the Republican-Democrat-Libertarian Pros and cons

Originally posted by Amuk

It is sometimes, but those who succeed educate themselves and only work within the system we have to use it to their advantage.

True, but the system could be made more efficiente and "user friendly"

Between that and phazing out the rewards for failure (welfare, etc) I think we could improve a lot.

And I kinda disagree on the pyramid idea, the world is moving away from a labor intense work force to a more information and services work force how this will translate into jobs is the big question for the future

Ah, agreed. I think the public school system needs massive overhauling.

For every technical job, there are many people who support them. Much like for every doctor, there are administrators, nurses, orderlies, etc to support them in what they do.

Trash will not take itself away, nor will houses build themselves.

I do not think that we have a problem with the pyrimid system.

Let's not forget, that most people are not too bright.

Let's not forget, that most people are not too bright.

that's a pretty lofty attitude, we'll probably disagree but i think sociological factors and economic opportunity play a big role in education...besides intelligence is no substitute for compassion.

Hmm, I disagree, I personally think our country doesn't have a "pyramid" structure. The lower class has been shrinking and the middle class growing since the end of World War II. As for unskilled jobs, yes they will always be there, what I'm saying is not total abolition of them but rather a general movement upward for most of the workforce. As I said earlier, the big question is what happens to the unskilled left behind.

I disagree about most people being born dumb, it's not so much intelligence as apathy. Few people apply themselves, take a look around your local High Scool and you'll find that one out. The fact is, kids these days don't have to apply themselves, getting through the school system (until college at least) is fairly easy. Taking the path with least resistance through school generally equates to the path of least resistance through life.

As for the parties, unfortuenently the third party idea and problem is larger than just "people willing to sit around and have the two major parties give it to them up the ass" or whatever. Third parties will never succeed on the national level until they have succeeded on the local and state level. They must start from the ground up to be succesful at the top. I hear of little to no third party action in my state, none the less my county. Another problem will be presidential elections, decided by a majority of the vote, that is something that is tough to get with 3 or more MAJOR candidates. If the multi-party system is to work it will take massive civic overhauls or a massive political revival, both of which look slim .

Libertarianism - BIG business, small government. Amuk, I find your comment about a Libertarian government stopping the punishment of drug related crimes and spending the money saved on poor people quite amusing. The Libertarian party has to have the farthest ideological stance from socialism of any of the parties. You know where the money saved would go? Back into the pockets of the people in the form of tax relief. This way they can spend, invest and spend. That's the libertarian way.

Oh and wars would cease? Please. If I was a libertarian President I'd make damn sure we went to war with Iraq to seal up the resources and get our hands into OPEC. Don't be blind, think of what your party REALLY stands for. Freedom of the AMERICAN people and the pursuit of pure capitalism - Adam Smith style.

Hmm, after Insights description of Libertarians I'm begining to like'em more and more . "Freedom of American people and total pursuit of Capitalism - Adam Smith style" ('Wealth of Nations'). I really do abhor socialism on a general level.

Originally posted by insite
Libertarianism - BIG business, small government. Amuk, I find your comment about a Libertarian government stopping the punishment of drug related crimes and spending the money saved on poor people quite amusing. The Libertarian party has to have the farthest ideological stance from socialism of any of the parties. You know where the money saved would go? Back into the pockets of the people in the form of tax relief. This way they can spend, invest and spend. That's the libertarian way.

Oh and wars would cease? Please. If I was a libertarian President I'd make damn sure we went to war with Iraq to seal up the resources and get our hands into OPEC. Don't be blind, think of what your party REALLY stands for. Freedom of the AMERICAN people and the pursuit of pure capitalism - Adam Smith style.

It is true that taxes as a whole would be phased out over time and everything including schools would be privitized but the remark about drug money and schools was taken directly from one of their candidates from a few years back. The drug money would just be a way to help during the transition.

And I find YOUR statement that a Liberterian president would be pro war amusing not only is it in the charter that we ALL sign when we join that we are against interfering in the internal affairs of another country, and besides with out the HUGE tax base that the government steals from us the USA war machine would be starved down to a self deffense force only. That also is a major part of our charter.

And could you please explain what is wrong with...."Freedom of the AMERICAN people and the pursuit of pure capitalism"

Is it the freedom you are scared of or the capitalism?

Sons of Liberty and everyone else if you are interested in hearing what the Libertarian Party REALLY has to say here is a link www.lp.org...

Amuk,

My voter registration card has LIBERTARIAN scrawled across it. Unite! I'm just saying, lets be serious here. Let's take a step back and look at the big picture. If libertarians were as big today as the republicans, where would the difference lie in terms of the execution of policy? Sure you say that you would never invade another country, but what is best for business is ultimately the best for the people. Trickle down effects. Capitalism and all it infers, absolute freedom, I'm for them both brotha.

All I'm saying is that before you back a party wholeheartedly you analyze it inside and out to make sure it really represents you as a person and is the best thing out there for you and the country. Libertainism fits me like a glove, but I haven't decided whether its too big, too small or just right yet and I'm letting other people know what life might be like under libertarianism.

