  • Clubber
    •
    12 years ago
    motor, Seriously, do you think the framers had 99% of what the Federal government does these days, "in mind"?
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    Clubber No
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    "This is all that needs to be said: Today Michelle Obama announced new rules for government subsidized lunch programs. Now, I'm not 'anti-healthy eating', but I don't think the framers of the Constitution had this in mind for the role of the Federal Government. " I don't think the framers of the constitution had the wife of the president in mind with that much power. That said, time does roll by. However, it is never considered by the media or the voter that electing the president is a package deal. We never hear about the views of their wives.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Hello ? I asked a fuckin question ? Smart asses ! :p
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    Do you ever wonder if the president misses going to strip clubs? If I was the prez, it would be like, fuck it. I'm gonna see some puss tonight.
  • MADDOG_ROMEO
    •
    12 years ago
    juice, answer.........a threesome
  • Leonard313
    •
    12 years ago
    Libertarianism is a BAD idea. Well, it's a good idea if you're rich and own a lot of land. But otherwise...bad idea. Libertarianism is nothing but a new, fancy way of saying "Aristocracy"...but without the Kings and Queens and Courts. But it's the same thing. And the reason that type of society failed, is that when power and money are so narrowly owned, the majority will revolt. Libertarians are quick to say they want no government...but when 10,000 starving citizens are breaking into their ranch...they want an army to protect them and their "stuff". So they usually say, "but we do believe in paying for a defense budget". Libertarianism is just a step towards anarchy. It's the step where the few rich hold a great deal of power over the poor. It erases the middle class, which is the backbone of democracy...and ultimately leads to "might is right"...which ends in chaos. To hear someone who makes 20 million a year complain that they pay 27% in taxes...when the average person won't see a million dollars in their lifetime...is like hearing a hot chick complain about the attention they get when they go out in public. If you want to pay less taxes, feel free to be poor. You want to avoid capital gains, store your money in a cookie jar making 0% interest.
  • m00tpoint
    •
    12 years ago
    Leonard313, some of what you say is valid. However, asserting that the average person won't see a million dollars in their lifetime is simply erroneous. In order to have earned a million dollars, for instance, at age 25 if one begins saving a modest $300 a month one will have saved a million dollars by age 65. By age 35 one would need to save around $800 a month. So, from what a lot of people post on here, simply take the $ you are dropping at the clubs and invest it and you will be there. And most who make 20 million don't pay 27%. Don't know where you got your figures or if you are just spouting liberal media BS but we don't make anywhere near that and we are in the 33% bracket. (which btw begins at around 250,000.) If they are in the 27% bracket with that kind of income, I wanna know who their accountant is so I can hire 'em. mrs m00tpoint
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Damn straight MD!
  • Leonard313
    •
    12 years ago
    Hey moot...call up Romney. He made nearly 50 million and paid just under 15%. But I 'm hesitant to bring that up because it may let Herman Cain come in and start going ballistic about the need for flat tax. I mean, Cain must have an account here!
  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    "Do you ever wonder if the president misses going to strip clubs?" If I hear right, JFK didn't go to the strip club, the strip club came to him. (Same with Bill C.)
  • Clubber
    •
    12 years ago
    JFK = Marilyn Clinton = Monica Seems to be a clear winner here!
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion