It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And a fringe group is not going to be able to provide an example despite your fixation on them.

Anyone can point to an example.


Well then, perhaps I will one day have so much 'common sense' (Paine would be appalled) as you that I will think that more freedom equals more conspiracy.

Appeal to authority, huh?




posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
There isn't any need for some lengthy dissertation as to what has to happen..And slander? Really? Do you think this is "the People's Court" or something?

There is no need to state what a Libertarian wants. It is clear as day when YOU actually read and abide by the Constitution and BoRs. Why is this so hard for people like you to understand?

Yes, yes there is. My question was on the implementation of libertarian ideology. I gave a specific example. You decided that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights answered that. They do not. Would you restrict the right to bear arms in some manner? Other libertarians would, therefore it needs clarification.

You undeniably made a false statement, here let me help you remember:

originally posted by: macman
I can't help that you either refuse to understand that so you can continue your ignorant rail against Libertarians...or you just truly don't understand this.

I have not denounced Libertarians - that's kind of what that phrase means, y'know? You seriously don't have a clue who I am as a person, and yet you say uninformed stuff like this:

Has the Progressive notion corrupted your ability to use common sense that it truly is foreign to you?


Haha. A Progressive I am not. I voted for Ron Paul back in '08. Here's another thing - one of my degrees is in the field of Political Science, so yeah, I've read the Constitution.

Your need to attack and categorize me as (what seems to me) an enemy is curious. Why do you jump to this conclusion and reaction?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

No....the Militia was there and worked hand in hand since the creation.
The ranks were very much the same, and the jobs were are well. Ground units did this and the Merchant Marines had this as well.

The Militias turned then into the State run Guard units, which have access to all weapon systems just like active duty and reserves.

And, in addition.....the US was not supposed to have a standing Army.


Again we are not in 1776, that was before all the advanced tec and even the concept of a air force.

For your average grunt sure that would work, you could scale your army back its what we are doing in the UK. Scale the regular army back and have a part time territorial army.


BUT

There are still jobs that cant be left to part timers.

A fighter pilot given a crash training course and only has a few hours flight time a year in a part time role will get eaten alive by pilots of other nations that serve full time and practice every day.


And its the same for Engineers in the Army and Navy. Tec is constantly changing and a engine room of a arleigh burke destroys going to be a hell of a different animal to the engine from of a civilian ships.


Yes there are certain jobs you can palm off to a part time militia. But there are others that in this modern age are always going to be career jobs that need constant full time staff.


And remember...... It was professional army from Canada that ripped through the USA and burned DC to the ground. The USA only got lucky cause the British were to occupied with France to send reinforcements.
Thats why you adopted a more professional army in the first place.

That was in a era of primitive weapons. Today with more complex weapons systems will make that even worse!

So yes you can scale back the military. But you still need a small professional core.


War would be different with really libertarian country. War would be more like the British Retreat to Boston in 1775.

Most modern weapon systems are about force projection into an enemy's territory.

Libertarian rules of engagement would always be defensive and directed against individuals.

A libertarian polity would have weapons and tactics developed along those lines.

Libertarian fighter pilots would be professional pilots in normal life, like crop dusters.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

No....the Militia was there and worked hand in hand since the creation.
The ranks were very much the same, and the jobs were are well. Ground units did this and the Merchant Marines had this as well.

The Militias turned then into the State run Guard units, which have access to all weapon systems just like active duty and reserves.

And, in addition.....the US was not supposed to have a standing Army.


Again we are not in 1776, that was before all the advanced tec and even the concept of a air force.

For your average grunt sure that would work, you could scale your army back its what we are doing in the UK. Scale the regular army back and have a part time territorial army.


BUT

There are still jobs that cant be left to part timers.

A fighter pilot given a crash training course and only has a few hours flight time a year in a part time role will get eaten alive by pilots of other nations that serve full time and practice every day.


And its the same for Engineers in the Army and Navy. Tec is constantly changing and a engine room of a arleigh burke destroys going to be a hell of a different animal to the engine from of a civilian ships.


