Topic: Liberals & Libertarians unite!
started by: damien_s_lucifer
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 06 2002,00:46
I figured this topic needed to be discussed more, but not in the New Front Page thread.First, let me say that every Libertarian I’ve spoken with has impressed me with their dedication to equality, freedom, and individuality. The Conservatives repeatedly claim that they are the ones who are dedicated to these principles, and that Liberals are a threat to these things, but our respective actions clearly demonstrate otherwise.
When was the last time you saw a Liberal trying to restrict abortion, push “deviant” sexuality back into the closet, or make this a Christian country?
Liberals believe, just as Libertarians do, that such things infringe upon the natural rights possessed by every human being. Certainly you can find many ideas proposed by us that have not lived up to the high standards we set for ourselves, but all this means is that we make mistakes – just like all human beings do.
The difference between us and the Conservatives is that Liberal/Libertarian ideas, however misguided, are intended to level the playing field and reinforce individual freedom. Conservatives want to reinforce those inequalities, and introduce new ones to restrict the freedom of those "other, lesser" people - whoever they don't like at the time - to the benefit of their egos and their pocketbooks.
Take “political correctness,” for example. At the heart of political correctness is a genuine desire to correct certain inequalities that exist. Whatever the reason, at the present time is IS harder for women and minorities to make it in this country. Unfortunately the whole Political Correctness movement has decided that these inequalities must be corrected by force – and that is precisely where they cross the line from being Liberals to being left-wing radicals.
Liberals adore the idea of a level playing field, but NOT at the expense of restricting individual rights. The idea is to create a society where everyone gets to do pretty much anything they want, as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights.
When it comes right down to it, Liberals and Libertarians have the same core principles, we just differ on the implementation. That disagreement is a good thing, and debate is absolutely necessary if we are to figure out the REAL best way. Both of us are often naďve, but in opposite ways – liberals often want to have our government do too much, and libertarians often want it to do too little. By having both sides working as a whole, each one checking the other, we can find the middle way.
As for gun control – I have no problem with people owning guns, so long as they aren’t going to use them to commit crimes. I believe the Founding Fathers had the same idea in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment – remember, the opening clause is “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Certainly their intent was not about letting ANYONE get a gun AT ANY TIME for ANY REASON. Even the military doesn’t allow their soldiers to grab everything they can get their hands on, and for good reason. They know it’s foolish and a prescription for anarchy.
Our best bet is to do our best to keep guns out of the hands of those who need a gun to commit their crimes, while simultaneously ensuring that hunters, collectors, hobbyists, and ordinary people who want a gun for defense purposes can get one with as little hassle as possible. That, to me, is a “well-regulated Militia.” It is not an easy problem to solve, and it will take many years and a lot of arguing, but I think we can do it.
Anyway, the gun issue is not something that should splinter us. Not while tyrants still roam the Earth.
Posted by chmod on Mar. 06 2002,01:05
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 05 Mar. 2002,16:46) |
First of all, let me say that I definitely consider myself a libertarian. But I dont think you can say that liberals and libertarians are similar in there beliefs... in fact I would be offended to be associated with liberals. Just because they support free speech, equality, etc, doesnt make them similar, why would any political party NOT support those things??!!?
| Quote |
| When it comes right down to it, Liberals and Libertarians have the same core principles, we just differ on the implementation. |
No freaking way. The "core principles" are completely opposite in nature.
Libertarians: Restrict the influence of the government and keep it small, efficient, so as not interfere with people's lives and let things work they do, because it's not the governments job to make your life fair for you.
Liberals: Extend the powers of the government, make it bigger, more expensive, pass a lot of legislation that tries to make life fair for everyone (which is not possible, mind you).
It's as simple as that. Here's a perfect example of a fundamental difference:
Libertarians: GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX
Liberals: Leave the taxes where they are, despite the fact that they are at their highest since World War 2 and we allow such a huge percentage of it to go to waste.
Second of all, I don't think its fair to claim that conservatives are the cause of all these bad things, and that liberals haven't done anything wrong. Let me make it VERY clear that liberals have a history of wasting BILLIONS of tax dollars (if you really want more proof of this, although i think its obvious enough already, I can provide it. Oh-ho-ho, yes.).
Theres more, too.
| Quote |
Our best bet is to do our best to keep guns out of the hands of those who need a gun to commit their crimes, while simultaneously ensuring that hunters, collectors, hobbyists, and ordinary people who want a gun for defense purposes can get one with as little hassle as possible. |
Libertarians believe that any citizen has the right to own a gun. If any law-abiding citizen wishes to own a gun, then that's perfectly fine. If a criminal who has served his time in prison wishes to own a gun, that's fine too, because as far as the law is concerned he has paid his debt to society and is entitled to all the same rights as everyone else.
| Quote |
Take “political correctness,” for example. At the heart of political correctness is a genuine desire to correct certain inequalities that exist. Whatever the reason, at the present time is IS harder for women and minorities to make it in this country. Unfortunately the whole Political Correctness movement has decided that these inequalities must be corrected by force – and that is precisely where they cross the line from being Liberals to being left-wing radicals. |
I'm not exactly sure if you're really saying that libertarians are "left-wing radicals." Because if you are, then... that's ridiculous. They couldn't be any further from that.
