On a more serious note, it looks like we have another naive libertarian type here. Let the market take care of the government-created monopolies!
McCaine is not a libertarian. If anything he's more authoritarian.
At first as a Libertarian I was against any net neutrality law myself, however once I found out the government has given businesses taxpayer money to buildup the net infrastructure I started to support such a law. Either these companies can open up thier pipes or they can pay back the money they were given. And if they have a natural monopoly such as cablecos and telcos then they should be mandated to have open access as well.
If I knew that the invading force was going to haul my people off to places like Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Birkenau, Dachau, and Flossenburg, we'd have fought until the either pushed us into the Atlantic Ocean or killed all of us.
Many French did fight the Germans in the underground or resistance.
'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'"
That should read "When you pay for the pipe you should be able to profit from it." Because government has given cablecos, telcos, and others money to build up the internet infrastructure then they should be mandated to have an open pipeline.
What would make a "Union" organization any different than a non-Democratic "Government" where special interests are wholly in charge: only those inside having a say, leaving the rest of the public to hang?
Ah, with the exception of those unions controlled by the mob, unions are democratic for their members. If you're not a member you don't get a vote, but then again if you're not a citizen of the USA you don't get to vote in state or federal elections either. Maybe you want everybody on the planet to have a vote in US elections?
And who is going to enforce those laws and see that lawsuits are managed in a fair and equitable way?
The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. That includes city police and county sheriffs, state police, and a bunch of federal law enforcement officials. Many of which are redundent, we don't need the ATF, Drug Czar, DEA, FBI, Intelligence Czar, and the US Marshalls among all the others.
Without a government, how exactly would China make and enforce those laws: round up a possie?
I am not an anarchist, I am a Libertarian! Libertarians don't advocate no government, we advocate a small and limited governemt. Especially at the federal level, most law enforcement, like most politics, should be at the local level.
You really want a possie deciding who's right and who's wrong?
Read my above statement. Appearently you are confusing anarchists and libertarians, the only thing I can thing of otherwise is that you are deliberately distorting what Libertarians are about.
You want to assume that, when a dollar is involved, everyone is gonna play fair "in the name of liberty" -
Now, you are distorting and ingnoring what I have said previously. Not once have I said any such thing. I have repeatly stated law enforcement, the courts, and lawsuits should take care of a lot of crimes. And that Libertarians believe in responsibility.
Because you are intent on distorting or ignoring what Libertarians believe in, I'm ending our diologue. I see no reason to continue when you constantly misrepresent what people believe in.
See, even though I'm registered Green(did my part to get them on the ballot in California, gosh - about 15 years ago now), part of their strategy from day one is to re-register for the other primaries for the Presidential conventions. The idea is to do our best to make sure that both parties have the best two candidates running against each other.
Though I'm registered No Party Preference, so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary I plan on reregistering Republican just before the primary. Then, I'll change my registration back afterwards. But to tell the truth I think it BS that I have to do this, I much prefer open primaries or caucuses, everybody should be able to vote for the best candidate for each party. Of course though the parties don't want this because it reduces their power. What power? The power to control who votes in the primaries and caucuses. Ah, I see you bring this up later in your post.
in places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.
This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.
Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.
Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.
. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.
Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.
Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.
If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.
Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?
Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!
think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?
I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!
It's the same old problem of the old 'tax brackets'... get a raise and cut your pay because you got bumped to the next tax bracket. I don't understand why there are "brackets"... why isn't it a continuous curve instead? The only thing it would change is the way the tax tables are calculated.
I say make income tax as easy as they can be by getting rid of personal income taxes. At the federal level the only entities that should be paying income tax are corporations. If a person, stockholder, wants limited liability then they should pay for it. But instead of billing individuals bill the corporation, one flat tax rate.
As an aside, I'd also bill corporations an added amount when executives of the corp get paid more than some multiple, say 1000, over the lowest paid fulltime employee. Using the 1000 above, if the lowest paid employee makes $24,000 then the corp can pay the ceo $24,000,000 without having to pay extra. But say the ceo is paid $50M, every dollar over the $24M, the corp also has to pay in tax. So the corp would be paying another $26M in taxes over the tax on profits. This would give the ceos, and maybe stockholders, an incentive to pay the lowest paid employee more. Oh, and this counts vacation pay, use of corporate gyms and jets, health insurance, and all other benefits.
my main issue with libertarianism is that it is an "ism"
Now apply that to democratism and republicanism.
