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.
Sorry, but libertarianism, besides being just another version of Liberalism, is also a mental disorder. Recall that the terms "left" and "right" originate not with Ayn Rand or Ron Paul, but with the French revolution, in which the deluded fanatical "left" were shouting "Liberty! Fraternity! Equality!" and the sober "right" was standing for Throne and Altar.
Libertarianism is known as classical liberalism, which eventually came to be supported by conservative Republicans such as Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, and William F. Buckley. They were actually the forefathers of the conservative revolution, which was a reaction to overbearing New Deal government intrusion, as well as Johnson's Great Society programs ... and it was even used to distance themselves from some moderate to liberal Republicans like the Rockefellers. Libertarians who believe in freedom, less government, less spending, and fewer taxes (as Goldwater did) are the true conservatives. The ones who want more subsidies, more government intrusion, and more taxes are the socialists, which is solidly left of center.
Above all, Libertarianism is not a mental disorder. What is so mental, or disorderly about freedom of speech, the right to have a gun, being secure in your home without unwarranted searches/seizures, reducing the tax burden, and having people take responsibility for their own actions??? Those are just a few things that Libertarians stand for, which are logical and sensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
1. I personally believe that not providing a 2 parent home is a disservice to the child.
2. In that regard, I failed my children when my wife left us, but I did my best for my children, by giving them 100% of my attention, and never letting them even think for a moment that someone else was more important to me than them.
A 2 parent home provides balance, (as long as we are talking about 2 decent parents, not all parents are decent), men and women perceive things differently, and that balances and teaches objectivity to the children, as well as providing them a balance in their lives.
3. The children deserve the best we can do for them. Some parents are in a spot because of the economy, and I think a bit of help, especially for children's sake is warranted. Some parents should never have been parents.
I agree 100% in principle. Children need well balanced homes and both parents to be there for them. I just don't like the government using my money to pay for all these programs (up to and including public school). Basically these programs are worthless and don't accomplish much of anything except costing more money and employing more bureaucrats.
In regard to "some parents should have never been parents", I believe the best solution for that is to STOP all these handouts (public assistance & tax credits) to people with kids. That way, the people who can truly afford to reproduce and raise kids will do so via their own means, and childless people wouldn't be burdened with subsidizing everybody else's humping habits.
Better yet, with good parenting they become not merely taxpayers, but also productive workers, entrepreneurs, religious leaders, civic leaders, teachers, inventers, volunteers, loving parents, and good neighbors -value that can't be quantified in dollars and cents.
Raising your kids on your own dime does not preclude good parenting.
That said, I am OK with tax dollars educating children through high school......but that's all.
I do not believe people should get tax breaks for having children.
And.....I see nothing wrong with requiring welfare recipients to use BC such as Norplant or IUD's. No force involved, if you do not want to comply with the requirement....... you don't have to collect welfare......support yourself and your children instead. You have a choice.
Libertarianism is known as classical liberalism, which eventually came to be supported by conservative Republicans such as Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, and William F. Buckley. They were actually the forefathers of the conservative revolution, which was a reaction to overbearing New Deal government intrusion, as well as Johnson's Great Society programs ... and it was even used to distance themselves from some moderate to liberal Republicans like the Rockefellers. Libertarians who believe in freedom, less government, less spending, and fewer taxes (as Goldwater did) are the true conservatives. The ones who want more subsidies, more government intrusion, and more taxes are the socialists, which is solidly left of center..
I was a libertarian in college - read the books and magazines, drank the cool aid, and finally sobered up. It's called "classical liberalism" for a reason: it is liberalism, the original liberalism. And liberalism is precisely what is killing us.
Some conservative policies look libertarian on the surface. I'm all for abolishing the Dept. of Education and returning education to parents, local communities, and the Church. However, I support state subsidies for Christian education oppose subsidies for the rest. I would eliminate most regulations and taxes on small business. I support getting the state government out of local zoning decisions, the federal government out of health care, etc. But the similarities are illusory. For real conservatives, truth and social justice do matter, are worthy of state acknowledgement, and sometimes financial support. For the liberals and libertarians, the state pretends to be indifferent to truth, the end result being that evil has free rein.
I would have to agree. Having kids is a personal choice, and as long as parents take full responsibility in every aspect for the costs of raising their offspring, I have no problem with how many kids a person wants to have. It's when they procreate and don't have the time, money, or patience to do so, and depend on the government that I have a major issue with!
Public education is vastly inferior in many ways to private education. It basically has always been that way ... however, what made public schools even worse was when President Carter created the Department of Education, and basically shifted the school systems from local control to federal control. I say that if you want to keep the schools public, fine, but make only the parents with kids in school pay for it out of their taxes ... not the childless ones!
What rubbish. Next time you go to the doctor, remember that someone else put in time, effort and money and sacrificed job promotion and settled with a worse house in order to raise the child who is now helping you while you earned more and went on holidays. And they still pay the same to visit the doctor as you when you're sick.