Libertarians believe that the government should not be expected to "level the playing field," (none of this affirmative action bullshit) but simply to protect the basic rights of every citizen on an equal level.
| Quote |
| The difference between us and the Conservatives is that Liberal ideas, however misguided, are intended to level the playing field. Conservatives want to reinforce those inequalities, and introduce new ones - to the benefit of their egos and their pocketbooks. |
That is such an unfair and one-sided thing to say. Liberals are no better than conservatives in this respect and anyone who tells you otherwise is nuts.
I hate to say this, but it sounds to me like you're more into bashing Conservatives and kissing Liberal ass than you are about Libertarianism....
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 06 2002,01:18
Congratulations... you have just shown that not only did you barely even pay attention to what I wrote, you have no concept of Libertarianism or Liberalism, nor do you have any concept of taxation.Libertarians : The Personal Income Tax is unfair, and reduces personal incentive. Other means of income should be found.
Liberals : Lowering taxes right now would plunge the government into debt, which is hardly productive. Find ways to make the government more efficient, slash the pork projects, and then lower taxes when it's financially viable. (Clinton and Gore went a long way towards this goal, by the way.)
Conservatives : Hey, look, everyone! When we get into office, we give out free money! Don't think about the long term consequences! Vote for us!
Posted by chmod on Mar. 06 2002,01:27
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 05 Mar. 2002,17:18) |
| Congratulations... you have just shown that not only did you barely even pay attention to what I wrote, you have no concept of Libertarianism or Liberalism. |
Ok, can you elaborate on that? I think i did a pretty decent job, and I don't see how my understanding of Liberals or Libertarianism is in any way incorrect. But if you can prove otherwise, please do....
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 06 2002,01:28
<debate>| Quote |
| When was the last time you saw a Liberal trying to restrict abortion |
Maybe they should. Is a woman's right to evacuate the human parasite in her uterus more important than the right of that fetus to live? These same hypocrites bitch and moan when they hear of people droping shampoo into puppies' eyes in the name of testing product safety (a worthy endevour), but think a woman should have the right to kill a life, a HUMAN life at that, at any time for any reason.
| Quote |
| Liberal/Libertarian ideas, however misguided, are intended to level the playing field and reinforce individual freedom |
At the cost of reverse discrimination and handouts disguised as "affirmative action", and forcing alternative culture down our fucking throats.
| Quote |
| The idea is to create a society where everyone gets to do pretty much anything they want, as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights. |
The real idea is to create a society fashioned after the cultural/ethical/moral beleifes of the left, where anyone can do whatever the hell they want, so long as they agree with liberal thinking.
| Quote |
| I believe the Founding Fathers had the same idea in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment – remember, the opening clause is “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Certainly their intent was not about letting ANYONE get a gun AT ANY TIME for ANY REASON. |
The 2nd amendmant was written during a time when hunting rifles owned by a signifigant portion of the populations had pretty much the same kill potential at medium/short range as top grade military weapons. Chances are, your aim with that gun was just as good as any soliders. Gun control was a moot point.
The whole spirit of the 2nd ammendmant was "we will not limit the right of americans to bear arms, because this is not a police state, and we're not going to rule by force."
America was founded by pot-smoking alcoholics who were paranoid of "the man" comming down on them. If the 2nd amendmant was implemented as originaly intended, i'd be able to drive a tank down the street. No where in the 2nd amendmant does it say that only militias could own firearms..... And why is it that militias arent allowed to use any weapons that ordinary citizens are not? A militia minus military grade weapons is no militia.
</debate>
Posted by chmod on Mar. 06 2002,01:36
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 05 Mar. 2002,17:18) |
| Congratulations... you have just shown that not only did you barely even pay attention to what I wrote, you have no concept of Libertarianism or Liberalism, nor do you have any concept of taxation. Libertarians : The Personal Income Tax is unfair, and reduces personal incentive. Other means of income should be found. Liberals : Lowering taxes right now would plunge the government into debt, which is hardly productive. Find ways to make the government more efficient, slash the pork projects, and then lower taxes when it's financially viable. (Clinton and Gore went a long way towards this goal, by the way.) Conservatives : Hey, look, everyone! When we get into office, we give out free money! Don't think about the long term consequences! Vote for us! |
Liberals don't want to lower taxes because they love wasting our money, not because they think it will put the country in debt. If they really wanted to keep the country out of debt, they would have tried to reduce the wasting of money in the government. And Liberals have never been about making the government more efficient, its QUITE the opposite!
| Quote |
| (Clinton and Gore went a long way towards this goal, by the way.) |
You're joking, right? Tell me you're joking! Clinton and Gore did a great job of spending lots of money without much to show for it. $125 Billion spent on education, and %60 of poor kids in 4th grade can't read. 5 Billion misplaced by the Department of Agriculture. Another billion sent to Haiti, completely unaccounted for by the GAO. Great job, Al & Bill.