Yes there are certain jobs you can palm off to a part time militia. But there are others that in this modern age are always going to be career jobs that need constant full time staff.


And remember...... It was professional army from Canada that ripped through the USA and burned DC to the ground. The USA only got lucky cause the British were to occupied with France to send reinforcements.
Thats why you adopted a more professional army in the first place.

That was in a era of primitive weapons. Today with more complex weapons systems will make that even worse!

So yes you can scale back the military. But you still need a small professional core.


War would be different with really libertarian country. War would be more like the British Retreat to Boston in 1775.

Most modern weapon systems are about force projection into an enemy's territory.

Libertarian rules of engagement would always be defensive and directed against individuals.

A libertarian polity would have weapons and tactics developed along those lines.

Libertarian fighter pilots would be professional pilots in normal life, like crop dusters.



Crop dusters?



Crop dusters?


Sorry but a crop duster is barely related to a F-18 or F-22!

A crop duster would likely crash one of those beasts on takeoff!

Even a basicaly trained crop duster would need constant full time pratice or they woukd get chewed appart like the USAF and the RAF chewed apart the untrained Iraqi airforce that had been grounded for the best part of a decade!


Honestly Im all for some sane level of libertarianism but some of you live in coo coo land,

You cant fight a invidual if they are 50,000 feet in the air droping bombs on you, not if your airforce of crop dusters is shot down.

Honestly if the USA went mad and went to the extremes you suggest it doesnt mean US enemys will and disband there proffesional militarys. China or russia would laugh there arses off and flattern your citys.

Crop dusters


Next You will be saying someone with a rowing boat should be captain of a modern frigate or destroyer !



edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

No....the Militia was there and worked hand in hand since the creation.
The ranks were very much the same, and the jobs were are well. Ground units did this and the Merchant Marines had this as well.

The Militias turned then into the State run Guard units, which have access to all weapon systems just like active duty and reserves.

And, in addition.....the US was not supposed to have a standing Army.


Again we are not in 1776, that was before all the advanced tec and even the concept of a air force.

For your average grunt sure that would work, you could scale your army back its what we are doing in the UK. Scale the regular army back and have a part time territorial army.


BUT

There are still jobs that cant be left to part timers.

A fighter pilot given a crash training course and only has a few hours flight time a year in a part time role will get eaten alive by pilots of other nations that serve full time and practice every day.


And its the same for Engineers in the Army and Navy. Tec is constantly changing and a engine room of a arleigh burke destroys going to be a hell of a different animal to the engine from of a civilian ships.


Yes there are certain jobs you can palm off to a part time militia. But there are others that in this modern age are always going to be career jobs that need constant full time staff.


And remember...... It was professional army from Canada that ripped through the USA and burned DC to the ground. The USA only got lucky cause the British were to occupied with France to send reinforcements.
Thats why you adopted a more professional army in the first place.

That was in a era of primitive weapons. Today with more complex weapons systems will make that even worse!

So yes you can scale back the military. But you still need a small professional core.


War would be different with really libertarian country. War would be more like the British Retreat to Boston in 1775.

Most modern weapon systems are about force projection into an enemy's territory.

Libertarian rules of engagement would always be defensive and directed against individuals.

A libertarian polity would have weapons and tactics developed along those lines.

Libertarian fighter pilots would be professional pilots in normal life, like crop dusters.



Crop dusters?



Crop dusters?


Sorry but a crop duster is barely related to a F-18 or F-22!

A crop duster would likely crash one of those beasts on takeoff!

Even a basicaly trained crop duster would need constant full time pratice or they woukd get chewed appart like the USAF and the RAF chewed apart the untrained Iraqi airforce that had been grounded for the best part of a decade!


Honestly Im all for some sane level of libertarianism but some of you live in coo coo land,

You cant fight a invidual if they are 50,000 feet in the air droping bombs on you, not if your airforce of crop dusters is shot down.