I also belive that completely free and unfettered markets are very, very damaging to the greater good (as we see under this current administration, with the likes of Haliburton and Enron and all the corruption and concentration of wealth, and corporation actions that go directly against the welfare of the citizens of this country)
There is NO Free and Unfettered Market under Bush. Under a free market no contracts would be been handed to Haliburton, Enron, or any other corporation without open competitive bids. Why can't people understand these things don't happen in free markets? It's only by the power of the government that these things happen. As when government is involved there is no free market.
There needs to be a strong central regulation of commerce and the markets, to prevent fraud and graft
That's what courts are for. Fraud and graft are crimes and perps shoud be charged with said crimes.
to prevent corporations from polluting indiscriminately and to hold them accountable for their negative environmental impact on the nations resources (land, people, health, air, water, etc).
Courts apply here too.
We need labor laws, and laws against discrimination.
We can have these laws without more bureaucracies.
Don't you think a single bureaucracy, even one that can take into account the different needs of different regions (or states, or even counties; hey, the census is federal, right?), would be more efficient (i.e., have less overhead cost for the same program expenditure) than fifty-plus duplicative bureaucracies?
No I don't. All massive bureaucracies want to expand their power. I'd much rather those bureaucrats be answerable to the state. Then they can only mess up the state. Also the more localized both bureaucrats and politicans are the more responsive they are to the people they are suposed to be working for. Someone once said "All politics is local", instead I'd say most politics is, and should be, local.
The Republican party used to be like the current Libertarian party, but ever since the neocons took it over (around the time of the Reagan administration IIRC), we've had these corporatist fascists with a hard-on for absolute power and control.
Actually it started before Reagan. It was already going with Nixon. For instance, Nixon had presidential commission studying whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized. However before they ever came back with a decision he said there's no way he agree to make hemp legal again, which is what the commission decided. In part because of this some Republicans split off with the party and formed the Libertarian Party.
The article about 2008 election that the/. article was linked to.
Why should illegal immigrants be given preferential treatment over legal residents who also pay into Social Security and will get nothing back?
I didn't say they should.
Not everyone is an illegal immigrant who moved after the original Native Americans
That depends on who's pov is looked at. The Indians certainly didn't invite and stamp visas or any other immigration documents. It was the European invaders who setup such a system with documents.
and they're not immigrants in the same way many Mexicans are today
Many of those Mexican immigrants are Maya, or other Native American Indians, and their ancesters were already in America when the Europeans came.
They didn't get massive amounts of welfare and government programs. They didn't have free healthcare.
Yes, big government. I much prefer a small limited government.
I also dispise social darwinism, and believe that most people that fail did not do so by their own incompetance, and therefor should be given a great amount of public support to pick themselves up again..
Oh, I believe many who need help don't need because it's their own fault. I'm like that myself. Years ago I was a college student and was riding my bike after class when I was hit by a moving van. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived, NOT!!! Now I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. As soon as I could I went back to college, but I quickly found out learning was a struggle for me because of the injury. My memory is bad and unless I keep working at what I learn I will loose it. I also have a difficult tyme initiating projects or other things I need or want to do.
However some of the things the government does I believe civil society can do a better job at. At most I'd prefer government do nothing more than provide a last safety net for those who fall through the cracks. But as it is now social welfare programs are setup to keep people in poverty. If someone collecting welfare tries to improve their economic situation they risk loosing all of the assistance they get. I recall once years ago I was working fulltime but my employer didn't offer health insurance so I checked into getting some myself. The cheapest I could find was about 1/3 of my income. So a roommate recommended I check with the county healthcare department. They said "sorry" I made too much to get assistance.
The one place I really support government assistance is in education, anyone who wants to and can maintain grades should be able to go to college. After WWII, the GI Bill did wonders for the US's economy. All of these returning vets were able to go to college, then the US had a boom in medium income people with vets becoming doctors, engineers, and such. I do have one problem with government educational assistance though, it drives up the price of education. The only remedy to this I can see is work/study or going into the military. While in a person can do two things, one is save money to go to college when they get out, and two is taking as many classes as they can while they are in the military. Though they won't pay all of it, the military will pay for some of the tuition while a person is serving.
