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)
View Poll Results: Which one do you support, regardless of electability potential?
The Democratic Party 19 24.68%
The Republican Party 16 20.78%
The Libertarian Party 30 38.96%
The Constitution Party 6 7.79%
The Green Party 6 7.79%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2009, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,172,358 times
Reputation: 2572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Why? Do you have any reasons for these statements? I am afraid of what IS HAPPENING because of republican/democrat control. Pick up a newspaper and read any given headline. Those are the things our current political system allows to happen...
I am no fan of the current mess, but Libertarianism would be far worse my friend.

The only way capitalism can survive is in the form of a nanny state. In the mature stages of capitalism, where the middle class begins to deconstruct, as the US is in now, it becomes neccessary to placate them with endless handouts, which allow them to continue to operate as wage slaves without unrest.

Libertarians have the goal of taking away these neccessary handouts, and also making it much easier for business to operate and further strip wealth from the lower classes. What exactly do you think is going to happen as a result of that? Every body living harmonously? The riots would be large and continuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2009, 08:30 AM
 
272 posts, read 407,262 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostInTheShell View Post
No, they just want to be left alone to live peacefully.

and how will that happen

By eliminating the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 08:45 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,170,115 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
I am no fan of the current mess, but Libertarianism would be far worse my friend.

The only way capitalism can survive is in the form of a nanny state. In the mature stages of capitalism, where the middle class begins to deconstruct, as the US is in now, it becomes neccessary to placate them with endless handouts, which allow them to continue to operate as wage slaves without unrest.

Libertarians have the goal of taking away these neccessary handouts, and also making it much easier for business to operate and further strip wealth from the lower classes. What exactly do you think is going to happen as a result of that? Every body living harmonously? The riots would be large and continuous.
I think our first disagreement is on your use of the word 'necessary'. Government handouts are not necessary (in my opinion). I think businesses should be allowed to operate. Take GM for example. The government should not have stepped in and helped them out. The company was heading towards bankruptcy and the federal government decided to infuse it with cash. In a truly free market society companies such as that will be allowed to go out of business so new, more efficient companies can take its place. If I had to chose between higher taxes, a devalued dollar and more government control or losing jobs temporarily until new companies rise up and meet the challenge, I will gladly take the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostdestroyedlife View Post
and how will that happen

By eliminating the government?
By reducing the presence of the federal government and giving more control to State/Local governments (as was intended at our founding, coincidentally)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 03:07 PM
 
Location: OUTTA SIGHT!
3,018 posts, read 3,553,423 times
Reputation: 1899
.....interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,172,358 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I think our first disagreement is on your use of the word 'necessary'. Government handouts are not necessary (in my opinion).

So, when laissez-faire capitalism officially drives the prevailing wage below poverty level, how, exactly, do you propose to keep the rioting starving, sickly, indentured servant class at bay? Louis XVI called, and he would love to hear your answer on that one.

Capitalism ALWAYS depends on "nannyism" to placate the underclass it creates. Period. If you do not give handouts to them, they will revolt, protest, and riot, and will find ways to redistribute the wealth forcibly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 11:21 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,156,678 times
Reputation: 3696
I kind of like those Constitution Party types and admire that silly little piece of paper known as the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 11:53 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,170,115 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
So, when laissez-faire capitalism officially drives the prevailing wage below poverty level, how, exactly, do you propose to keep the rioting starving, sickly, indentured servant class at bay? Louis XVI called, and he would love to hear your answer on that one.

Capitalism ALWAYS depends on "nannyism" to placate the underclass it creates. Period. If you do not give handouts to them, they will revolt, protest, and riot, and will find ways to redistribute the wealth forcibly.
I think we have fundamentally different understandings of what drives the point I bolded above. Our government (both the administrations of Bush and Obama) continued this 'American aristocracy of the wealthy' as you described by bailing out those businesses which, if left to capitalism, would have failed and left those wealthy individuals with nothing. THAT is what your large federal government did. I also don't agree with a complete free for all in the private sector, just less emphasis on federal government (and more reliance on state and local). You taking a free market system to the extreme you have is just as rational as me calling Obama a raving socialist. Both accusations really don't have a place in a rational discussion. It is obvious you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt you are right, and I am also 100% sure I am right, which is obviously a problem in any debate. I will do some research into your point of view and sincerely think about it (there is always a chance I am wrong), but only if you give me the same respect and honestly consider the fact that I might be right. Deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2009, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,172,358 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I think we have fundamentally different understandings of what drives the point I bolded above. Our government (both the administrations of Bush and Obama) continued this 'American aristocracy of the wealthy' as you described by bailing out those businesses which, if left to capitalism, would have failed and left those wealthy individuals with nothing. THAT is what your large federal government did. I also don't agree with a complete free for all in the private sector, just less emphasis on federal government (and more reliance on state and local). You taking a free market system to the extreme you have is just as rational as me calling Obama a raving socialist. Both accusations really don't have a place in a rational discussion. It is obvious you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt you are right, and I am also 100% sure I am right, which is obviously a problem in any debate. I will do some research into your point of view and sincerely think about it (there is always a chance I am wrong), but only if you give me the same respect and honestly consider the fact that I might be right. Deal?