Honestly if the USA went mad and went to the extremes you suggest it doesnt mean US enemys will.


Crop dusters


Crop dusters have an aptitude for flying. They could be made into a talented reserve. You act like pilots come from government indoctrination.

Libertarian military forces would have a different emphasis, the goal would be to destroy the attacking force, the goal would never be a make work program for defense contractors or the maintenance of a standing jobs program imperial army, a standing jobs program with an option for martial law.

Libertarian defense forces could have more SAMs and satellites, more ECM and less one on one fighters, or something that would never be thought of in the current mindset. Maybe libertarians could make a better air to air superiority fighter, possibly a hardened stealthy drone.

Ideally and possibly, having the highest level of technology would keep libertarian weapon systems dual use. The libertarian weapons would have normal and profitable uses in the peacetime economy.

Most of the superiority of the West has been in the level of technology. We could have dropped Nukes from passenger airliners before the Concorde was banned.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A reserve yes, as a only line of defence? No


Lack of combat experiance and training is why japan cut through the US airforce early in the war.

Its also why the early US airforce cut through the Japanese late war as all the experianced pilots were killed
And japan did not have time to replace them,

And no not goverment indocrination. Training and lots of combat exercises and flight training.


Im not saying the goverment needs a large military as it stands today.
But a small proffesional core is needed,


Your living in a fantasy world if you think overwise,



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A reserve yes, as a only line of defence? No


Not the way you were raised mostly, you need a government program to feel a part of it all.




Lack of combat experiance and training is why japan cut through the US airforce early in the war.


Japan went on to win that one, right?

Parking the planes up next to each other like a jigsaw puzzle (to prevent sabotage) kept most of our air force on the ground, where it was blown up by Japanese bombs.

Also the need to make Japan the obvious bad guy allowed/caused a lot of bad decisions to get the war started.




Its also why the early US airforce cut through the Japanese late war as all the experianced pilots were killed
And japan did not have time to replace them,


Japan lost the war and most of her pilots at Midway. And Japan never improved her technology from the hot rod 1930's Zero. We had better technology as much as better pilots.




And no not goverment indocrination. Training and lots of combat exercises and flight training.


The chauffeured Rolls Royce of defense options.




Im not saying the goverment needs a large military as it stands today.
But a small proffesional core is needed,


Your living in a fantasy world if you think overwise,


You assume that a non-libertarian society can maintain economic and technological parity with a free market society.

A libertarian society would always have a higher level of technology and would never fight with another libertarian society. That is the most important aspect of libertarianism and war.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Debates like this remind me of the following hypothetical situation. Let's say tomorrow the government mandated that all large parking lots had to install a traffic control tower to direct traffic around the lot. After awhile, people wouldn't be able to fathom driving through a big lot without traffic control. Arguments against libertarianism always seem to follow the same pattern: "Oh, that won't work because I can't imagine of a way to make that work" or "Your idea of how that might work is flawed for these reasons". The truth is that no one here is smart enough to imagine all of the clever solutions people can devise when left to their own devices.

So maybe you think the idea of a cropduster corps is silly. That doesn't mean the concept of a part time all volunteer army/air force/navy wouldn't work. In fact, the vast majority of ANG pilots are part time (there's just not that much flying to do). It also doesn't rule out the possibility of people voluntarily sponsoring full time soldiers to protect their community. Besides, it would be extremely difficult to conquer a country where everyone has an M16 ready to go under their bed. It would be a non-stop guerrilla war .. you'd be better off just nuking the place.

Just because we can't figure it out on an internet forum doesn't mean it won't work. Sometimes you just have to throw the dice and see what people come up with. A perfect example is the internet. No one would have believed that it could usurp snail mail, but that is has (and then some, obviously). It didn't happen under the direction of a single entity, but many working together voluntarily, part time.

Edit: And an even better example of government experimentation is the United States. At the time, it was thought that large countries could not exist without a strong top-down monarchy.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Guidance.Is.Internal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Strawman. There is no such thing as something that is both "conservative" and "libertarian". They're different ideologies. You have no interest in debating this fairly. Cheap rhetorical tricks.