Check the Wikipedia article... it's covered extensively there.
Actually it's not. In the Wiki article his name one appears in two sentences. It does have a link to another Wiki article about him though. On that page it discusses Controversial racial remarks made in which he states some statements were made by someone else working on his campaigns and other's he made himself was taken out of context.
If you're truly a libertarian, he comes closest to your ideas.
I had admitted to that earlier.
Just opening the border to Mexico comes nowhere near the libertarian vision of open borders, especially when states have welfare in place and illegal immigrants are benefiting from American taxpayers in a large way.
Actually illegal immigrants are barred from getting any welfare or government assistance by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. At the same tyme, 1996, the IRS created dummy SSNs illegal immigrants could get so they'd be able to get jobs. Using those numbers immigrants have paid into Social Security $50 billion, however they'll never be able to collect SS themself, thus keeping SS solvent. Last year Reason magazine had an article on this.
How can you get Social Security without a Social Security number?... yet it's possible and it's done through forging or stealing a Social Security number
That's a problem with the SSA. If someone is using forged or stolen SSNs to collect SS then the SSA is not doing it's job.
social welfare is gotten rid of,
I am all for ending welfare, both social and corporate welfare, at the federal level. Now if states want to offer it then it's up to the residents to decide to offer it.
I find it amazing that illegal immigrants are given such cushy treatment in the US.
Some are shocked by this, but anyone who wants to talk about illegal immigrants and is not a Native American India, NDN say Cherokee, Hopi, or Ottawa, is an illeqal immigrant. The ancesters of these illegals massacred Indians already here, then stuffed what was left onto small reservations with marginal land values. I don't see current illegals doing this though. And yes, I'm both. My background is French Canadian but I have an ancester who was Indian.
But anyway, Ron Paul is most likely the one who fits your views the best. I urge you not to discount him simply because of that.
Oh, when it comes to it I'll still vote for Ron Paul, at least in the primary. As of now there's just no way I could vote for any of the candidates I know is running right now, Dem or Rep. Then again I don't know the LP candidates yet.
It's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab
Because I didn't. You may have the perception I did but I didn't.
And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who.
I answered directly who, the one who wants to tax those who work to earn the money, ie "The first Who? Those who want to tax". And "The second who? Those who work."
It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.
Ah, that's where unions come in. As for sweat shops, are you talking about those third world factories that pay more than what the local people are being paid? I find it amazing many call these businesses sweat shops, but I suppose it's an attempt to rationalize the demand to keep the factories in the US. "Hey, they pay less than an American worker would be paid. It must be a sweat shop." Sure the pay is less but then again the cost of living is lower too, and many of the workers are paid more than those not able to get jobs in the factories.
I think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.
I think one reason many take Libertarians as conservatives is because supposedly conservatives were for small government. The founders of the Libertarian Party were dissolutioned Republicans during the Nixon era. And while some Libertarians do come from the Republican party others come from the Democrat Party as well. I first voted in 1980, for Jimmy Carter. Then in 1984 I voted for the Dem candidate, though I don't recall who it was. However in 1988 I learned about Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party he was the Presidential candidate for and I voted for him then.
If the feds are funding it, shouldn't the feds administer it, effectively reducing the size of (total) gov't at the expense of increasing the federal bureaucracy?
If the feds didn't tax so high then states would be able to fund programs like these. A state could also use programs that are appropriate for the state. As it is now fed programs are one size fits all, and may not be appropriate in all cases. At least if individual states were able to fund and run their own programs then as a whole the states could find a program that works for them.
Of course you are. The definition of a libertarian is a conservative without money.
If you mean fiscally conservative yes but I'm also socially liberal. Otherwise I think you got your definitions mixed up. Actually I am compleatly Liberal, Classically Liberal, which is a Libertarian in the US today.
The point is, the libertarian position is directly against wealth redistribution. In most modern societies, this is done through progressive taxing, luxury taxes, and estate taxes. Without those tools, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and eventually are so far behind that they are pretty much slaves.
Stealing from the rich and giving to uncle Sam you mean? Allow more people to keep more of the money they earn then they can create new jobs which benefit everyone. They can do this in two ways. The more money people can keep that they earn, the more they can invest and/or spend. Investing means more money can be used for research and for job creation. The more people spend the more jobs can be created as well. Whereas with government, with few exceptions government is less efficient than the capital market. Also more money goes to the already wealthy.