I think you need to get your facts straight. The Liberals (Gore & Clinton) HAD their chance to reduce the debt but instead wasted lots of money, kept the government fat, big and inefficient, and let the country suffer as a result.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 06 2002,01:41
| Quote |
| Liberals : Lowering taxes right now would plunge the government into debt, which is hardly productive. Find ways to make the government more efficient, slash the pork projects, and then lower taxes when it's financially viable. (Clinton and Gore went a long way towards this goal, by the way.) |
Never once have i heard a liberal talk about governmental fiscal responsibility. NEVER.
here's how i see it:
Libritartians: Tax is a nesicary evil. Lets try to reduce it as much as possible, and make it as fair to everyone as possible.
Liberals: Our society could not operate without the government agencies that tax dollars fund. We must keep the esential programs running at any cost.
Conservatives: Lowering taxes boosts the econemy, which raises tax revenues. Combine this with spending cuts in unnessicary places, and we can have our cake and eat it too.
All 3 sides make valid points.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 06 2002,01:49
chmod, my response to you was rather rash... but hey, it sounded good 
No, I wasn't calling Libertarians "left-wing radicals", I was saying the people who push through P.C. crap are left-wing radicals.
Your summarization of liberals (more gov't, more rules, etc.) is a very common belief, but it's one that has been carefully crafted by conservatives.
As for my attack on the conservatives - I don't consider what are often called "fiscal conservatives" (Bob Dole et al) to be conservatives at all. They're usually Libertarian in nature, and in many ways they are the opposite of a true Conservative.
Your thoughts on taxation and government spending are understandable... a billion dollars is a lot of money. On the other hand, it's approximately 0.03% of the federal budget. It's like losing a nickel. And things *regularly* go missing in accounting, regardless of who's running the ship. Even in a small company, money gets spent on so many different things that it is damn near impossible to track it all. When you compare gov't accounting to business accounting, you'll find that the gov't actually knows more about where there money goes than anyone else.
Education was declining long before Clinton took office. He may not have turned it around and made is fly like an eagle, but he DID slow the rate of decline.
As for Clinton/Gore's work to make the gov't more efficient, you might want to get a good pro-Clinton book on the subject. You've heard a lot of the anti-Clinton rhetoric, so you may as well balance it out with some pro-Clinton stuff... and remember, you ain't gonna find ANYTHING unbiased on the subject, you'll have to get all the facts and make up your own mind.
BlackFlag : there are a lot of people, including me, that don't think a blob of cells is a "human life". That question is very much undecided.
As far as "forcing alternative culture" down your throat, we're not doing that at all. What we're doing is saying that we don't give a fuck what your morals, values, and beliefs are, so long as you're not out stealing shit, killing people, or trying to force your "bonus" morals on everyone else. In this society there are some basic values that are necessary for our safety, and we will enforce those, but otherwise you can do whatever the hell you want.
And we don't HAVE to force "alternative" culture on anyone. People are naturally deviant
If you don't like it, feel free to complain all you want.
Posted by chmod on Mar. 06 2002,01:49
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 05 Mar. 2002,17:41) | ||
Never once have i heard a liberal talk about governmental fiscal responsibility. NEVER. here's how i see it: Libritartians: Tax is a nesicary evil. Lets try to reduce it as much as possible, and make it as fair to everyone as possible. Liberals: Our society could not operate without the government agencies that tax dollars fund. We must keep the esential programs running at any cost. Conservatives: Lowering taxes boosts the econemy, which raises tax revenues. Combine this with spending cuts in unnessicary places, and we can have our cake and eat it too. All 3 sides make valid points. |
BlackFlag is absolutely correct. Although Liberals and Conservatives sometimes take those beliefs to ridiculous extremes.
But anyways. Going back to the topic at hand, I don't think you really get the whole idea of Libertarianism, dsl, which is this: The government keeps its interference with its peoples lives to a minimum, and simply provides for the basic rights (civil liberties, equality, freedom, etc) and makes sure that these rights do not inhibit those of anyone else. That's IT. You could really go on and on about how this is similar to liberals and conservatives suck if you want to, but that's just pointless. Libertarians are greatly different from BOTH Liberals and Conservatives. It's that simple.
Edit:
Another thing, I just saw your other post:
| Quote |
| Your summarization of liberals (more gov't, more rules, etc.) is a very common belief, but it's one that has been carefully crafted by conservatives. |
Not really. It's been proven time and again to be as accurate as they say it is. I could offer evidence, but that's not what we're talking about here, start a thread if you feel like it.
Its like this. If you asked a liberal if those things about them were true (bigger gov't, waste money etc.) they would deny it and say that its conservative propaganda. If you asked a conservative if he believed in restricting freedom because of abortion, whatever, he would say it's liberal propaganda.
They're BOTH right. Both sides will put spin on things like that to cover up the truth, sometimes. But we all know that already.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 06 2002,02:05
A blob of cells is not human life. But what about a 1 month old fetus? How about a 2 month old fetus? 3? 4? I admitt that its hard to draw the line beween humanity and cellular life, but liberals don't even try. They think a woman should be able to walk into a clinic, and get 8 lbs. of human sucked out of her birth canal by a vacume tube mere hours before she's due to deliver. Have you ever seen pictures of partial birth abortions? I've seen plenty of shit on rotten.com and other gore sights, but pictures of partial birth abortions make me litteraly fucking sick.If you shoot a pregnant woman and the baby dies, in some states, that's homicide. Kill them both, double homicide. Go through medical school, and you can kill as many babies as you want. God bless America/Babylon the Great who shall soon be falling a la Revelations.
