How strong of a libertarian presence there is WA state?? (cost, health)

[saturno_v]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I am a utopian libertarian. In our greedy self serving world I tend to support Socialistic policy, though I wished a libertarian system would work, but too many greedy lawyers, and the social acceptance of srewing others over for profit makes me not so. Confident in removing protective barriers such as the EPA.

The problem is that supporting either a so called 'socialist" or "liberal" policy or the current "conservative" side of the equation means exacerbating current issues...going exactly in the opposite direction we should be going...both are just two different faces of the same coin....I do not know how can be more clear than it is especially in the recent years.....where their true allegiances and their real goals are...

Changing things requires a truly peaceful revolution.....if you hope to find any modicum of solace int he current political environment you are delusional...a simple "throws the bums out" type of reaction will not accomplish anything...the current political system is beyond any chance of repair....sick and tired of voting the less of two evils (and there is really a lesser evil anyway??)


In the economic policy, why don't we give true capitalism and real free market a chance....because what we had so far, especially in recent decades, is anything but....

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

The problem is that supporting either a so called 'socialist" or "liberal" policy or the current "conservative" side of the equation means exacerbating current issues...going exactly in the opposite direction we should be going...both are just two different faces of the same coin....I do not know how can be more clear than it is especially in the recent years.....where their true allegiances and their real goals are...

Changing things requires a truly peaceful revolution.....if you hope to find any modicum of solace int he current political environment you are delusional...a simple "throws the bums out" type of reaction will not accomplish anything...the current political system is beyond any chance of repair....sick and tired of voting the less of two evils (and there is really a lesser evil anyway??)


In the economic policy, why don't we give true capitalism and real free market a chance....because what we had so far, especially in recent decades, is anything but....

I reped you for that..

The revolution is real simple.

You cast a vote when you open your wallet.

If you support folks in your communities they will in turn support you.

Honestly, the revolution will not come yet, not in my lifetime. People are.too willing to oppressed.

Not until the politicians and walmarts.of the world get scared, and we start to starve the beast, will things heat up and people wake up.. Boomers need to be dead and gone first.

The realization Keynesian endless growth is a not reality, we can not Print our way out of failed banking systems, with the working poor picking up the tab for fat cats on wallstreet.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

Somewhat I agree...however you can have mostly libertarian tendencies even without belonging to a formal party....obviously I'm not considering people that may share only few libertarian ideas... a conservative agreeing on fiscal and gun issues, for example, does not a libertarian make


To me, regardless on who you decide to vote in the current political climate, a libertarian is someone that believes in:

- Small government (that does not mean no government or total absence of government services or government policies)

- Personal responsibility

- Fiscal responsibility

- Religious and sexual freedom

- Dismantling of drug prohibition

- Free enterprise

- Refusal of militarism

I know an awful lot of Ds who would sign on to those general goals. I would myself, except I'd also want a specific recognition that an overbearing corporatism is just as antithetical to a libertarian society as an overbearing government is. And, as I said before, I'd like to see some specific statements on the social safety net.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

I know an awful lot of Ds who would sign on to those general goals. I would myself, except I'd also want a specific recognition that an overbearing corporatism is just as antithetical to a libertarian society as an overbearing government is. And, as I said before, I'd like to see some specific statements on the social safety net.

I wanted to vote for Ron Paul so bad.. But could not for the above reasons.

[saturno_v]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I wanted to vote for Ron Paul so bad.. But could not for the above reasons.

In a sound monetary and financial system corporations would not naturally hold that much power....remember that some of the largest corporations as so big and powerful because they are for all intent and purposes, vassals of the state or protected monopolies.

I'm not saying that I agree with Ron Paul 100%, for example I would maintain a minimum of temporary welfare and healthcare protection to people that really find themselves in a momentary bad fix, a modicum of retirement income (tied to real assets not accounting tricks and stuffed with government IOUs) clear and simple guidelines for the environment and to prevent monopolies.

Under a Ron Paul administration more than half of current banking system shareholders would have been wiped out during the crisis, even Mr. Oligarch extraordinaire Warren Buffet would have lost quite few feathers....but we would still have perfect functioning banks...with a different new ownership.

I'm not denying that there are a lot of fake libertarians out there that would not accept a real reform of the current financial/monetary system (full reserve banking, elimination of the central bank, etc..) but these are people that do not really fully share libertarian ideals.....we should go for the whole enchilada.