For instance in the US large multinational agriculture corporations get billions of dollars in subsidies yearly. That was a big reason the WTO meetings in Geneva fell apart. India and other countries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subsidizing these businesses because with subsidizies multinationals can sell food in India, South Korea, and Mexico cheaper than farmers in these countries can grow food. If you live in the US do you ever wonder why so many Mexicans and other Latin Americans come to the US as "illegal aliens or immigrants"? Many of them are being driven off of their farms because they can't compete with subsidized US agribusinesses who are able to export food to Mexico and sale it cheaply there.
If it comes up to upholding the Constitution, and stopping people from getting lynched because of the color of their skin, I think the latter is more important.
Ah, stopping people from getting lynched is already covered, such as by the 14th amendment, which you mention later. As for the colour of one's skin, and the gender as well, when Thomas Jefferson originally wrote the "Declaration of Indepemdence" he wrote that everyone no matter their colour or gender had the same rights. This part was only removed because a committee had to approve it and some believed in slavery and some believed women were property.
I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich
Then you're doing it wrong.
How so? Democrats want to regulate businesses out of business and tax people to death, whereas the Republicans want to tell people what they can and can't do between consenting individuals and a big military/police state. The Libertarian Party is the only political party in the US that wants liberty and small government.
He's not a racist. Those comments were written by a staffer, not Ron Paul. Don't believe the smear campaign. They're trying to get him any way they can and that's the ONLY thing they think they've got.
I'll have to look into it further, but even if he is he still comes the closest to a small limited government from either major party.
BTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well.
Except for anyone who isn't blatantly racist or xenophobic
That was something that supprized me about Ron Paul I read about recently, that he wants to tighten the border and restrict immigration. I disagree with most immigration laws and believe in open borders.
After reading that article I'm disappointed I've supported him.
Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
Are you saying I advocate rights for the rich and slavery for the poor? I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich. Fact is is that reducing government and therefore taxes will mean there is more money available to create new jobs, whereas big government can destroy jobs.
That's who I plan to vote for, Ron Paul. I'm registered No Party Preference, however when the state primary comes around I'll register as a Republican just so I can vote for him in the primary Of course I'll switch right back afterwards.
That's true. However, that tax relies on self-reporting, which essentially makes it unenforceable.
True enough. I didn't even know of the use tax until a couple of years ago, when a similar thread came up on/. and someone else posted info about the use tax. I doubt many others have heard of it before either.
Another poster on this thread did say his/her state income forms have a line to declare such purchases so residents in that state may know, but I've only lived in two states where "I" filed income taxes. The first one, Florida, does not have a state income tax. The second, Minneasota where I currently live, does. However I've never worked in the state, I had a bad accident that left me with a disability when I lived in FL and moved to MN to get more therapy. My sister, who moved here before me then asked me to move here to get the therapy, is a CPA and she does my taxes.
you said that I posted about a grab for money and power
I said nothing of the sort. Directly from my original post here's what I said: "All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes."
Nowhere in there do I say you posted about a power grab. Actually I was the one that posted about a power grab.
Slashdot Mirror
On a more serious note, it looks like we have another naive libertarian type here. Let the market take care of the government-created monopolies!
McCaine is not a libertarian. If anything he's more authoritarian.
At first as a Libertarian I was against any net neutrality law myself, however once I found out the government has given businesses taxpayer money to buildup the net infrastructure I started to support such a law. Either these companies can open up thier pipes or they can pay back the money they were given. And if they have a natural monopoly such as cablecos and telcos then they should be mandated to have open access as well.
FalconIf I knew that the invading force was going to haul my people off to places like Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Birkenau, Dachau, and Flossenburg, we'd have fought until the either pushed us into the Atlantic Ocean or killed all of us.
Many French did fight the Germans in the underground or resistance.
Falcon'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'"
That should read "When you pay for the pipe you should be able to profit from it." Because government has given cablecos, telcos, and others money to build up the internet infrastructure then they should be mandated to have an open pipeline.
FalconWhat would make a "Union" organization any different than a non-Democratic "Government" where special interests are wholly in charge: only those inside having a say, leaving the rest of the public to hang?