(no, im not a religious right wing nut, but exposure to leftist bullshit propeganda tends to put me in counter-propeganda mode.)
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 06 2002,02:05
I am now waiting for more thoughtful voices to weigh in...the problem may be the term "Libertarian" itself. I forgot that there are two camps that call themselves "libertarian" - the watchdogs who believe the government's main role is to protect our rights and ensure a free market, and the Ayn Rand Objectivism nuts who blindly hate the government and worship the Invisible Hand of the Laissez-faire Economy.
The first (and much larger) group shares core values with liberals; the second group share core values with conservatives.
| Quote |
| They think a woman should be able to walk into a clinic, and get 8 lbs. of human sucked out of her birth canal by a vacume tube mere hours before she's due to deliver. |
This is simply not true. Nor do we not attempt to make any distinction; we just say that figuring out where to draw the line is extraordinarily complex.
Posted by chmod on Mar. 06 2002,02:09
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 05 Mar. 2002,18:05) |
| I am now waiting for more thoughtful voices to weigh in... |
I hope you weren't referring to me as the "less thoughtful"
I'd like to try and keep this topic from reverting to just abortion battle royale, or liberals vs. conservatives, because I find libertarianism interesting and it's a topic I wish other people knew more about.
Posted by sHuoReNviOLiN on Mar. 06 2002,02:10
Er...wasn't Clinton more of a fence-sitter as far as right/left-wing? I don't think he was -that- liberal...
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 06 2002,02:19
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 05 Mar. 2002,22:05) |
| Quote |
| we just say that figuring out where to draw the line is extraordinarily complex. |
"so we won't bother instituting any regulations that would make our female constituancy mad at us, when it could turn out to be the wrong decision anyway"
Meanwhile, infanticide continues at an alarming rate.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 06 2002,02:29
| Quote (chmod @ 05 Mar. 2002,18:09) |
| I hope you weren't referring to me as the "less thoughtful" I'd like to try and keep this topic from reverting to just abortion battle royale, or liberals vs. conservatives, because I find libertarianism interesting and it's a topic I wish other people knew more about. |
No... I meant some cooler heads than the two of us
Libertarianism IS very interesting. Some of the best political analysis is done by them, especially on things that trample individual rights. However, it is NOT the simple philosophy it's often represented as. More later, time to leave work...
Posted by Vigilante on Mar. 06 2002,03:43
Just had to chip in with a thumbs-up for abortion. Not only do I support it, I most sincerely encourage it. The fewer fetuses that come to term, the better.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 06 2002,22:43
populations control is a good thing, though i would suggest manditory government enforced sterilization of anyone with an IQ lower than 100 as the best place to start.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 06 2002,23:13
| Quote |
| damien_s_lucifer: Liberals : Lowering taxes right now would plunge the government into debt, which is hardly productive. Find ways to make the government more efficient, slash the pork projects, and then lower taxes when it's financially viable. (Clinton and Gore went a long way towards this goal, by the way.) |
Actually, the only places where Clinton and Gore really cut government spending were the CIA and the military. They set about to hamstring those bodies, and very nearly did. The truth about liberals and taxes is that liberals think rich people should pay extremely high taxes while they themselves pay nothing. They're also really fond of socialist government programs like welfare that give handouts instead of helping people so that they don't need to depend on the government.
| Quote |
| As for Clinton/Gore's work to make the gov't more efficient, you might want to get a good pro-Clinton book on the subject. You've heard a lot of the anti-Clinton rhetoric, so you may as well balance it out with some pro-Clinton stuff... and remember, you ain't gonna find ANYTHING unbiased on the subject, you'll have to get all the facts and make up your own mind. |
Actually the numbers themselves speak in a clear and unbiased manner. All one has to do is read Clinton's budget proposals and check out what funds he pushed where and there's a very straightforward assessment of Clinton's fiscal policy. Or do you consider the numbers on the economy published anually by the US government to be 'anti-Clinton'?
| Quote |
| Blackflag: Maybe they should. Is a woman's right to evacuate the human parasite in her uterus more important than the right of that fetus to live? These same hypocrites bitch and moan when they hear of people droping shampoo into puppies' eyes in the name of testing product safety (a worthy endevour), but think a woman should have the right to kill a life, a HUMAN life at that, at any time for any reason. |
You personally will never know what it's like to be pregnant when you don't want to be, or because you got raped, or have to live with the negative fallout that can bring. You don't get a say as to what happens when I go to see my doctor and the door closes. The day you're pregnant, you get to decide what 'reasons' you're willing to consider.
| Quote |
| If the 2nd amendmant was implemented as originaly intended, i'd be able to drive a tank down the street. |
The 2nd recognizes the right of the people to bear arms, not to own ordnance.
