Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Libertarian Party was founded in Colorado. There are lots of "them" out here. They write op-ed pieces in the major newspapers on a regualr basis. I know most are opposed to public education. Some few actually believe in individual charity, but most are more for "sink or swim".
A8. How would libertarians fund vital public services? By privatizing them. Taxation is theft -- if we must have a government, it should live on user fees, lotteries, and endowments. A government that's too big to function without resorting to extortion is a government that's too big, period. Insurance companies (stripped of the state-conferred immunities that make them arrogant) could use the free market to spread most of the risks we now "socialize" through government, and make a profit doing so.
This would seem to be all inclusive.
Many of us are for a tax on land and other natural resources. The Geo-libertarian faction is the most consistent anti-force faction.
Maybe you can show me a link from the "Libertarian Manifesto" about that.
If you wish to educate yourself, I suggest you read the following written by Ron Paul. I suppose his stance could be considered the "Libertarian Manifesto," and certainly of relevance today, considering he is a strong candidate for President of the United States and is a Libertarian Constitutionalist.
The Libertarian Party was founded in Colorado. There are lots of "them" out here. They write op-ed pieces in the major newspapers on a regualr basis. I know most are opposed to public education. Some few actually believe in individual charity, but most are more for "sink or swim".
A8. How would libertarians fund vital public services? By privatizing them. Taxation is theft -- if we must have a government, it should live on user fees, lotteries, and endowments. A government that's too big to function without resorting to extortion is a government that's too big, period. Insurance companies (stripped of the state-conferred immunities that make them arrogant) could use the free market to spread most of the risks we now "socialize" through government, and make a profit doing so.
This would seem to be all inclusive.
I have no clue what that website is, and when I went to their homepage, they dont even have one..
I answered it, did you miss the period there as well? I'm just curious why you thought I'd support such a program.. did YOU also miss the ? at the end????
Do you mean this:
"I dont support sending billions in welfare around the world.. What on gods earth would make you think I would, especially Israel?"
I did not say that you did not answer, I replied to the above say it was only a question and yes you did answer and no there is a ? at the end of you above statement. Hope that cleared it all up. If I ask a question do not assume I plan on using it against you I was trying to see your stand on the issue, that was all, nothing more.
Casper
No. Libertarians believe that the poor and disabled can better be weeded out from the greedy and lazy by Local and State Governments than by Federal Government Control.
The problem with that argument is that local and state governments are more likely to know the people in question and/or their families. Then it becomes a case of who you know rather than how truly needy you are.
That's certainly how it works in this rural area, which is 98% white and the median age is 68. Many of the families who have been on assistance for decades would likely be cut from the dole if professionals and strangers examined their situation. People on welfare are hardly "greedy;" payments aren't that high. I've been in homes with dirt floors, with wood burning stoves fueled by wood culled from the local landfill, and known children whose one balanced meal a day is eaten at school. There are very few jobs and those positions tend to stay filled, so it's less "lazy" than it is a lack of opportunity. "Greedy" applies to people who already have money, and resent any of it being used to help people such as those I've described. Bush relied on the idea of "faith-based initiatives," but the stats show that religious entities didn't step in to fill the void created by cutting social services. In that sense, the OP is correct.
It's not cold-heartedness to deny people assistance when the people that "need" support have done nothing to prepare themselves for life nor exhibited any desire to exhaust the opportunities available to them. While I'm liberal on many social issues--and will always be--I draw the line on welfare and assistance to people who should know better. I'll gladly help pay for classes to teach them to how to handle their life issues, but then I already do that by paying for public education. I refuse to give out tax dollars to people who see welfare (in any of its forms) as a lifestyle.