Ah, with the exception of those unions controlled by the mob, unions are democratic for their members. If you're not a member you don't get a vote, but then again if you're not a citizen of the USA you don't get to vote in state or federal elections either. Maybe you want everybody on the planet to have a vote in US elections?
And who is going to enforce those laws and see that lawsuits are managed in a fair and equitable way?
The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. That includes city police and county sheriffs, state police, and a bunch of federal law enforcement officials. Many of which are redundent, we don't need the ATF, Drug Czar, DEA, FBI, Intelligence Czar, and the US Marshalls among all the others.
Without a government, how exactly would China make and enforce those laws: round up a possie?
I am not an anarchist, I am a Libertarian! Libertarians don't advocate no government, we advocate a small and limited governemt. Especially at the federal level, most law enforcement, like most politics, should be at the local level.
You really want a possie deciding who's right and who's wrong?
Read my above statement. Appearently you are confusing anarchists and libertarians, the only thing I can thing of otherwise is that you are deliberately distorting what Libertarians are about.
You want to assume that, when a dollar is involved, everyone is gonna play fair "in the name of liberty" -
Now, you are distorting and ingnoring what I have said previously. Not once have I said any such thing. I have repeatly stated law enforcement, the courts, and lawsuits should take care of a lot of crimes. And that Libertarians believe in responsibility.
Because you are intent on distorting or ignoring what Libertarians believe in, I'm ending our diologue. I see no reason to continue when you constantly misrepresent what people believe in.
FalconSee, even though I'm registered Green(did my part to get them on the ballot in California, gosh - about 15 years ago now), part of their strategy from day one is to re-register for the other primaries for the Presidential conventions. The idea is to do our best to make sure that both parties have the best two candidates running against each other.
Though I'm registered No Party Preference, so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary I plan on reregistering Republican just before the primary. Then, I'll change my registration back afterwards. But to tell the truth I think it BS that I have to do this, I much prefer open primaries or caucuses, everybody should be able to vote for the best candidate for each party. Of course though the parties don't want this because it reduces their power. What power? The power to control who votes in the primaries and caucuses. Ah, I see you bring this up later in your post.
Falconin places where there -aren't- controls, even today, let's look at China for a great example: putting (poisonous; a plastic) melamine filler in pet feed to boost the tested protein content. Putting (poisonous; antifreeze) propylene glycol in toothpaste as a sweetener.
This is one place where courts and lawsuits come in. China has been more interested in boosting economic output than in health and safety or the environment, however they are realizing this attitude causes more harm than good, so they are slowly tightening up on their laws and enforcement of them. As this continues their record on the environment, health, and safety will improve.
Let's go back a few years, to the turn of the century here at home and in Britain. Black lung and textile lung in workers not provided with safety equipment, working long hours in toxic environments.
Again lawsuits, and more, strong unions with the attendant collective bargaining, can help this. With libertarians' belief in the right to assembly they should be able to strengthen unions.
. Before minimum wages and before mandatory schooling or child labor laws, so you had to send the kids to work in the mines and factories, too. And before 40 hour work-week laws, so they're there as long as they can, lest they face homelessness, malnutrition, or starvation.
Once again, federal agencies et alia are not needed for this, simply all it take are laws and law enforcement.
Ahem, THAT is why I am against Libertarianism. Letting the reigns completely go is a trip right back to hell for anyone who isn't already in the elite.
If you really believe Libertarians in power would lead to this then your beliefs in what Libertarians are is totally twisted. Libertarians are very mucb FOR Liberty, for all not just a few, and for small government. It is government that creates the few who have power! Here is a webpage from the Libertarian Party for the FAQs on what Libertarians are. This page is an introduction, and here's the party platform. And since you're so concerned about corporations here's the Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies section.
Are you Libertarian just because you want a chance to be one of those elites?
Not at all. I am libertarian because I believe in Liberty! And that governments are the real terrorists!
think you, maybe anyone, at least should get your fair shot at being on a pedestal over everyone else?
I am very much pro equal opportunity! Opportunity not outcome!
FalconIt's the same old problem of the old 'tax brackets'... get a raise and cut your pay because you got bumped to the next tax bracket. I don't understand why there are "brackets"... why isn't it a continuous curve instead? The only thing it would change is the way the tax tables are calculated.
I say make income tax as easy as they can be by getting rid of personal income taxes. At the federal level the only entities that should be paying income tax are corporations. If a person, stockholder, wants limited liability then they should pay for it. But instead of billing individuals bill the corporation, one flat tax rate.