| Quote |
| A blob of cells is not human life. But what about a 1 month old fetus? How about a 2 month old fetus? 3? 4? I admitt that its hard to draw the line beween humanity and cellular life, but liberals don't even try. They think a woman should be able to walk into a clinic, and get 8 lbs. of human sucked out of her birth canal by a vacume tube mere hours before she's due to deliver. Have you ever seen pictures of partial birth abortions? I've seen plenty of shit on rotten.com and other gore sights, but pictures of partial birth abortions make me litteraly fucking sick. |
Abortion in the US is relatively unrestricted during the first trimester (3 months or about 12 weeks). During the second trimester, there are more restrictions in place and abortions are generally performed in hospitals under the review of multiple doctors. Third trimester abortions are already strictly regulated by law, and 'partial birth abortions' are performed only in instances where there is immediate serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman or there is no possibility of the fetus survivng (e.g. hydrocephalus, absent cerebellum and cerebrum). Liberals and pro-choice groups have opposed banning these procedures for two reasons.
1. There are instances in which this procedure saves the life of a woman who would otherwise die in a situation where not doing the procedure results in a dead woman - and the fetus still doesn't survive. If the fetus can survive, the usual option is to induce labor or perform a Caesarean section.
2. It's the 'nose under the tent' of abortion. One outright ban on performing a type of abortion, at all, paves the way for an outright ban on all abortions. This 'zero tolerance' policy would not take into account any medical risk to the pregnant woman, and in some cases mean her death. It's a slippery slope they just don't want to be on.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 06 2002,23:14
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 06 Mar. 2002,17:43) |
| populations control is a good thing, though i would suggest manditory government enforced sterilization of anyone with an IQ lower than 100 as the best place to start. |
Then I'm safe...
and you're not.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 06 2002,23:24
I can't possibly catch up, however:Lower taxes is not always good for the economy, you conservative fools. Has anyone studied macroeconomics except me?
The hard core por-life people aren't against abortions per se, they're against people having sex (ie. fun, pleasure) without consequences. This is why the don't support RU-486 either even though it should be their biggest push ever, becasue it makes having an abortion a nonexistant possibility.
Clinton and Gore were the first Pres./Vice to submit a viable balanced budget in a long time.
Education is this countries biggest problem (imho), and it will be until someone has the balls to give it more money. W.'s brother has consistantly given it a huge shaft in Florida, and W. didn't do so well in Texas. He can talk about it for 54215321 years, but that means shit. Give it more god damned money even if it is at the cost of a few precious laser guided missiles. Shit.
More on abortion: Saying "it looks human!" means nothing. Granted, I will never have an abortion, so I really think my opinion on the sunject means dick, but I will rant anyway. Some people look like a lot of things. If the woman wants an abortion, let her have it. If she winds up with some kid she doesn't want, it's just going to become a fuckup and continue the proccess. For the sake of humanity (not something that hasn't even took a breath yet), don't make people raise a kid to be a screwball if they don't have to. I don't give a fuck if that sound like "We no responsibilities!" because in ten years, I'll have to deal w/ that delinquent, or pull him off the pavement somewhere. Fuck that.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Mar. 06 2002,23:49
/me gets out lighter*schik*! Flame on! *fwoosh*
*carries lit lighter across country to detnet webserver*
I pronounce the Detonate.net Flamefest open!
*slings lighter into trash can*
Burn it, burn, Disco inferno!
Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 07 2002,00:03
In an ideal world I would be a socialist but the word isn’t and never will be, you have to look at what works and what doesn’t and socialism doesn’t. It’s best to be pragmatic. That is all I will say.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 07 2002,02:12
| Quote (ic0n0 @ 06 Mar. 2002,16:03) |
| In an ideal world I would be a socialist but the word isn’t and never will be, you have to look at what works and what doesn’t and socialism doesn’t. It’s best to be pragmatic. That is all I will say. |
Socialism works well for some things, and doesn't in others.
The biggest problem with socialist ideas is that there are too many people who see things strictly in terms of black and white. To them, if an economy isn't 100% laissez-faire capitalism, it's 100% socialist. There's no in-between.
This is bullshit, of course. It is entirely possible to implement some of the best Socialist ideas without becoming an entirely Socialist country. Most industrialized countries do this routinely, including the United States.
Consider the Interstate Highway System. The entire network is open to the public. It's owned by the people, and administered by the government.
This means we don't have to stop at tollgates to pay the owner of the road, and we don't have to shell out $$$ for the privelege of using someone else's road to get from point A to point B. Beyond that, because they don't have to worry about whether or not our roads are "profitable", highway engineers can pick the route a new highway will take based on such things as efficiency and safety, rather than how much $$$ it will make them.
Yes, we pay for our roads in the form of gasoline taxes, but we pay the cost of the roads instead of "whatever the market will bear." This has obvious advantages for everyone - the Interstate system ensures that shipping costs are kept low. This, in turn, helps ensure that goods find a wider market than they would otherwise, and everyone benefits.
Later, I will dive into the term "Free Market" and what I think that *really* means. (Hint : a well-regulated market allows much more freedom than an unregulated one.)
