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.
Libertarians have never advocated the absence of all government. You need to keep reading.
The Libertarian Party Platform Preamble states it plain enough in black and white, I need read no further. Hey, if anarchy is your thing, go for it. Just do not pretend Libertarians are anything more than anarchists. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
The Libertarian Party Platform Preamble states it plain enough in black and white, I need read no further. Hey, if anarchy is your thing, go for it. Just do not pretend Libertarians are anything more than anarchists. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Like any other party, there are extremes within any group.
Some libertarians like more regulations and programs than others. But for a lot of people, a small government is the best government. Count me as one of them. The government should supply you with police protection, fire protection, basic services like infrastructure projects, and homeland security.
The federal government should take steps from keeping the economy from going nuts in its boom and bust cycle, and provide a safety net so that no one goes hungry or homeless in the richest country in the world, unless they choose to be that way (yes, I've actually meet someone who chose to be poor and homeless).
But beyond that, stay out of my house, my bedroom, quit marrying anyone, etc.
Like any other party, there are extremes within any group.
Some libertarians like more regulations and programs than others. But for a lot of people, a small government is the best government. Count me as one of them. The government should supply you with police protection, fire protection, basic services like infrastructure projects, and homeland security.
The federal government should take steps from keeping the economy from going nuts in its boom and bust cycle, and provide a safety net so that no one goes hungry or homeless in the richest country in the world, unless they choose to be that way (yes, I've actually meet someone who chose to be poor and homeless).
But beyond that, stay out of my house, my bedroom, quit marrying anyone, etc.
The federal government needs to limit themselves to only those powers granted to them by States in the US Constitution. Providing a "safety net" is not one of those powers. That is a power of state government, not the feds.
As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, they are "johnny-come-lately" with regard to advocating for a limited federal government. They like to pretend that they have a monopoly, but the reality is that true conservatives have been advocating for a constitutionally limited federal government since the nation's founding.
We can't? Is there some limitation on the number of political parties that can be formed?
No..you are correct, anybody can start a party and join the hundreds of political parties in this country and then go out and try to get some one elected.
We don't need a fiscally liberal or a fiscally conservative party, we need a fiscally responsible party. We need an honest discussion about what we want the government to do and not do and then come up with the best way to pay for what the country wants.
Liberals have a big influence in the Democratic Party, they're economically dangerous..Too bad...
Socially Conservatives have a big influence in the GOP, and they're too backward about gays, immigrants, non-whites..
So, a thirs party would be a good thing : fiscally conservative (low taxes, pro-business, pro-growth) and socially liberal (supporting the gay mariage, accepting more immigrants and their rights..)
I fall in this category. Fiscally I am more in line with a conservatives and socially more with liberals. I do not label myself either way. I focus more on economic issues for the sake of the nation as a whole so when I vote sadly I may vote for the group that may not be open minded to social issues for gays, let is say gays, women, minorities, etc., take care.
Liberals have a big influence in the Democratic Party, they're economically dangerous..Too bad...
Socially Conservatives have a big influence in the GOP, and they're too backward about gays, immigrants, non-whites..
So, a thirs party would be a good thing : fiscally conservative (low taxes, pro-business, pro-growth) and socially liberal (supporting the gay mariage, accepting more immigrants and their rights..)
We have it, they are called Libitarians, but unfortuately the party just can't seem to get off the ground.
The federal government needs to limit themselves to only those powers granted to them by States in the US Constitution. Providing a "safety net" is not one of those powers. That is a power of state government, not the feds.
As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, they are "johnny-come-lately" with regard to advocating for a limited federal government. They like to pretend that they have a monopoly, but the reality is that true conservatives have been advocating for a constitutionally limited federal government since the nation's founding.
Oh but it does allow them to make a safety net by the "promote the general welfare" statement.
If we have people going homeless, unable to find work and eat, then that is against the general welfare, and the federal government has the right to enact laws to ensure that general welfare.
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.