I was a libertarian in college - read the books and magazines, drank the cool aid, and finally sobered up. It's called "classical liberalism" for a reason: it is liberalism, the original liberalism. And liberalism is precisely what is killing us.
Some conservative policies look libertarian on the surface. I'm all for abolishing the Dept. of Education and returning education to parents, local communities, and the Church. However, I support state subsidies for Christian education oppose subsidies for the rest. I would eliminate most regulations and taxes on small business. I support getting the state government out of local zoning decisions, the federal government out of health care, etc. But the similarities are illusory. For real conservatives, truth and social justice do matter, are worthy of state acknowledgement, and sometimes financial support. For the liberals and libertarians, the state pretends to be indifferent to truth, the end result being that evil has free rein.
What? You want to force taxpayers to support schools that practice religious indoctrination and deny support to regular schools?
This is the Unitied States.....not the Middle East.
What rubbish. Next time you go to the doctor, remember that someone else put in time, effort and money and sacrificed job promotion and settled with a worse house in order to raise the child who is now helping you while you earned more and went on holidays. And they still pay the same to visit the doctor as you when you're sick.
And your child will reap the benefits of being a doctor, the prestige, the money, the lifestyle. He certainly won't offer discounts to the childfree who helped put him there.
Let's look at the flip side, shall we? Your children will more than likely look out for you as you age. Perhaps take you to the doctor and the store when you can no longer drive, see that you are properly cared for when you are no longer of sound mind.
Is your kid going to look out for your elderly neighbor that had no children, that helped subsidize his education.....I think not.
lol. A lot of anti-community, super capitalists here. The best investment a nation can make is to have plenty of children and give them excellent schooling.
I heartily disagree with the having kids part unless you give up all subsidies.
Have all of the community you want, but be prepared to pay for it yourself.
I chose not to breed because I didn't want the expense (as I've said before). If I'm not going to pay for mine, why should I pay for yours?
Public education is the benefit you get. After that, none.
I'm childfree and was educated in parochial schools on my parents dime.
I pay school taxes on two houses and never used the system.
I don't complain about that; I do complain about paying subsidies for your personal choices. How about taking personal responsibility here.
And to the poster up thread who disagreed with mandatory birth control while on public assistance, I'd go so far as to say without it you get no benefits.
You can make the choice.
Last edited by chielgirl; 01-20-2012 at 02:52 AM..
If you hate the system as it is, work for changing it. You can't seriously expect individual tax payers to stop taking tax breaks they are entitled to if the wealthy and corporations are getting subsidies and tax breaks as well.
I'm all for getting rid of property taxes and implementing a national sales tax. Will probably never happen, though. I'm not sure how property taxes got tied to supporting public education, anyway. There is a tangible benefit for having a good public education system, though.
And your child will reap the benefits of being a doctor, the prestige, the money, the lifestyle. He certainly won't offer discounts to the childfree who helped put him there.
Let's look at the flip side, shall we? Your children will more than likely look out for you as you age. Perhaps take you to the doctor and the store when you can no longer drive, see that you are properly cared for when you are no longer of sound mind.
Is your kid going to look out for your elderly neighbor that had no children, that helped subsidize his education.....I think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
I heartily disagree with the having kids part unless you give up all subsidies.
Have all of the community you want, but be prepared to pay for it yourself.
I chose not to breed because I didn't want the expense (as I've said before). If I'm not going to pay for mine, why should I pay for yours?
Public education is the benefit you get. After that, none.
I'm childfree and was educated in parochial schools on my parents dime.
I pay school taxes on two houses and never used the system.
I don't complain about that; I do complain about paying subsidies for your personal choices. How about taking personal responsibility here.
And to the poster up thread who disagreed with mandatory birth control while on public assistance, I'd go so far as to say without it you get no benefits.
You can make the choice.
Ok. Let's take your viewpoint. People should only have children that they can afford. Let's take away any public spending on public education and eliminate subsidies for families. Suddenly the nation has even less children because many more simply cannot afford it. So this means eventually less people work as nurses, at restaurants, your local store or on farms. This means those things will all go up in price. We have less doctors, so it costs more to go and see a doctor. But it's not just the doctors, it's everything that costs more. This means you can afford less. This will lower your living standards.
Furthermore, America is already rapidly aging. An interesting statistic:
As America ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will continue to fall. In 1970, there were almost four (3.7) workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today there are just over three (3.3) workers for every beneficiary. By 2030 there will be just over two (2.2).
So we have fewer people paying taxes to more people in retirement probably needing government spending on things like healthcare.
That's not what I said, leave education in place, the rest is on you.
So you want people to breed to keep up your benefits?
Talk about selfish and self serving.
I've taken care of my retirement because I chose not to have kids that I could ill afford.
Other people should try it.
I guess we should come up with a new model.
There aren't enough jobs for people alive today, or haven't you noticed?
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.