So, you favor a bloated state government rather then federal, I see.

Unfortunatley, that doesnt make you a libertarian. You should probably make yourself familiar with the principles of libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...(United_States), before claiming to be one. Libertarianism is the closest form of organized government to anarchy, in fact, many anarchist fill the ranks of the Libertarian party.

What many "libertarians" actually are, are constitutionalist, which is VERY similiar, except, constitutionalist only oppose most of the things that libertarians oppose altogether, only at the federal level.

For instance, Libertarians tend to oppose publically funded education completely, while Constitutionalist tend to oppose its control at the federal level. The difference would turn out to be, that under Libertarians, only the wealthy would receive access to things that are open to the public currently, while under Constitutionalists, depending on what state you live in, would determine particuliar access to current public services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2009, 08:10 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,170,115 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
So, you favor a bloated state government rather then federal, I see.

Unfortunatley, that doesnt make you a libertarian. You should probably make yourself familiar with the principles of libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...(United_States), before claiming to be one. Libertarianism is the closest form of organized government to anarchy, in fact, many anarchist fill the ranks of the Libertarian party.

What many "libertarians" actually are, are constitutionalist, which is VERY similiar, except, constitutionalist only oppose most of the things that libertarians oppose altogether, only at the federal level.

For instance, Libertarians tend to oppose publically funded education completely, while Constitutionalist tend to oppose its control at the federal level. The difference would turn out to be, that under Libertarians, only the wealthy would receive access to things that are open to the public currently, while under Constitutionalists, depending on what state you live in, would determine particuliar access to current public services.

Before you lambaste me for not knowing the definition of a word, please take the time to read the whole thread. If you had done so, you would realize in the past two presidential elections I have voted Constitution party as well as Libertarian. I personally don't like labels (and coincidentally am not officially registered to any party). If you want to label me something else, go ahead. I really don't care what 'camp' you lump me in. People who vote according to the definitions of party ideologies need to think for themselves a bit more. The term describing my political views doesn't change what I think...

America was founded to have more control in state governments. I believe the smaller the unit of government the great chance there is for accountability. Think about it, what is easier for the average citizen to do, get the county to pave one bad road by his house or convincing the federal government to grant funds to his state for highway repairs? Obviously that is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. States have a much more realistic chance of providing this citizen interaction than federal government. Ideally power would be given at a smaller level than that, but I just don't see power to anything smaller than the state level as realistic.

And in the future try not to quote Wikipedia. It is common knowledge that it holds no water as a legitimate source in any serious debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,172,358 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Before you lambaste me for not knowing the definition of a word, please take the time to read the whole thread. If you had done so, you would realize in the past two presidential elections I have voted Constitution party as well as Libertarian. I personally don't like labels (and coincidentally am not officially registered to any party). If you want to label me something else, go ahead. I really don't care what 'camp' you lump me in. People who vote according to the definitions of party ideologies need to think for themselves a bit more. The term describing my political views doesn't change what I think...

America was founded to have more control in state governments. I believe the smaller the unit of government the great chance there is for accountability. Think about it, what is easier for the average citizen to do, get the county to pave one bad road by his house or convincing the federal government to grant funds to his state for highway repairs? Obviously that is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. States have a much more realistic chance of providing this citizen interaction than federal government. Ideally power would be given at a smaller level than that, but I just don't see power to anything smaller than the state level as realistic.

And in the future try not to quote Wikipedia. It is common knowledge that it holds no water as a legitimate source in any serious debate.


I never lumped you personally together with anyone, I was speaking of the downside of Libertarianism, and you came to its defense. The discussion was not about you, it was about libertarianism.


Second, Wikepedia, in my opinion, holds far more water then any encylopedia or article on earth. Why? Because its peer edited. I can read an article from CNN, or Encyclopedia Britannica, and what is that? Its the complete point of view and sometimes opinion of the author.

Additionally, Wikepedia routinely cites multitudes of sources, while single party articles rarely cite anything.

Finally, Wikipedia provides a compacted source for information. I could have went through the Libertarian Party website, and tons of Libertarian papers and articles, and quoted the same principles, and Ive done this in past arguments against Libertarianism on other boards, in past times, but I felt the Wikepedia article on it summed it all up in a few paragraphs.
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