Other Resources The Political Joe » When will American's embrace Libertarian views? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2013-09-06 10:02 PM
in reply to: TriMyBest

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.



2013-09-06 10:06 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

2013-09-07 3:17 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Elite
4435
2000200010010010010025
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Election day here in Australia - two muppets up for the job - really hard to decide which was the lesser muppet.  And we don't have a choice, if you don't vote you get fined.  BUT you could waste your vote on the Hemp party, the Pirate party and about 20 other fringe ones.  Made me laugh if nothing else

2013-09-07 7:47 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
1186
1000100252525
North Cackalacky
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman

So then if your idea of defense is relentless pursuit and pressure across the globe of who ever we deem undesirable... Then ya, no thanks. You can keep it. I'm all down for peace through superior fire power


I'm not talking about "undesirable" people. I'm talking about people who are demonstrably, quantifiably dangerous (the Zawahiris, al-Awlakis, Atefs, and al-Libis of the world) and that don't care or worry one bit about our conventional military strength.
2013-09-07 3:17 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by Left Brain Man.....where have all the Obama supporters run off to? 

It's Friday night, for heaven's sake.  Social Liberals have numerous opportunities to violate the moral code of the Religious Right.  I'm just out having a good time, trying to hold up my end of the failed social experiment.  CHEERS!  Cool

2013-09-07 5:17 PM
in reply to: ScudRunner

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by ScudRunner
Originally posted by powerman So then if your idea of defense is relentless pursuit and pressure across the globe of who ever we deem undesirable... Then ya, no thanks. You can keep it. I'm all down for peace through superior fire power
I'm not talking about "undesirable" people. I'm talking about people who are demonstrably, quantifiably dangerous (the Zawahiris, al-Awlakis, Atefs, and al-Libis of the world) and that don't care or worry one bit about our conventional military strength.

And they are in no way a threat to the U.S. Sorry, they're not. They are a threat to do a terrorist attack... but that has nothing to do with the nation. It is a law enforcement issue. It's a black ops mission... it isn't projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop because Syria isn't playing nice.

Not even close to being the same thing. I have no problem fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare. And if you want to attack our country, then you are an enemy of the state... and a drone or men dressed in black will see you soon. Other than that, everyone needs to come home... and maybe, just maybe, if we stop interjecting ourselves into everyone else's business, then maybe we can be done with all this nonsense.



2013-09-07 5:32 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

2013-09-07 10:56 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by ScudRunner
Originally posted by powermanthe end to endless military engagements all over the world
The isolationist standpoint is my beef with libertarian foreign policy.
So who should we invade next? We have enough nukes to blow up anyone a hundred times over. A Navy second to none. And an armed services that could never be defeated on north America. I think we're good.

 

The Libertarian view is NOT isolationist anyway.  I don't know why some folks take the position that we either have to be in everyone's business or we are isolationist.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the taxpayer dollar can go just for national defense and not to become the offense for a large number of other sovereign nations. 

2013-09-07 11:05 PM
in reply to: KateTri1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

No.

2013-09-08 3:14 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
1186
1000100252525
North Cackalacky
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman

And they are in no way a threat to the U.S. Sorry, they're not. They are a threat to do a terrorist attack... but that has nothing to do with the nation. It is a law enforcement issue. It's a black ops mission... it isn't projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop because Syria isn't playing nice.

Not even close to being the same thing. I have no problem fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare. And if you want to attack our country, then you are an enemy of the state... and a drone or men dressed in black will see you soon. Other than that, everyone needs to come home... and maybe, just maybe, if we stop interjecting ourselves into everyone else's business, then maybe we can be done with all this nonsense.




The first of two final thoughts here, and Pector hit on it a little bit down below (ETA - I guess it's up above from here), is that we are probably arguing about two different things. I see a very big difference between maintaining a tailored and focused global presence (it doesn't have to be eleventy billion tanks and planes) sufficient to maintain situational awareness of and permit action against the enemy network, and "projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop." That said, there has to be a presence. It takes a whole lot of work, much of which can't be done in CONUS, to get a decisive finish solution (RPA or the "men dressed in black") in place.

Second, I understand that terrorism doesn't necessarily present a "threat to the U.S.," insofar as you are not going to wake up one day and find the U.S. gone and the AQ flag flying over the Capitol. That said, considering what I read here and elsewhere where those of a more libertarian bent decry the U.S. reaction to 9/11 and the perceived encroachment upon liberty that has followed, I think that focusing on the physical threat presented by violent extremists and not the political threat of the internal American response in the aftermath of another high profile attack is myopic.