Posted by Uberkommando on Mar. 07 2002,04:35
Agreed. The interstate system, public transportation, and (occassionally) 'free' healthcare (as in Germany) are all good socialist institutions. I don't believe, however, that welfare and social security are any good. At all. I don't think that I should pick up the bill for some tanked-up trailer-park wanker just because his pride prevents him from working at the 7-11. Now, if that wanker's momma has appendicitis, sure, I'll shell out a couple bucks so the lady can live.In conclusion: legalize weed! Legalize prostitution! Legalize euthanasia! Legalize abortion! Hooray for the Netherlands!
Posted by veistran on Mar. 07 2002,06:56
While on the topic of politics...It was a shrewd move by W. to propose the steel tariff's, they basically don't apply to 90% of the imported steel and in four years will be completely gone, but they win tons of political "points" for him and his party.
As far as abortion, hey whatever, I think they should give the aborted fetus to the mother in a jar.
As far as capitalism, I'm not fond of capitalism, I'm a free enterprise person myself. The difference of course being free enterprise is about the best product winning and capitalism is more about the company with the most money(capital) winning.
Liberals-Conservatives, both want to mandate societal norms that fit their specific view of how things should be, neither are right and the attempts by both piss me off equally.
I think the biggest problem with most socialiasm programs is that they give money out to the wrong people or they tend to be abused as handouts. whereas they should be just giving a hand to someone who's down on their luck/whatever and need some extra money because their shit is so fucked up and without it they'd never get it in order.
Posted by askheaves on Mar. 07 2002,08:24
As time has passed, I've come to realize a simple truth about myself... i'm a Pragmatic Libertarian. Meaning, of course, that I ideally hold the beliefs of the Libertarian, but I understand where they fall through in the real world... making me strive to get as close as possible to those.A libertarian basically believe's government's role is as such:
To uphold the basic rights of the people to life, liberty and property.
To provide for the people those things that they are unable or unwilling to provide themselves.
They basically adhere to the Social Contract of John Locke... the government provides protection of our rights and public goods, while we pay taxes, give loyalty, and participate in the protection of the country.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 07 2002,23:18
Askheaves, your definition of "pragmatic Libertarian" is what I usually consider to be simply Libertarian.Seems to me that Libertarians can be split into two camps :
1. Libertarian as askheaves and I have defined it - a pragmatic approach to government that focuses on protecting individual rights, maximizing the freedom of the people, and a free market economy.
2. Libertarians who are more properly called Objectivists - a dogmatic approach to government that proclaims that the ONLY role of government is basic protection of individual rights. Objectivism believes that a laissez-faire economy is the only "moral" economic system, and that the government should NOT interfere with the market whatsoever.
It's group #1 that i think should unite with the liberals, in order to fight group #2. Dogma sux0rs.
As for a "free market" - a FREE market is one in which everyone has the right to participate. That doesn't mean that the government should stay the hell out - in fact, one of the roles of the government is to GUARANTEE the right of participation by limiting certain business practices that create barriers to entry.
There are some market segments where the market just isn't going to do what we want - for example, it is unlikely that there will ever be a private company that provides medical insurance to everyone at an affordable price. Businesses aren't there to lose money.
Yet a healthy workforce is essential to a strong and free market-driven economy, so here is an area where the government can and should step in.
I'm all for universal health care. It's going to take a long time, though, to figure out a damn good system that provides decent basic health care without running the entire market... some way where you can elect to use private health insurance rather than public and not get totally reamed for it.
At the moment, I think our best bet is to borrow an idea from the Europeans and allow pharmacists to prescribe and dispense certain drugs, as well as provide certain medical tests. i.e. when you have a sore throat, they could swab it, see what kind of infection you have, and give you the right medication for it. You'd still have to pay for the test and the drugs, but it would save you a $65 doctor visit.
This idea would cost the taxpayers very little, and would save them lots of $$$ in the long run. It would probably result in a net gain in terms of healthcare quality, simply because more people would be willing to seek treatment for "minor" things.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 08 2002,02:31
| Quote |
| You personally will never know what it's like to be pregnant when you don't want to be, or because you got raped, or have to live with the negative fallout that can bring. You don't get a say as to what happens when I go to see my doctor and the door closes. The day you're pregnant, you get to decide what 'reasons' you're willing to consider. |
Ok, since i don't have a uterus, i can't possibly have a valid opinion about abortion? Bullshit. I don't propose banning abortion all together. There are instances where abortion is nessicary and/or better for all parties concerned. What i don't agree with is the taking of a human life as a method of contraception. 99% of the girls (yes, a lot of them are girls) who get abortions need to just fucking shut their legs.
| Quote |
| The 2nd recognizes the right of the people to bear arms, not to own ordnance. |
You're missing the point. Tanks, mortar fire, grenades, guided missiles, etc. didn't exist when the constitution was drafted. Superior firepower meant having guns that could shoot a little farther and a little more accurately than the gun your dad shoots turkeys with. EDIT: And this was pointless anyway, when using good old nepoleonic phalanxes fireing in volies.
My point was the the 2nd amendmand states that the government will not limit the ability of private citizens to own weapons in an attempt to rule by force, since time and time again, de-arming the populace has been shown to be an ineffective way to prevent civil unrest and revolution.