I live next door to Idaho, and it is far from Libertarian. Strict drug laws, state income tax, and so on.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A reserve yes, as a only line of defence? No


Lack of combat experiance and training is why japan cut through the US airforce early in the war.

Its also why the early US airforce cut through the Japanese late war as all the experianced pilots were killed
And japan did not have time to replace them,

And no not goverment indocrination. Training and lots of combat exercises and flight training.


Im not saying the goverment needs a large military as it stands today.
But a small proffesional core is needed,


Your living in a fantasy world if you think overwise,


Totally agreed. Trust me, reservists are no where near as proficient as active duty/full time. Reservists do it occasionally, active duty live it every day. A reserve military only would get crushed by invasion. And yes. If the U.S. did not have a strong military, China, Russia, or or anyone else with the muscle wouldn't waste a second attacking us and scrambling to claim pieces of the country for themselves. Canada and Mexico simply do not have the military strength and budget to be able to hold off either Russia or China, and neither are nuclear powers. China, Russia, or anyone else with the power would never pass up an easy kill like a militarily backwards North America. The resources alone, from Barrow to Guatemala, are reason enough for anyone to try and take a piece. Especially a resource starved China.

The U.S. military is the number one reason we have not been invaded since the War of 1812. I do agree, however, it is massively bloated and needs some serious shaving back. We need to start by cutting our foreign commitments and closing overseas bases, as well as pulling out of many conflicts. I also support cutting a lot of foreign military aid to certain countries and entities. Clean up the supply system, and stop paying a buck fifty for a standard screw that costs about fifteen cents at Ace Hardware. Stuff like that.

But it is extremely naive to believe that a peasant/citizen militia would be any match for an actual organized, sophisticated, and full time imperial army. This isn't the good old days of 1781 when a relatively crude militia of farmers, pirates, and smugglers could effectively drive out what was, at the time, one of the world's superpowers on course to dominate the next century. For starters, we had aid from the French and some German kingdoms. But just as importantly, perhaps more so, is the fact that the British, despite their overwhelming superiority, were still limited to canons, wood boats, muskets, and neatly marching columns of red and white visible from miles away. They did not have stealth. They did not have nukes. They did not have aircraft carriers, radar, (not for about another 150+ years, at least) submarines, satellites, tanks, Bio or Chem weapons. And the the majority of British military might was devoted to its navy. Hence "Britannia Rules the Waves". However, compared to the Prussian, French, and Austrian/Hungarian armies, their land forces were a lot smaller. So they really didn't have sufficient forces to effectively occupy the colonies enough to crush the rebellion and occupy it. Also, back then, distance was a major factor, unlike today. Cross Atlantic logistics were a nightmare back then. Communications were slow.

None of these factors apply to today's world, where communication is instant, logistics have improved, and Both Russia and China have more than sufficient numbers of full time professional troops to occupy and crush our "resistance".



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A reserve yes, as a only line of defence? No


Lack of combat experiance and training is why japan cut through the US airforce early in the war.

Its also why the early US airforce cut through the Japanese late war as all the experianced pilots were killed
And japan did not have time to replace them,

And no not goverment indocrination. Training and lots of combat exercises and flight training.


Im not saying the goverment needs a large military as it stands today.
But a small proffesional core is needed,


Your living in a fantasy world if you think overwise,


Totally agreed. Trust me, reservists are no where near as proficient as active duty/full time. Reservists do it occasionally, active duty live it every day. A reserve military only would get crushed by invasion. And yes. If the U.S. did not have a strong military, China, Russia, or or anyone else with the muscle wouldn't waste a second attacking us and scrambling to claim pieces of the country for themselves. Canada and Mexico simply do not have the military strength and budget to be able to hold off either Russia or China, and neither are nuclear powers. China, Russia, or anyone else with the power would never pass up an easy kill like a militarily backwards North America. The resources alone, from Barrow to Guatemala, are reason enough for anyone to try and take a piece. Especially a resource starved China.

