Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-18-2012, 10:57 PM
 
117 posts, read 344,202 times
Reputation: 116

Advertisements

Hello, I have seen many debates that are between liberals and conservatives, where the same positions are held on policies predictably and the same arguments held with little creativity. The "third option" Libertarianism often is just as predictable.

It seems that none of the three commonly debated ideologies: Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian have all the answers. Also, it is getting boring to hear over and over again the same debates and see that with a few exceptions, most Liberal's, Conservatives, and Libertarians 90 percent of the time support the same positions.

I get excited when I meet someone who has a new way of looking at things and evaluates every idea on a case by case basis. Someone who is not affraid to recognize that on economic issues a Cuban socialist and Milton Friedman may both have some great policy ideas. Someone who is not affraid to recognize that on racial issues on a case by case basis Jesse Jackson could be right one day and Glen Beck could be right the next. Someone who can see both the strengths and weaknesses of both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.

So for people who are tired of people who robtically repeat the Conservative, Liberal, or Libertarian party line and who accept every position on every issue without change, here is a creative challenge:

If you had to create a new political ideology to best run the country:

1. What would you call it?

2. What would the underlying principals be?

3. What would the policy positions be?

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2012, 05:32 PM
 
117 posts, read 344,202 times
Reputation: 116
Give this a shot. It could be fun and intereresting.

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 08:13 PM
 
266 posts, read 410,525 times
Reputation: 175
Lol its funny that no has posted an answer in here yet. Everyone is so busy arguing for their side that they havent actually put in any thought of what would actually work.

I'll give it a shot though. I may not be right but oh well.

First I'll start off by saying these attacks are so random and are so infrequient that I think it's gonna be almost impossible to prevent this type of thing from happening again. The only way you could is if you got every single gun off the streets which won't happen anytime soon.

But what I would do is first off make having illegal guns a very serious crime. In NYC they cracked down huge on illegal guns and homicides went from about 2,200 in 1991 to I think around 550 last year. Obviously not all due to that but a part of it is. This would do nothing to prevent mass murders but would help inner cities homicide problems a bit.

Second I would sort out all the current gun laws and get rid of all these loopholes. For example, here in Philly a lot of guns that are confiscated are from Florida because people who have a criminal record can't purchase a gun here so they go to Florida (were they can purchase one) and bring them back here and can legally have them here since they have a Florida liscense. (I'm not an expert on this loophole but that's just one example)

Third, from now on assault rifles and all these automatic weapons are banned. If you are a hobbyiest you can rent one to use at the range but you can't bring it home. The government would have to make a payment program such as turn in your weapon and get back 1.5 or double the amount that you paid for it or some type of reinbursment that would really get people to want to turn in their weapons. If you didn't turn in your weapon by a certain date and got caught you would face some sort of penalty.

The third one I'm not sure how it would work because it's gonna be almost impossible to get them all gone but banning them can't hurt. Also I really doubt theres anything we can do to stop these mass murders from a gun standpoint unless we went into every house and confiscated every gun. Harsher gun laws will probably just see results in inner cities but that's still a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 08:17 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,771,097 times
Reputation: 6856
Government should do the big things like building infrastructure, regulating commerce, protecting the environment, and protecting the country. Government should not do the small things like regulating our personal lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top