I end with a question - what does constitute a "threat to the U.S."?

Edited by ScudRunner 2013-09-08 3:16 AM
2013-09-08 1:43 PM
in reply to: ScudRunner

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by ScudRunner
Originally posted by powerman And they are in no way a threat to the U.S. Sorry, they're not. They are a threat to do a terrorist attack... but that has nothing to do with the nation. It is a law enforcement issue. It's a black ops mission... it isn't projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop because Syria isn't playing nice.

Not even close to being the same thing. I have no problem fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare. And if you want to attack our country, then you are an enemy of the state... and a drone or men dressed in black will see you soon. Other than that, everyone needs to come home... and maybe, just maybe, if we stop interjecting ourselves into everyone else's business, then maybe we can be done with all this nonsense.

The first of two final thoughts here, and Pector hit on it a little bit down below (ETA - I guess it's up above from here), is that we are probably arguing about two different things. I see a very big difference between maintaining a tailored and focused global presence (it doesn't have to be eleventy billion tanks and planes) sufficient to maintain situational awareness of and permit action against the enemy network, and "projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop." That said, there has to be a presence. It takes a whole lot of work, much of which can't be done in CONUS, to get a decisive finish solution (RPA or the "men dressed in black") in place. Second, I understand that terrorism doesn't necessarily present a "threat to the U.S.," insofar as you are not going to wake up one day and find the U.S. gone and the AQ flag flying over the Capitol. That said, considering what I read here and elsewhere where those of a more libertarian bent decry the U.S. reaction to 9/11 and the perceived encroachment upon liberty that has followed, I think that focusing on the physical threat presented by violent extremists and not the political threat of the internal American response in the aftermath of another high profile attack is myopic. I end with a question - what does constitute a "threat to the U.S."?

Here's the thing about history... it isn't necessarily right or wrong... there is just YOUR take on it. Or Founders did not want a military Empire such as England's. Our only taxes were tariffs and we did not go about the globe forcing things that favored us... all the way up till WWII. We most certainly played our part in stoking the Cold War. We were just as aggressive as Russia. We have interjected our selves into every corner of the world, in this Global Policy every since... because some how or another, we think we can't be safe here, if the rest of the world isn't.

Yet this country thrived and flourished for a long time with no such policy. And today, one can certainly make the case that all this hatred for our country in the world, is a direct response to our involvement in it. I do not think America is some oppressive military Empire. Nor do I think it is "justified" do what extremist do. But I also do not see a strong case for us being safer because we have taken the world by the horns and controlled it to our "benefit" through military action.

 

You want to know what I see as a threat to the U.S. ... unsustainable military spending. Unsustainable military control over the globe. Endless military engagements that keep our country in a state of fear and aggressiveness. I see those things as a much bigger threat to this nation than terrorists.



2013-09-08 1:51 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

No.

yes

2013-09-08 3:16 PM
in reply to: KateTri1

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

No.

yes

That sounds great on paper... but what exactly do you have control over? Voting for evil or voting for evil? If both parties are now controlled by money, and both parties only do what benefits them and their money, then how is voting solving anything?

Not voting only puts more power in the hands that do. But it does not change anything since both votes are bad.

You say hold them accountable, but how is voting for them doing that? All they do is the same thing... they say one thing and do another. So you hold them accountable and vote for someone else from the same R or D pool and all you did was change the name... because you still have another R or D that said one thing and did another.

Now if a significant number of voters decided to vote for a third party, and a R or a D could not get elected, that accomplishes something. Yet so far that has not happened. I'm not sure it will.

About the only thing I could see working is a concerted effort to hold their feet to the fire, then do a recall if they don't do what they said. But doing recall elections all over the country when they don't act right seems more unlikely than a 3rd party voting block.

2013-09-08 4:38 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

No.

yes

That sounds great on paper... but what exactly do you have control over? Voting for evil or voting for evil? If both parties are now controlled by money, and both parties only do what benefits them and their money, then how is voting solving anything?

Not voting only puts more power in the hands that do. But it does not change anything since both votes are bad.

You say hold them accountable, but how is voting for them doing that? All they do is the same thing... they say one thing and do another. So you hold them accountable and vote for someone else from the same R or D pool and all you did was change the name... because you still have another R or D that said one thing and did another.

Now if a significant number of voters decided to vote for a third party, and a R or a D could not get elected, that accomplishes something. Yet so far that has not happened. I'm not sure it will.

About the only thing I could see working is a concerted effort to hold their feet to the fire, then do a recall if they don't do what they said. But doing recall elections all over the country when they don't act right seems more unlikely than a 3rd party voting block.