The U.S. military is the number one reason we have not been invaded since the War of 1812. I do agree, however, it is massively bloated and needs some serious shaving back. We need to start by cutting our foreign commitments and closing overseas bases, as well as pulling out of many conflicts. I also support cutting a lot of foreign military aid to certain countries and entities. Clean up the supply system, and stop paying a buck fifty for a standard screw that costs about fifteen cents at Ace Hardware. Stuff like that.

But it is extremely naive to believe that a peasant/citizen militia would be any match for an actual organized, sophisticated, and full time imperial army. This isn't the good old days of 1781 when a relatively crude militia of farmers, pirates, and smugglers could effectively drive out what was, at the time, one of the world's superpowers on course to dominate the next century. For starters, we had aid from the French and some German kingdoms. But just as importantly, perhaps more so, is the fact that the British, despite their overwhelming superiority, were still limited to canons, wood boats, muskets, and neatly marching columns of red and white visible from miles away. They did not have stealth. They did not have nukes. They did not have aircraft carriers, radar, (not for about another 150+ years, at least) submarines, satellites, tanks, Bio or Chem weapons. And the the majority of British military might was devoted to its navy. Hence "Britannia Rules the Waves". However, compared to the Prussian, French, and Austrian/Hungarian armies, their land forces were a lot smaller. So they really didn't have sufficient forces to effectively occupy the colonies enough to crush the rebellion and occupy it. Also, back then, distance was a major factor, unlike today. Cross Atlantic logistics were a nightmare back then. Communications were slow.

None of these factors apply to today's world, where communication is instant, logistics have improved, and Both Russia and China have more than sufficient numbers of full time professional troops to occupy and crush our "resistance".


Training is important when fighting equals, but a libertarian system would have no equals. All other polities would be backward and impoverished, like the USSR and the Red China were. TPTB propped up the USSR and Maoist China so as to keep the coercive form of government alive and well.

The Colonies adopted a standing army style of warfare so that the European Royalty would consider the Americans normal and hierarchical, and continue international mercantilist trade. As far as just putting the British off of the Continent, sniper volley fire at generals would have been cheaper and faster. Ships couldn't compete with shore guns until steam power. The British would have lost or gone bankrupt building new ships and financing an army of occupation across an ocean.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's pretty delusional to say we would have no equals in a "Libertarian system", especially when China and Russia wouldn't even recognize it. We stop trade and such? No problem. Since we have no real standing military, China and Russia could easily just come over and take whatever they want or need. They would not collapse without us, at least, not before they nuked/invaded/plundered us to oblivion first.

The Libertarian ideal you represent is as delusional as the left wing moonbats and right wing nut jobs. Nor would it last long.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's pretty delusional to say we would have no equals in a "Libertarian system", especially when China and Russia wouldn't even recognize it. We stop trade and such? No problem. Since we have no real standing military, China and Russia could easily just come over and take whatever they want or need. They would not collapse without us, at least, not before they nuked/invaded/plundered us to oblivion first.

The Libertarian ideal you represent is as delusional as the left wing moonbats and right wing nut jobs. Nor would it last long.



Insanity is doing the same thing an expecting a different result.

Your blind obedience to the left wing system is the same old thing. Maybe you are not a moonbat now, but you will be. And when you are you wont know it, because it will be "normal".

The "Land of the Free" pays 51% in taxes since ObamaCare. The government gets more out of you than you do.

Does that mean we won the last war?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is....The occidental man has only one destiny, and that is work, and the acquisition of baubles that he can never keep. Regardless his political affiliation.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I think you misunderstand semi's point. All other things held constant, a country which maximizes its citizens freedom will develop technology at a faster rate than a country with less freedom. Technology wins wars two ways. First, countries which export technology inadvertently support countries which cannot produce that technology. Those countries automatically ally with their breadwinner. Second, technology makes armies more effective.