Let's remember that some of the biggest opponents to libertarianism are exactly the oligarchs.... I do not recall Ron Paul attracting many funds from the elite

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

In a sound monetary and financial system corporations would not naturally hold that much power....remember that some of the largest corporations as so big and powerful because they are for all intent and purposes, vassals of the state or protected monopolies.

I'm not saying that I agree with Ron Paul 100%, for example I would maintain a minimum of temporary welfare and healthcare protection to people that really find themselves in a momentary bad fix, a modicum of retirement income (tied to real assets not accounting tricks and stuffed with government IOUs) clear and simple guidelines for the environment and to prevent monopolies.

Under a Ron Paul administration more than half of current banking system shareholders would have been wiped out during the crisis, even Mr. Oligarch extraordinaire Warren Buffet would have lost quite few feathers....but we would still have perfect functioning banks...with a different new ownership.

I'm not denying that there are a lot of fake libertarians out there that would not accept a real reform of the current financial/monetary system (full reserve banking, elimination of the central bank, etc..) but these are people that do not really fully share libertarian ideals.....we should go for the whole enchilada.

Let's remember that some of the biggest opponents to libertarianism are exactly the oligarchs.... I do not recall Ron Paul attracting many funds from the elite

Yes you are correct.. But a.presidency does not give complete rule.. Chances are.bank bail outs would stay intact, and only protection for the working class would.go..

Sure if Paul could.have ruled the roost... But,......

[saturno_v]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

Yes you are correct.. But a.presidency does not give complete rule.. Chances are.bank bail outs would stay intact, and only protection for the working class would.go..

Sure if Paul could.have ruled the roost... But,......

Yes, just a presidency is definitely not enough...the entire system has to change...

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

Somewhat I agree...however you can have mostly libertarian tendencies even without belonging to a formal party....obviously I'm not considering people that may share only few libertarian ideas... a conservative agreeing on fiscal and gun issues, for example, does not a libertarian make


To me, regardless on who you decide to vote in the current political climate, a libertarian is someone that believes in:

- Small government (that does not mean no government or total absence of government services or government policies)

- Personal responsibility

- Fiscal responsibility

- Religious and sexual freedom

- Dismantling of drug prohibition

- Free enterprise

- Refusal of militarism

That's a good list and I think Washington rates higher than most states with adoption of Libertarian philosophy. There is also a strong leftist element in Washington that is at odds with Libertarianism in most areas. So there are both elements at play in this state.

I think we've lately been shifting more Leftist which is partly why I have decided (about 90% decided anyway) to leave Washington. I still love it but I'm not sure the future will be as good as the last 20 wonderful years here.

[Pahn]

Originally Posted by saturno_v

- Small government (that does not mean no government or total absence of government services or government policies)

- Personal responsibility

- Fiscal responsibility

- Religious and sexual freedom

- Dismantling of drug prohibition

- Free enterprise

- Refusal of militarism

I think of myself as quite liberal, and I would more or less accept these goals, if you tacked "to an extent" at the end of each one. Each of these goals lies along a spectrum, and getting too far to either end is detrimental to society, IMO.

For example, I like personal responsibility. Actions should have consequences. But mistakes shouldn't damn you for life.

Religious and sexual freedom. Well, there's no limit here except where your liberties infringe upon mine.

Free enterprise got the US where we are, and made us the economic and military superpower. But the rest of the world has adjusted, and we're falling behind.

Dismantling drug prohibition. OK, no limiters here, just do it already. It's inherently a medical issue.

Small government. Well, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to complain about government, but I will say that government should be as big as it needs to be to perform its essential services efficiently. What are those essential services? That's where I disagree with most libertarians. I support socialized medicine and Social Security. I think we need state-run mental health treatment facilities like we used to have. There are things that aren't profitable enough to be run in a manner consistent with my moral principles, which would necessarily preclude for-profit institutions.

I'd also advocate for increasing the ability for government to pierce the veil of limited liability WRT to corporations and their leadership when they're doing things they shouldn't be doing.

[Bimmerfanboy]

I think that most folks, especially in the Eastside suburbs of Seattle, are more libertarian. There is a very strong corporate presence in the greater Seattle region, and the state has no income taxes either. It's clear that this is a state which caters to businesses and wants to attract high-earning residents.

Seattle proper still has a very strong corporate presence but I've noticed a swing to the hard-left there politically. Ideological loons like Kshama Sawant would only get elected there. There are a ton of hipster and Anarchist-types in Seattle.