However, I still see conservatives and libertarians as fairly heartless in their approach to things. For them it seems to be all business, but that's probably because they are thinking firstly of themselves. If conservatives would compromise and agree that we should slowly wean our masses off of the social net we have provided for them, then I think I'd be willing to see that they do indeed have a pulse. And they would zoom to the top if they became living examples of their beliefs on self-reliance and empowered those around them to do the same, but they seem hellbent on demonizing and treating everybody else like crap. It's a personality disorder then? They can't help but use terms like *******s on a daily basis?
Their collective denial of their heartlessness is astounding considering the overwhelming facts. They wouldn't have resorted to the Madison Avenue-inspired term "compassionate conservative" if they didn't already know their image was so dark. Part of me says that to have a bleeding heart is better than not having one at all, but neither option is terribly compelling.
I think you confuse libertarians and conservatives since conservatives use similar language. Libertarians believe in the principal of non-aggression, conservatives and liberals do not.
Libertarians are metaphorical communicators, they say things that to the majority concrete communicators sound heartless. A good way to understand libertarians in a different way to to listen for read Mary Ruwarts book Healing Our World.
Um.. Maybe you should be the one who re-reads what you quoted, and while you are doing it, open up a dictionary because there is a HUGE difference between
A) Welfare of the United States, and welfare of individuals
B) Individual welfare, and general welfare..
That line doesnt justify YOU being supported by the taxpayer.. I know some think they are of utmost important to the nation, but reality is you could die tomorrow, you could die tomorrow, you could starve tomorrow, and the nation wouldnt even miss you..
That line is for the Welfare of the UNITED STATES.. not YOU!!
Come back to me after you break open the dictionary and learn the difference between you.. and the United States
I am sure you are right and that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court just hasn't gotten around to declaring each of these programs unconstitutional just yet.
I disagree with the premise of the original article completely. There have been a number of studies that show people who self identify as conservative have much higher rates of charitable giving than those that self identify as liberal.
Why is that? I don't think it is to reduce their schedule A deduction, since giving to charity is always a net loss to your assets.
The difference with charitable giving vs. what many liberals want is that charitable giving is voluntary. They give because they want to, because they know the money and time reaches the beneficiaries quicker and more efficiently than through the government.
I think recent apparent shifts to conservative views are a reaction to the growth of government. It isn't a loss of compassion - it is an act to protect one's self from the government. The growth of government (driven by liberals, though all politicians are guilty) increases the population likely to consider themselves a victim of something. They need someone to blame, and the answer is to get the government to pay. Or a lawsuit - because SOMEONE HAS TO BE GUILTY OF MY MISERY.
The problem with that argument is that local and state governments are more likely to know the people in question and/or their families. Then it becomes a case of who you know rather than how truly needy you are.
That's certainly how it works in this rural area, which is 98% white and the median age is 68. Many of the families who have been on assistance for decades would likely be cut from the dole if professionals and strangers examined their situation. People on welfare are hardly "greedy;" payments aren't that high. I've been in homes with dirt floors, with wood burning stoves fueled by wood culled from the local landfill, and known children whose one balanced meal a day is eaten at school. There are very few jobs and those positions tend to stay filled, so it's less "lazy" than it is a lack of opportunity. "Greedy" applies to people who already have money, and resent any of it being used to help people such as those I've described. Bush relied on the idea of "faith-based initiatives," but the stats show that religious entities didn't step in to fill the void created by cutting social services. In that sense, the OP is correct.
There certainly are people who abuse the system. Just recently exposed was the Michigan guy who won a $2 million lottery and via a loophole continues to receive Food Stamps which we all pay for. Not an isolated case of abuse.
If the Federal Government would quit robbing us of so much money, it would certainly free up Individual and Local Funds to provide help to those that truly need it.
BTW, the Welfare Program is not at the top of the list for debt problems to be solved if Ron Paul gets elected. He knows there are bigger drains out there and he is smart enough to know Rome wasn't built in a day. But the ideology of a much smaller Federal lGovernment and more power to the States and Freedom for the Individuals will be the guiding light.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just curious why you thought I'd support such a program.. did YOU also miss the ? at the end????