As an aside, I'd also bill corporations an added amount when executives of the corp get paid more than some multiple, say 1000, over the lowest paid fulltime employee. Using the 1000 above, if the lowest paid employee makes $24,000 then the corp can pay the ceo $24,000,000 without having to pay extra. But say the ceo is paid $50M, every dollar over the $24M, the corp also has to pay in tax. So the corp would be paying another $26M in taxes over the tax on profits. This would give the ceos, and maybe stockholders, an incentive to pay the lowest paid employee more. Oh, and this counts vacation pay, use of corporate gyms and jets, health insurance, and all other benefits.
my main issue with libertarianism is that it is an "ism"
Now apply that to democratism and republicanism.
I also belive that completely free and unfettered markets are very, very damaging to the greater good (as we see under this current administration, with the likes of Haliburton and Enron and all the corruption and concentration of wealth, and corporation actions that go directly against the welfare of the citizens of this country)
There is NO Free and Unfettered Market under Bush. Under a free market no contracts would be been handed to Haliburton, Enron, or any other corporation without open competitive bids. Why can't people understand these things don't happen in free markets? It's only by the power of the government that these things happen. As when government is involved there is no free market.
There needs to be a strong central regulation of commerce and the markets, to prevent fraud and graft
That's what courts are for. Fraud and graft are crimes and perps shoud be charged with said crimes.
to prevent corporations from polluting indiscriminately and to hold them accountable for their negative environmental impact on the nations resources (land, people, health, air, water, etc).
Courts apply here too.
We need labor laws, and laws against discrimination.
We can have these laws without more bureaucracies.
FalconDon't you think a single bureaucracy, even one that can take into account the different needs of different regions (or states, or even counties; hey, the census is federal, right?), would be more efficient (i.e., have less overhead cost for the same program expenditure) than fifty-plus duplicative bureaucracies?
No I don't. All massive bureaucracies want to expand their power. I'd much rather those bureaucrats be answerable to the state. Then they can only mess up the state. Also the more localized both bureaucrats and politicans are the more responsive they are to the people they are suposed to be working for. Someone once said "All politics is local", instead I'd say most politics is, and should be, local.
FalconThe Republican party used to be like the current Libertarian party, but ever since the neocons took it over (around the time of the Reagan administration IIRC), we've had these corporatist fascists with a hard-on for absolute power and control.
Actually it started before Reagan. It was already going with Nixon. For instance, Nixon had presidential commission studying whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized. However before they ever came back with a decision he said there's no way he agree to make hemp legal again, which is what the commission decided. In part because of this some Republicans split off with the party and formed the Libertarian Party.
FalconWhich Wikipedia article were you referring to?
The article about 2008 election that the /. article was linked to.
Why should illegal immigrants be given preferential treatment over legal residents who also pay into Social Security and will get nothing back?
I didn't say they should.
Not everyone is an illegal immigrant who moved after the original Native Americans
That depends on who's pov is looked at. The Indians certainly didn't invite and stamp visas or any other immigration documents. It was the European invaders who setup such a system with documents.
and they're not immigrants in the same way many Mexicans are today
Many of those Mexican immigrants are Maya, or other Native American Indians, and their ancesters were already in America when the Europeans came.
They didn't get massive amounts of welfare and government programs. They didn't have free healthcare.
Yes, big government. I much prefer a small limited government.
FalconI also dispise social darwinism, and believe that most people that fail did not do so by their own incompetance, and therefor should be given a great amount of public support to pick themselves up again..
Oh, I believe many who need help don't need because it's their own fault. I'm like that myself. Years ago I was a college student and was riding my bike after class when I was hit by a moving van. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived, NOT!!! Now I am a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. As soon as I could I went back to college, but I quickly found out learning was a struggle for me because of the injury. My memory is bad and unless I keep working at what I learn I will loose it. I also have a difficult tyme initiating projects or other things I need or want to do.
However some of the things the government does I believe civil society can do a better job at. At most I'd prefer government do nothing more than provide a last safety net for those who fall through the cracks. But as it is now social welfare programs are setup to keep people in poverty. If someone collecting welfare tries to improve their economic situation they risk loosing all of the assistance they get. I recall once years ago I was working fulltime but my employer didn't offer health insurance so I checked into getting some myself. The cheapest I could find was about 1/3 of my income. So a roommate recommended I check with the county healthcare department. They said "sorry" I made too much to get assistance.