All I'm saying is that before you back a party wholeheartedly you analyze it inside and out to make sure it really represents you as a person and is the best thing out there for you and the country. Libertainism fits me like a glove, but I haven't decided whether its too big, too small or just right yet and I'm letting other people know what life might be like under libertarianism.

We seem to be on the same page with this..... I like the ideas behind Libertarianism but believe that it would have to be interduced slowly to work. Most of America is hooked on Big brother and will have to be weaned off and a large part of Libertarians feel the same. Not all of course but a lot.

And I never back ANYTHING blindly especially if it sounds this good

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Amuk]

I like many aspects of Libertarianism, my dream party = Social/Moral Conservative, Libertarian/Conservative fiscal policies, and as little government as possible. The only real place I diverge with Libertarians is on some social issues and SOME international issues (or the lack there of). The smaller the government the better, our Founding Fathers knew this but it's been twisted. Government is inherently evil so we need less of it (see my signature ). Thats my spiel.

So, to have smaller government we would have to cut all social spending. You are for this? Sounds more Republican to me.

Republicans don't want to legalize all drugs.

No, they don't, and good on em too. Anyway, I was only talking about the social spending issue.

Drugs will not be legalized (aside from pot) for a long time if ever.

So, to have smaller government we would have to cut all social spending. You are for this? Sounds more Republican to me.

Do republicans want to legalize drugs?
How about Gay Marrige?
How about prostitution?


Still sound like the republican party?

But yes I am for cutting social programs but I am for phazing them out while boosting the econamy and raising the standerd of living till they are no longer needed.

Although I think there will always be a need for SOME but like the military it should be Just what is needed and no more

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Amuk]

I will say it again.

"...I was only talking about the social spending issue."

Sure, I can get onboard with that phase out idea, depending on how it is done.

As for legalizing prositution, that is a bad idea.

Legalizing drugs (aside from pot) is again a bad idea.

My point was that the Libertarians are NOT just a branch of the republicans.

Believe it or not Ive had a Democrat try to tell me that they were just a branch of the democrats.....LOL

Thats what I like about the party to me they take the best of both parties and leave behind the bull#.

They are conservitives on Governmental issues, taxes etc, and liberals on social issues, drugs, etc.

And maybe they would really deliver on there promises unlike the big two who ONLY bait and switch.

Has the republicans REALLY shrank government?

Has the Democrats REALLY helped the poor?

Has either done any damn thing other than lie through their teeth?

Hey Amuk, I agree with you. I would be a Republican if they were what they claim to be, but they are not.

Dems don't help the poor, and Rep. don't shrink the government.

I do NOT like the libertarian party politics though. They prescribe social decay in the worst way.

I do NOT like the libertarian party politics though. They prescribe social decay in the worst way.

I must disagree with this the laws have stopped NONE of this "social decay" people are gonna do it anyway the Libertarians just fail to see the point behind spending so much time and resorces on victimless crimes
when they could be better spent on crimes that really harm someone else like rape and murder.

This is how they take our freedoms, they get everyone to gang up on one section at a time till it just amounts to you giving up your freedom to ensure that the (group of your choice) lose theirs. I think this is a bad trade, I would rather allow them THEIR freedom as long as they allow me mine.

To me the bottom line is EVERYONE should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not hurting someone else. How does prostituion, or legal pot harm someone else? How does gay marrige harm someone else? How does me owning a gun harm someone else? The list goes on and on.


You might call it "social decay" but I call it Freedom.

I do think that most of the programs need to be slowly interduced to see the impact they have over a period of time.


And Jethro its nice to debate someone that does not go stright to name calling

In terms of the social spending thing, I agree with Amuk that it would only be slowly phased out over time. Libertarians would first look at instances of waste and buraucracy and basically compile a complete government overhaul project that would have the goal of efficiency. You wouldnt have to pay more taxes and the agencies would find their money from the already large revenues generated by taxes. The party is an economists wet dream.

Also KJ, how do you know legalization of all drugs isnt a good thing? It hasn't been done in almost 100 years. Times have changed but if we go on the Netherlands lax policies (which are slowly being phased out in favor of a more Republican government BTW), crime would plummet. Jails would be over 60% less crowded and law enforcement would have 50% more revenue to work with. THose are some big figures.

Well, first, thank you.

Next, I disagree with the "victimless crime" thing.

Prostitution is one of these alleged victimless crimes. What makes (or made) America great, is the family or basic unit, which was the thing that curtailed more social problems than it created.

Recently, the sexual situation in this country is disterbing.

While I do not prescribe government involvement in sex lives for the most part. I can only see legalization of prostitution as having to have government control, so as not to accelerate the spread of infectious disease. There would still be the need of enforcement to keep child prostitution from happening, and thusly makes the situation more of a problem.

As for drugs, if they were truely a victimless crime, I would agree with you. But as a father, I am loath to think of another parent doing heroine, crack, or coke with kids around. This is NOT victimless.

I have done a cornucopia of drugs (in the past, long ago past) and know the mindset of many of the drugs. They are not condusive to raising children or being productive in the least.

None of these ideas would contribute to society, but only curb one aspect of the situation.