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 



Edited by KateTri1 2013-09-08 4:40 PM
2013-09-08 5:07 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?



Edited by powerman 2013-09-08 5:08 PM
2013-09-08 5:30 PM
in reply to: KateTri1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

 

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

No.

yes

That sounds great on paper... but what exactly do you have control over? Voting for evil or voting for evil? If both parties are now controlled by money, and both parties only do what benefits them and their money, then how is voting solving anything?

Not voting only puts more power in the hands that do. But it does not change anything since both votes are bad.

You say hold them accountable, but how is voting for them doing that? All they do is the same thing... they say one thing and do another. So you hold them accountable and vote for someone else from the same R or D pool and all you did was change the name... because you still have another R or D that said one thing and did another.

Now if a significant number of voters decided to vote for a third party, and a R or a D could not get elected, that accomplishes something. Yet so far that has not happened. I'm not sure it will.

About the only thing I could see working is a concerted effort to hold their feet to the fire, then do a recall if they don't do what they said. But doing recall elections all over the country when they don't act right seems more unlikely than a 3rd party voting block.

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

OK



2013-09-08 7:28 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
1263
10001001002525
Wendell, NC
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
My calendar says October 12 at appx. 8:25 EST
2013-09-09 7:55 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?

That's a very subjective assumption..

Again, I am not arguing that one doesn't have their citizen right not to vote.

If you make that choice then, as LB wrote.. OK.

I get to choose for you. 

2013-09-09 8:53 AM
in reply to: KateTri1

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?

That's a very subjective assumption..

Again, I am not arguing that one doesn't have their citizen right not to vote.

If you make that choice then, as LB wrote.. OK.

I get to choose for you. 

Don't screw it up. Laughing

2013-09-09 9:02 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
I don't thnk there will ever be a politician that I agree with 100%, so for me, the act of voting consists of picking the candidate who most closely aligns with what I believe. If you want to call that voting for the lesser of two evils, so be it, but I don't see it that way. If I agree with one of the candidates on the three or four larger issues, I'll vote for that person even if I don't agree with their stance on some of the other issues that I consider less important.


As to the OP, I think most people are in favor of greater freedom and less governement, but I think that for a lot of people, "Libertarianism" means a kind of isolationism where each person is only responsible for themselves; the reality is that whether we like it or not, ensuring equal opportunity and (putting on a flame suit) ensuring that there is some kind of reasonable distribution of wealth in a country is vital to the nation's survival. The existing model where more and more of the country's wealth is increasingly concentrated into a smaller and smaller portion of the population simply isn't sustainable. Before everyone loses their minds, I'm not advocating socialism-- taking money away from people and giving it to other people, but currently the top 20% own about 80% of the wealth in the US. It's hard to see how the US is going to continue to grow and thrive when 60% of the population has to live on 5% of the wealth. That seems to me like a recipe for disaster and I'm not sure that a purely libertarian policy is the best way to go forward, even if I like many of the libertarian ideals.

Source below:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/11/what-we-know-about-wealth
2013-09-09 10:06 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't thnk there will ever be a politician that I agree with 100%, so for me, the act of voting consists of picking the candidate who most closely aligns with what I believe. If you want to call that voting for the lesser of two evils, so be it, but I don't see it that way. If I agree with one of the candidates on the three or four larger issues, I'll vote for that person even if I don't agree with their stance on some of the other issues that I consider less important. As to the OP, I think most people are in favor of greater freedom and less governement, but I think that for a lot of people, "Libertarianism" means a kind of isolationism where each person is only responsible for themselves; the reality is that whether we like it or not, ensuring equal opportunity and (putting on a flame suit) ensuring that there is some kind of reasonable distribution of wealth in a country is vital to the nation's survival. The existing model where more and more of the country's wealth is increasingly concentrated into a smaller and smaller portion of the population simply isn't sustainable. Before everyone loses their minds, I'm not advocating socialism-- taking money away from people and giving it to other people, but currently the top 20% own about 80% of the wealth in the US. It's hard to see how the US is going to continue to grow and thrive when 60% of the population has to live on 5% of the wealth. That seems to me like a recipe for disaster and I'm not sure that a purely libertarian policy is the best way to go forward, even if I like many of the libertarian ideals. Source below: http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/11/what-we-know-about-wealth

Well then you simply have it wrong. Sorry, but you do.

...and real quick, I never said it was voting for the lesser of two evils... someone else did. And if you took a poll, the majority would say they are doing exactly that. Not voting for the person that is most representitive of their views... but the lesser of two evils. It is what I have done for the alst few election cycles.