For this purpose, tanks=guns=nuclear weapons=bb guns.
Anyway, the purpose of the 2nd amendmant was killed by the civil war, and even moreso by minor rebellions and revolts in subsequent years. The american people do not have the power to stage a coup, even if we needed to (and if you don't think we'll ever have to........)
| Quote | ||
Quote (BlackFlag @ 06 Mar. 2002,17:43)
Then I'm safe... and you're not. |
Really? My IQ's documented. If we started sterilizing everyone in the world, starting with the stupidest first, and working our way up the iq curve, i'd be in the last 1% to get my vascetomy. How about you?
Posted by Necromancer (deleted cookies doh on Mar. 08 2002,03:39
put all politicians on the minimum wage and THEN see how many stay in government saying they're in it to help the country. plus for the uk government they should sack most of the NHS admin so that the money can go to proper managment of the wards.
and in the US they should campaing on goddamn policies not on whether they can win a popularity contest!
Posted by Necromancer (ah where password?) on Mar. 08 2002,03:43
klang: whatever one of us you vote for we will still ruleperson: wait what if we vote for a third party?!
klang: ahahahaha as if that would ever happen
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 08 2002,21:37
Abortions for all!*yay!*
Posted by Vigilante on Mar. 09 2002,02:10
Booooooooooo!
Alright, abortions for none! Booooooooooo! Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others! Yaaaaaaaayyy!
Posted by chmod on Mar. 09 2002,02:34
Come on guys, get it right:Abortions for everyone!!! (boooooooo!)
ok......
Abortions for no one!!! (boooooooo!)
ok......
Abortions for some, miniature american flags for everyone!
yaay!!
DSL, let me ask you this... Why is it "liberals and libertarians" unite? Why not conservatives? Or both? I don't think they're any less similar. Liberals make mistakes too, you know. Conservatives are good too, also. So why all the liberal crap? I don't think it would be a very Libertarian thing to do by associating yourself with one group or the other.
edit: By the way, dsl, i went to a pinback show on wednesday. It totally kicked ass.
That is all.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Mar. 09 2002,03:21
IMO, the second amendment was created in need of revolution. if the ruling government gets a tad too... intrusive... (kinda like carnivore)The purpose was that the civillians should have the same power as the government does. Meaning, that when they limit my ability to buy an m16 Assault rifle, m60 GPMG, M1A2 Abrams Main battle Tank, or W-80 tactical nuculear warhead, they're infringing on my rights.
Back in revolutionary days, at my age, I could walk into my general store, and buy a musket. no license, if you had the cash, you could. a 4 year old could, and nobody'd get into trouble, as long as the kid didn't kill anyone.
To tell you all the truth, I'd like to see the US Government set up a small "colony" in the desert, sort of like a commonwealth. they should basically make it so that they can do as they please. I'd love it because they can fence off, and do whatever. like: bioengineering, and a mars mission. NASA would have a fit, because they would have to get off of their asses and and do _work_ because of competition.
The bioengineers could make a fast growing algae to increase oxygen in Mars's atmosphere.
The rocket scientists could create the rockets to get there, and the vehicles for human travel.
The tools are all there, but nobody's put them together.
Matched particle pairs for comms (change spin of one, the other changes too.).
Bone density loss? NP, calcium supplements. and those electric muscle toners, wired to the legs and spinal column bones. a little jolt now&then keeps the bones from 'decaying'.
Food? GM/GE foods. soy that tastes like "cow", coupled with bamboo growth genes. make a chicken and pork variety, and you have enough food for a long time.
Air? that same algae.
the two things that spur technology along are:
1: Wars
2: the threat of war. (or competition)
both are competition, the difference is, in 2, your best and brightest aren't dying in battle.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 09 2002,06:15
| Quote |
| The purpose was that the civillians should have the same power as the government does. Meaning, that when they limit my ability to buy an m16 Assault rifle, m60 GPMG, M1A2 Abrams Main battle Tank, or W-80 tactical nuculear warhead, they're infringing on my rights. |
A-FUCKING-MEN!!!! I've been saying this shit for years. Glad to see someone who actually UNDERSTANDS the 2nd amendment.
| Quote |
| the two things that spur technology along are: 1: Wars 2: the threat of war. (or competition) |
You forgot marketability. You think the computer revolution was really pushed along by the ex-hippie pot smoking geeks at apple? It was pushed forward by millions of idiot americans willing to buy personal computers that were less powerfull than a calculator i used to own.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 10 2002,01:44
How the fuck do you know how the second amendment is meant to be read?
Posted by Vigilante on Mar. 10 2002,02:56
Better to err on the side of individual freedom. 
However, it is fairly obvious that the original framers intended for the people to have the right and ability to overthrow their government, should it be ultimately necessary (they were doing just that, y'know). Make of that what you will.
Posted by sHuoReNviOLiN on Mar. 10 2002,04:23
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 07 Mar. 2002,13:31) | ||
|
Yeah, cuz that's all they had to bear arms for--hunting. When you find a turkey you need to use a Patriot missile on, let me know.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 10 2002,05:59
let's also remember Thomas Jefferson's exclusion... that government should NOT be overthrown for "light and transient causes."I don't think our government is going to go totalitarian on us for the forseeable future. Democracy, couple with checks and balances, works pretty damn well... considering all the idiots it has to deal with.
