|
|
| What are you willing to do? |
| Something |
|
58% |
[ 7 ] |
| Anything |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| Nothing |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:13 pm
Fiddlers Green Katane... have you considered joining the Libertarian party? ninja What exactly would that entail besides having no chance at winning an election? I really don't know much about the minor parties.....
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:51 am
Katane What exactly would that entail besides having no chance at winning an election? I really don't know much about the minor parties..... Libertarians are scary as anything I've encountered. Charitable welfare? What a joke, that'll never happen. I know too many libertarians who only belong to that party because they have never had to experience poverty, and don't have any experience with it. They tend to think 'Oh, someone will step forward when we privatize all of the shelters, and free clinics, all of welfare, grants...' The only reason I have a chance at something other than being a cleaning maid somewhere is because the government gives me 25,000 every year so I can go to school. I'd step forward, true. But I have no money, and neither do many others who don't have homes but would help. Many libertarians sure wouldn't. Bastards. Some people need help and can't make it on their own, and the only institution large/wealthy enough to help out so many people is the government. Some libertarians might not be like that, but from what I can see they tend to be mid-upper class suberban, spoiled, educated babies, and I want to throw them all half-naked and peniless into the streets of New York to see how they like it. sweatdrop eheh. I'm sorry Fiddler, it's an old wound. Make them sound better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:51 am
Lasreaine... You want to throw the gauntlet.
Fine.
This Fox has fangs, and he will fight back.
~Snip~
Edit: You really got me angry.
I responded in a manner showing that fact.
I've been homeless, and I pulled myself out... I still don't get my disability from the VA.
If I, a cripple, can succeed on my own, I don't see why I should have to pull others up.
stare
*furiously devours chocolates to keep his bile under control*
Now, having said that....
The Libertarian Party wants to pull the Federal government back under control, allowing it only the authorities specifically stated in the Constitution. The other powers of governance fall to the state. The Libertarian party supports the ownership of private property, and wants an admendment to guarantee right to own property. We believe that most taxation should be levied only on finacial transactions, and that said tax revenue should only be used for things that benefit the whole of the body taxed. Roads, and some emergency services, mostly. We oppose welfare, Social Security, The US Patriot Act, and other Mandated Charity and Social Control mechanisms. We vehemently oppose Victimless Crime and other regulations on individual liberty, when said liberty does not infringe on anothers liberty.
That's the heart of the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:57 pm
*hides atop a bookcase*
I suppose an monarchy would be out of the question? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:07 pm
William Black *hides atop a bookcase* I suppose an monarchy would be out of the question? sweatdrop Eventually, ONE of them'll be insane or merely incompetent, and then you'd have to get all regecidal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 pm
Fiddlers Green Lasreaine... You want to throw the gauntlet. Fine. This Fox has fangs, and he will fight back. ~Snip~ Edit: You really got me angry.
I responded in a manner showing that fact.
I've been homeless, and I pulled myself out... I still don't get my disability from the VA.
If I, a cripple, can succeed on my own, I don't see why I should have to pull others up.I'm sorry Fiddler, I didn't mean to be so rude. I fight constantly with some students here, and it carried over. This has just always pissed me off, mostly because I've only encountered inexperienced people who believe what libertarians believe without any grounds in which to base it except their own avarice. That you have had the experience and have the opinion that you do makes it different, and very impressive that you have succeeded when odds were against you. It make sense why you should feel others must save themselves, because you were able to. This I understand, and respect. (Very much so, actually. We couldn't do it alone.) I simply cannot agree. I believe that as humans people have an obligation to each other, and that those who are better off should help those who can't quite make it on their own. To this I get the same response you mentioned 'If I can do it they can too.' But what if they can't? Who will help them? Do we just throw them out and let them die? That's very sad. I like there to be a 'safety net' for those that have had trouble in life. I don't mind paying extra money to ensure someone else a better life, I feel I have an obligation to help them out. I just think of when mother and I were in bad spots, and remember. If my grandparents had not been there, we would have been on the streets for quite some time. Sometimes we did not know where food was going to come from. It's scary, but I was too young to truly grasp how close we were to nothing but each other. She hid it well, and explained later. They took us in for a few years, and were all able to pool resources until mom got a better job. Mom always tried though, she never gave up. If people are trying to make their lives better, they should be given help. There are the lazy types that will try to leech off the system, but I believe that only those actively seeking employment get welfare. Having been in a hard spot, mother and I feel we should help those worse off than us. Those that don't have family to help them out need something, and even if we aren't much it's at least something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:11 pm
Heheh... in my zeal to over-react at a percieved slight, I forgot why I'm doing this.. sweatdrop
Ultimately, political parties probably aren't the answer, I know I personally take umbrage at the way much of the power in the nation must rest in the hands of a convention of power-mongers, rather than the voting populous.