"Less government" is not what has concentrated wealth. And "deregulation" didn't either. There is no such thing as "free markets". There hasn't been for about 200 years. What there has been is politicians rigging the game. And every single one of them does it.

What do you think subsidies for solar are? It's rigging the game to benefit those that own solar companies. Oh ya, but it has to compete with coal. Do you know why coal is so cheap... well, because they have rigged the game to stifle competion. So that has nothing to do with free markets. It has to do with one guy rigging the game, then the next to suit him, then the next to suit him... and 200 years later you have the mess we are in.

"Less government" is doing away with all that, and providing a level playing field for ALL. That is the role of government in a free market capitalist economy. Not to pick winners and loosers, but to provide a field where all can play, and the best wins. Wealth is being concentrated by the ridiculous tax code and endless regulations with sweet heart back door deals and loop holes. That's MORE government intervention that has caused this.

And so then your solution to all this is more regulation, and more rigging of the game to fix the rigging of the game. How in the world do expect that to solve the problem of the game being rigged?



Edited by powerman 2013-09-09 10:13 AM


2013-09-09 10:08 AM
in reply to: KateTri1

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?

That's a very subjective assumption..

Again, I am not arguing that one doesn't have their citizen right not to vote.

If you make that choice then, as LB wrote.. OK.

I get to choose for you. 

You are doing a terrible job.

2013-09-09 10:09 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by KateTri1
Originally posted by powerman
Originally posted by KateTri1

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?

That's a very subjective assumption..

Again, I am not arguing that one doesn't have their citizen right not to vote.

If you make that choice then, as LB wrote.. OK.

I get to choose for you. 

Don't screw it up. Laughing

Not anything you need to concern your pretty little head about... Tongue out

2013-09-09 10:22 AM
in reply to: TriMyBest

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
Originally posted by TriMyBest

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative!  I'm with you!  Where do I sign up?

I don't post all the time in COJ, but I know I've stated it in the past that by ideals I'm libertarian, but when it comes to reality, I end up voting republican most of the time because it's the lesser of the evils that has a snowballs's chance of being elected.

When the Libertarian Party finally positions itself to win a major election, I'll be the first in line.

Not to single you out...

But I think this is the first major hurdle for a more libertarian Washington. We all hate the two party system but many of us feed into it by "voting for the lesser of two evils". 

I personally struggled with this the last time around. Was a vote for Johnson a vote I was taking away from Romney that would keep him from beating Obama? Was Romney the lesser of the two evils? 

The more I see the more I find that both parties are exactly the same. Both are for big government and for big spending, they just both think they can do it better than the other. All they do is try to predict what style of pandering they need to win and then once in they do what they want.

So for me, I will no longer vote based on the lesser of two evils premise. I will vote for the person who I want to represent me no matter their chance of winning. Until we all decide to do that, the two party system will never go away.

I was encouraged to see how many votes Johnson got, if we all vote our convictions and not whichever loser the R's or D's present to us I think we can see a shift away from the 2 party system where they get more and we get less.

2013-09-09 10:39 AM
in reply to: Aarondb4

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: When will American's embrace Libertarian views?
I completely agree with you Aaron. Trouble is its like trying to get money out of politics. Its hard to get those in power to change the system to a system that would cost them there power.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » When will American's embrace Libertarian views? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5
 
 
RELATED ARTICLES
date : February 28, 2012
author : IManTagalong
comments : 2
This is an article about my experience as a husband of a triathlete, while she trained for the Orangeman Triathlon
 
date : April 12, 2007
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 0
For athletes, the saying “Drink responsibly” holds true for all fluids. Don’t let dehydration—or overhydration—hurt your ability to enjoy exercise and perform at your best.
date : April 2, 2006
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
The weather is warming and the season is getting started for many triathletes. Keep these tips in mind to avoid heat cramps, exhaustion and stroke.
 
date : April 2, 2006
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
I am a 36 y/o male and this will be my fifth season doing triathlons. I have noticed that whenever I run for any period of time over 40 minutes I get a "pins and needles" feeling in my right foot.
date : December 4, 2005
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 0
At ADA’s annual meeting registered dietitians presented the following information that addresses some of the nutrition questions and concerns of health-conscious exercisers and competitive athletes.
 
date : July 29, 2005
author : Ron
comments : 5
You have just imported a plan successfully, how to best view and print it? Let me count thy ways.
date : February 13, 2005
author : AMSSM
comments : 2
So how sick is too sick to train? The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine answers just that and many other questions.
 
date : January 24, 2005
author : AMSSM
comments : 0
New athlete injury Q&A with the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.