Do these factors guarantee success? No, just look towards Vietnam. That being said, a country with well-educated citizenry, equipped with the best technology, determined to preserve their way of life, pushed into a corner, would be impossible to defeat short of nuclear war. People seem to forget that Libertarians aren't automatically opposed to organizing into a group and sharing resources, it just has to be done without coercion.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Guidance.Is.Internal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Anyone can point to an example.


Then by all means point to an example of a Anarcho-Libertarian utopia.


Appeal to authority, huh?


Certainly not, you are no authority.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Not the way you were raised mostly, you need a government program to feel a part of it all.

No I just want a professional armed forces able to combat enemies professional armed forces

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Japan went on to win that one, right?

Parking the planes up next to each other like a jigsaw puzzle (to prevent sabotage) kept most of our air force on the ground, where it was blown up by Japanese bombs.

As I said EARLY war.

US did not start the war with RAR RAR super army. Its lack of experience cost it in the first year or two.



originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Japan lost the war and most of her pilots at Midway. And Japan never improved her technology from the hot rod 1930's Zero. We had better technology as much as better pilots.

Yes thats what I said. US pilots gained experience and better training over the Japanese mid to late war due to all Japans best trained pilots dying and Japan not being able to replace them.





originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The chauffeured Rolls Royce of defense options.

Forgive me wanting a competent Airforce that will stop Chinese or Russian planes bombing the # out of me.


You assume that a non-libertarian society can maintain economic and technological parity with a free market society.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
A libertarian society would always have a higher level of technology and would never fight with another libertarian society. That is the most important aspect of libertarianism and war.



Your making many assumptions based on limited evidence.

There are plenty of cases of professionals air forces and even army's cutting through badly trained enemy counter parts.
edit on 3-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

War would be different with really libertarian country. War would be more like the British Retreat to Boston in 1775.


Err no cause we live in 2015......



That only worked because the British army fell apart because of bad communication.

After that the British army held its ground in most battles (expect the odd few like Saratoga) right up until the french landed. You guys were in a stalemate until a professional french army landed.



But that's all irrelevant.

If we are talking about history lets fast forward to the war of 1812?

The US had to adopt a professional army because of the damage a professional army did.


You know what? It is probably impossible to conquer the USA.
BUT
War does not always mean conquest. sometime it can just mean raids and causing damage.
Thats what the British army did in 1812, it was not there to hold land, just reek havoc and it did.

In this day and age its even worse.

If China or Russia wanted to do that they would smash your crop duster airforce and bomb your cities to dust. Your AR-15's would be useless while they are dropping bombs at 50,000 feet.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: muse7What gets to me though is how far Libertarians and Conservatives want to take things. A few examples are: getting rid of the department of education...


Redundant, it exists at the state level.


...getting rid of the FDA...


The Food and Drug Administration is bloated and inefficient and in need of an overhaul.


...getting rid of the IRS...


How you can even argue against eliminating it is beyond comprehension.


...Letting PUBLIC businesses decide which groups of people to serve and which not to serve.


You should be able to run your business as you see fit and if your business model is bigoted and will eventually run you into the ground it is your money that you are pissing away. Personally, I would not patronize a bigoted business of any type.


Getting rid of most social safety nets..


They are in dire need of reform as the unfunded liabilities are unsustainable.


...and I'm sure I could list a couple of more things.


You could start by not lumping true Libertarians in with Conservatives as I am not even remotely close to the far right. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal and very much for personal rights and rewarding hard work.



This here, is an example of an actual conservative. No offense, Augustus ;-) You're a great example of what the tea party started out as before it was infiltrated / co-opted into what it became today. I was on board with the tea party from the start, then saw the return to the true ideals of conservatism washed away.

If only we could be smart fiscally, AND, have freedom, we could have an even more powerful economy, with no federal or state debt, and the only people pissed off would be those who prefer welfare to being part of a wealthier working class, and this who feel they should be able to control others.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

I personally do not think the Conservative wing of the Republican Party would want me since I am for gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-drug war and anti-most foreign intervention.



new topics




 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join