The one place I really support government assistance is in education, anyone who wants to and can maintain grades should be able to go to college. After WWII, the GI Bill did wonders for the US's economy. All of these returning vets were able to go to college, then the US had a boom in medium income people with vets becoming doctors, engineers, and such. I do have one problem with government educational assistance though, it drives up the price of education. The only remedy to this I can see is work/study or going into the military. While in a person can do two things, one is save money to go to college when they get out, and two is taking as many classes as they can while they are in the military. Though they won't pay all of it, the military will pay for some of the tuition while a person is serving.
FalconCheck the Wikipedia article... it's covered extensively there.
Actually it's not. In the Wiki article his name one appears in two sentences. It does have a link to another Wiki article about him though. On that page it discusses Controversial racial remarks made in which he states some statements were made by someone else working on his campaigns and other's he made himself was taken out of context.
If you're truly a libertarian, he comes closest to your ideas.
I had admitted to that earlier.
Just opening the border to Mexico comes nowhere near the libertarian vision of open borders, especially when states have welfare in place and illegal immigrants are benefiting from American taxpayers in a large way.
Actually illegal immigrants are barred from getting any welfare or government assistance by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. At the same tyme, 1996, the IRS created dummy SSNs illegal immigrants could get so they'd be able to get jobs. Using those numbers immigrants have paid into Social Security $50 billion, however they'll never be able to collect SS themself, thus keeping SS solvent. Last year Reason magazine had an article on this.
How can you get Social Security without a Social Security number?... yet it's possible and it's done through forging or stealing a Social Security number
That's a problem with the SSA. If someone is using forged or stolen SSNs to collect SS then the SSA is not doing it's job.
social welfare is gotten rid of,
I am all for ending welfare, both social and corporate welfare, at the federal level. Now if states want to offer it then it's up to the residents to decide to offer it.
I find it amazing that illegal immigrants are given such cushy treatment in the US.
Some are shocked by this, but anyone who wants to talk about illegal immigrants and is not a Native American India, NDN say Cherokee, Hopi, or Ottawa, is an illeqal immigrant. The ancesters of these illegals massacred Indians already here, then stuffed what was left onto small reservations with marginal land values. I don't see current illegals doing this though. And yes, I'm both. My background is French Canadian but I have an ancester who was Indian.
But anyway, Ron Paul is most likely the one who fits your views the best. I urge you not to discount him simply because of that.
Oh, when it comes to it I'll still vote for Ron Paul, at least in the primary. As of now there's just no way I could vote for any of the candidates I know is running right now, Dem or Rep. Then again I don't know the LP candidates yet.
FalconIt's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab
Because I didn't. You may have the perception I did but I didn't.
And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who.I answered directly who, the one who wants to tax those who work to earn the money, ie "The first Who? Those who want to tax". And "The second who? Those who work."
It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.
Ah, that's where unions come in. As for sweat shops, are you talking about those third world factories that pay more than what the local people are being paid? I find it amazing many call these businesses sweat shops, but I suppose it's an attempt to rationalize the demand to keep the factories in the US. "Hey, they pay less than an American worker would be paid. It must be a sweat shop." Sure the pay is less but then again the cost of living is lower too, and many of the workers are paid more than those not able to get jobs in the factories.
FalconI think a lot of libertarians would be mighty offended by you calling them conservatives. Libertarians, are, by defenition, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Many get lumped into the republican camp, but just as many vote democrat because of the social issues.
I think one reason many take Libertarians as conservatives is because supposedly conservatives were for small government. The founders of the Libertarian Party were dissolutioned Republicans during the Nixon era. And while some Libertarians do come from the Republican party others come from the Democrat Party as well. I first voted in 1980, for Jimmy Carter. Then in 1984 I voted for the Dem candidate, though I don't recall who it was. However in 1988 I learned about Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party he was the Presidential candidate for and I voted for him then.
FalconIf the feds are funding it, shouldn't the feds administer it, effectively reducing the size of (total) gov't at the expense of increasing the federal bureaucracy?