As far as monarchy... I think it works only if that monarchy is kept in check by some assembly... otherwise it leads to regicides, such as Cromwell's murder of Charles II and the French Revolution. sweatdrop
Las, most of the Libertarians I've met, and work with are Self-made Men and Women... people who have gone from little (or nothing) to a stable life.
Personally, I like Socialism, and when it works, it's beautifull. Twere I to make a nation from scratch, it would be heavily socialized... however, in the U.S. , under our Constitution, it simply isn't feasible. Furthermore, the hideous abuses I've personally witnessed of welfare have left me bitter.
I help people when I can.
When I am forced to, I resent it... and resent them.
I have friends, and even family (tho we rarely get along) who may need my help, and if I want to enjoy the fruits of my work, I want to be able to.
Legislating morality is dangerous, and that is what state-enforced welfare seems like to me.
That having been said, what should a nation be required to provide for it's citizens?
And what should it be able to expect in return?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:11 pm
Continued from DYBIM: Axioma Personally, I think it's not the "today" that matters. Socialism working is not so much a matter of time as it is of place. Diffirent strokes for diffirent societies. There would simply be too much re-education neccesary, because the mindset has to be diffirent. Could you ever get SUV-driving Americans to accept a law that stated that only half the country can drive on certain days due to an energy crisis, with people with odd numbers and people with even ones being allowed to drive on alternating days? Or would they scream about how their very existance entitles them to driving those monstrosities? Exactly what I meant, yeah. 3nodding I should've added "in your (ie. Americans') society today" or something. But yeah, like how you can't just ban guns in the States now, since A) people would cry about their freedoms being taken away (of course, a lot of them didn't cry when other freedoms were taken away by the current government. Though to be fair, those freedoms didn't make loud noises and weren't shiny) and B) there are so many guns floating around by now that it wouldn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:55 pm
Fiddler, I think I'm too much of a Liberal to be a libertarian. I do believe in Social Security, I simply resent the fact that my salary must fund it, but there's a possibility I won't get the same benefits when I grow older. I also resent the fact that a state can take my money and spend it on something incredibly dumb (like Kansas' new state motto). I want my money to go towards filling in all the potholes in KC, personally. But I don't get any representation because I'm minor. Deep Vermillion But yeah, like how you can't just ban guns in the States now, since A) people would cry about their freedoms being taken away (of course, a lot of them didn't cry when other freedoms were taken away by the current government. Though to be fair, those freedoms didn't make loud noises and weren't shiny) If you're referring to the Patriot Act, trust me, there was plenty of screaming over that. I'm surprised that the issue hasn't appeared before the Supremem Court yet. (Or has it? I've been studying old court cases lately, I'm not too informed about more recent ones).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:12 pm
Katane If you're referring to the Patriot Act, trust me, there was plenty of screaming over that. I'm surprised that the issue hasn't appeared before the Supremem Court yet. (Or has it? I've been studying old court cases lately, I'm not too informed about more recent ones). Oh, there was some. But not enough. And certainly not as much as there'd be if the issue was guns. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:32 am
Katane If you're referring to the Patriot Act, trust me, there was plenty of screaming over that. I'm surprised that the issue hasn't appeared before the Supremem Court yet. (Or has it? I've been studying old court cases lately, I'm not too informed about more recent ones). Several articles got overturned... Currently, they seem to be aiming at mkaing the rest of the clauses indefinate, and removing the moritorium date on them. I don't think it has passed yet, tho. Considering several of the provisions in the Act give powers to the executive branch, which are reserved for the legislature, it would have to be an actual admendment to stick. As far as socialism in the United States, it is very hard to have anything like that, when the actuall governing document forbids the federal government from doing much of what it currently does anyway. Twere our constitution to be admended, I would support it. As is, I must oppose it. Under the constitution, it's mostly every man for himself... but that is the nature of capitalism. sweatdrop When I remake a nation from scratch, Healthcare, education, public transit, and most emergancy services will be socialised. In keeping with my idea of a nations purpose and responsibilities to it's people. Honestly, I think Jefferson was right... we do need a revolution (or other drastic revamping) every few decades to keep a government fresh and just. As the constitution is written, most of the power should lie with the states... we would look something like the German principalities, after the 30 Years War, and before the coming of Bizmark. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