But I guess I should thank all those people who have died accidentally or intentionally at the hands of a gun for "taking one for the cause." After all, ideology is more important than not getting shot!
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,06:55
| Quote |
| Yeah, cuz that's all they had to bear arms for--hunting. When you find a turkey you need to use a Patriot missile on, let me know. |
found one.serously though, no one NEEDED a gun. It was and still should be a right. Big Brother is using creative legislation to keep us in our place. Where is our place? Paying taxes, and voting for one of the 2 candidates in the elections.
| Quote |
| I don't think our government is going to go totalitarian on us for the forseeable future. Democracy, couple with checks and balances, works pretty damn well... considering all the idiots it has to deal with. |
In the near future, probably not. In the forseeable future, yes. We are loosing more and more of our personal freedoms every year in the name of safety and complacency. Think about it.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,06:58
| Quote |
| How the fuck do you know how the second amendment is meant to be read? |
1. I can read. Its pretty self explanitory.
2. I payed attention in history class.
3. I watch The History Channel every chance i get.
4. I read a whole fuck of a lot.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 10 2002,15:57
thank you chmod and blackflag for not being idiots a few random comments:
| Quote |
| Your thoughts on taxation and government spending are understandable... a billion dollars is a lot of money. On the other hand, it's approximately 0.03% of the federal budget. It's like losing a nickel. And things *regularly* go missing in accounting, regardless of who's running the ship. Even in a small company, money gets spent on so many different things that it is damn near impossible to track it all. When you compare gov't accounting to business accounting, you'll find that the gov't actually knows more about where there money goes than anyone else. |
| Quote |
| Conservatives want to reinforce those inequalities, and introduce new ones to restrict the freedom of those "other, lesser" people - whoever they don't like at the time - to the benefit of their egos and their pocketbooks. |
you're such a fucking hypocrite. when conservatives pass economic legislation, it's to help their "oil buddies" get rich. when the clintons literally STEAL hundreds of thousands from the white house and illegal campaign contributions, it's an accounting error?
| Quote |
| there are a lot of people, including me, that don't think a blob of cells is a "human life". That question is very much undecided. |
ok, since we don't know exactly when to call it a human, let's just kill them all freely until we know for sure. is that right?
| Quote |
| Has anyone studied macroeconomics except me? |
you fool just because you took econ 100 at your local community college doesn't mean you know more then alan greenspan. supply-side economics WORKS. it's been proven. do you seriously think that those 8 years of economic prosperity during clinton's terms were his doing? certainly not! they were the result of reagan and bush's smart planning. the economic recession we are in now is the direct result of clinton's poor economic policy.
Posted by Bozeman on Mar. 10 2002,16:13
*sigh*AHEM.
Kang: Abortions for all!
Crowd: Booooooo!
Kang: Fine then, no abortions for anyone!
Crowd: Booooooo!
Kang: (pauses momentarily) Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Crowd: Yayyyyyyyyy!
There, I hope I cleared up this issue. What? Oh, I'm not going near the OTHER issue on this board, because I don't want to get caught up in another flamewar. That's why I stopped coming to detnet a year ago. However, I just can't let The Simpsons go misquoted. Have fun, and remember, there's a Simpsons quote for EVERY situation.
Posted by Nikita on Mar. 10 2002,17:34
| Quote (Bozeman @ 10 Mar. 2002,11:13) |
| Have fun, and remember, there's a Simpsons quote for EVERY situation. |
D'oh!
Posted by sHuoReNviOLiN on Mar. 11 2002,04:39
| Quote (CatKnight @ 10 Mar. 2002,02:57) |
| supply-side economics WORKS. it's been proven. do you seriously think that those 8 years of economic prosperity during clinton's terms were his doing? certainly not! they were the result of reagan and bush's smart planning. |
Reagonomics, as far as I understand, was trickle-down economics. For a perfect example of how well that works, I point at the Great Depression.
Posted by veistran on Mar. 11 2002,06:00
The Great Depression was caused by so many things, the biggest being, overexpansion of production well beyound the means of consumers, and the very bad distribution of wealth. Basically, there was too much crap, and not enough people with money to buy it. Other bad things included the massive speculation on the stock market, and poor monetary policy (tightening the money supply when they should've loosened it, loosening it when it was too late to make a difference). Basically it was a hundred different things that came together to cause the "great" depression. Also, don't forget that in the 100 years prior to that we had several "panics" as they were called, that were nearly as bad.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 11 2002,14:41
| Quote (sHuoReNviOLiN @ 10 Mar. 2002,15:39) | ||
Reagonomics, as far as I understand, was trickle-down economics. For a perfect example of how well that works, I point at the Great Depression. |
supply-side==trickle-down
it means you give tax breaks to buisnesses, which eventually make their way down, via profits, to workers and consumers. I don't know where you got the connection between reaganomics and the great depression. ww2 is what got us out of the depression, not rosevelt's new deal.