If the feds didn't tax so high then states would be able to fund programs like these. A state could also use programs that are appropriate for the state. As it is now fed programs are one size fits all, and may not be appropriate in all cases. At least if individual states were able to fund and run their own programs then as a whole the states could find a program that works for them.
FalconI am Libertarian AND poor
Of course you are. The definition of a libertarian is a conservative without money.
If you mean fiscally conservative yes but I'm also socially liberal. Otherwise I think you got your definitions mixed up. Actually I am compleatly Liberal, Classically Liberal, which is a Libertarian in the US today.
FalconThe point is, the libertarian position is directly against wealth redistribution. In most modern societies, this is done through progressive taxing, luxury taxes, and estate taxes. Without those tools, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and eventually are so far behind that they are pretty much slaves.
Stealing from the rich and giving to uncle Sam you mean? Allow more people to keep more of the money they earn then they can create new jobs which benefit everyone. They can do this in two ways. The more money people can keep that they earn, the more they can invest and/or spend. Investing means more money can be used for research and for job creation. The more people spend the more jobs can be created as well. Whereas with government, with few exceptions government is less efficient than the capital market. Also more money goes to the already wealthy.
For instance in the US large multinational agriculture corporations get billions of dollars in subsidies yearly. That was a big reason the WTO meetings in Geneva fell apart. India and other countries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subsidizing these businesses because with subsidizies multinationals can sell food in India, South Korea, and Mexico cheaper than farmers in these countries can grow food. If you live in the US do you ever wonder why so many Mexicans and other Latin Americans come to the US as "illegal aliens or immigrants"? Many of them are being driven off of their farms because they can't compete with subsidized US agribusinesses who are able to export food to Mexico and sale it cheaply there.
Read some Marx.
I have read him, as well as Hilter's book. I've also read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations , various writings from Thomas Paine, and Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
FalconIf it comes up to upholding the Constitution, and stopping people from getting lynched because of the color of their skin, I think the latter is more important.
Ah, stopping people from getting lynched is already covered, such as by the 14th amendment, which you mention later. As for the colour of one's skin, and the gender as well, when Thomas Jefferson originally wrote the "Declaration of Indepemdence" he wrote that everyone no matter their colour or gender had the same rights. This part was only removed because a committee had to approve it and some believed in slavery and some believed women were property.
FalconI am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich
Then you're doing it wrong.
How so? Democrats want to regulate businesses out of business and tax people to death, whereas the Republicans want to tell people what they can and can't do between consenting individuals and a big military/police state. The Libertarian Party is the only political party in the US that wants liberty and small government.
FalconHe's not a racist. Those comments were written by a staffer, not Ron Paul. Don't believe the smear campaign. They're trying to get him any way they can and that's the ONLY thing they think they've got.
I'll have to look into it further, but even if he is he still comes the closest to a small limited government from either major party.
FalconBTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well.
Except for anyone who isn't blatantly racist or xenophobic
That was something that supprized me about Ron Paul I read about recently, that he wants to tighten the border and restrict immigration. I disagree with most immigration laws and believe in open borders.
After reading that article I'm disappointed I've supported him.
FalconLike all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.
Are you saying I advocate rights for the rich and slavery for the poor? I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich. Fact is is that reducing government and therefore taxes will mean there is more money available to create new jobs, whereas big government can destroy jobs.
FalconThat's who I plan to vote for, Ron Paul. I'm registered No Party Preference, however when the state primary comes around I'll register as a Republican just so I can vote for him in the primary Of course I'll switch right back afterwards.
FalconThat's true. However, that tax relies on self-reporting, which essentially makes it unenforceable.
True enough. I didn't even know of the use tax until a couple of years ago, when a similar thread came up on /. and someone else posted info about the use tax. I doubt many others have heard of it before either.
Another poster on this thread did say his/her state income forms have a line to declare such purchases so residents in that state may know, but I've only lived in two states where "I" filed income taxes. The first one, Florida, does not have a state income tax. The second, Minneasota where I currently live, does. However I've never worked in the state, I had a bad accident that left me with a disability when I lived in FL and moved to MN to get more therapy. My sister, who moved here before me then asked me to move here to get the therapy, is a CPA and she does my taxes.
Falconyou said that I posted about a grab for money and power
I said nothing of the sort. Directly from my original post here's what I said:
Falcon"All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes."
Nowhere in there do I say you posted about a power grab. Actually I was the one that posted about a power grab.