I've joined the Libertarian Party... - General

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078195]clearly it was an estimation based on personal experience, and by now i wouldve expected you to infer from that, but clearly you havent[/quote] Again, I can't really judge what kind of "personal experience" you're even citing without knowing how old you are or where you've seen this happen. Something as vague as "any government-subsidized housing neighborhood" doesn't really count. I'm talking specific examples. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078195]your swedish safety net bullshit says it all to me[/QUOTE] Except it's not really bullshit.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078244]I'd say if they've been doing excessive amounts of heroin or something, then the treatment for that shouldn't be as free as if it was an illness outside of your control.[/QUOTE] Please do elaborate? I thought a majority of socialists viewed medical care as a basic human right. That's what plenty of people at the beginning of this topic said, anyway. How can you possibly justify coercing people into living a certain way? How is that social freedom in any sense of the word?

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078236]No, there's no way to justify that some people in America have multiple billions of money while others are under the poverty line. Government has all the right in the world to impose a proggressive tax in order to even out gaps.[/QUOTE] are you saying that theres no way to justify the social balance that has been prevalent since the beginning of mankind? clearly you are too ambitious to make a good point. spoon feeding the poor money from the rich isnt going to solve problems of inequality.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078320]Again, I can't really judge what kind of "personal experience" you're even citing without knowing how old you are or where you've seen this happen. Something as vague as "any government-subsidized housing neighborhood" doesn't really count. I'm talking specific examples..[/QUOTE] For christ sakes he said the words jew bankers just report.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078320]Again, I can't really judge what kind of "personal experience" you're even citing without knowing how old you are or where you've seen this happen. Something as vague as "any government-subsidized housing neighborhood" doesn't really count. I'm talking specific examples.[/QUOTE] clearly you are still missing the point

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29078253]Dude, I can barely afford an apartment.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's not good. Didn't you just say that anyone with a work ethic can find a job, and that you just found two that would hire you after only two applications? If you still can't afford an apartment, there's something wrong. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078343]clearly you are still missing the point[/QUOTE] I'm trying to address your claims and provide rebuttals here, but I need more information about what you're citing if I am to do that.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29078325]Please do elaborate? I thought a majority of socialists viewed medical care as a basic human right. That's what plenty of people at the beginning of this topic said, anyway. How can you possibly justify coercing people into living a certain way? How is that social freedom in any sense of the word?[/QUOTE] Forcing them to pay taxes isn't forcing them to live a certain way.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078298]Why do you think a safety net for the public is a bad thing?[/QUOTE] because then people begin to rely on the government for everything for fear of financial insecurity. what you dont realize is that the government isnt liable for anything it fucks up, while private companies [i]are[/i]. what are you going to do if the government's services are inadequate, start a violent revolution?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078343]clearly you are still missing the point[/QUOTE] CLEARLY THIS CHILD IS NOT A TROLL. /c

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078351]I'm trying to address your claims and provide rebuttals here, but I need more information about what you're citing if I am to do that.[/QUOTE] if i clearly said that this a subjective matter then why do you continue to pester me for citation?

[QUOTE=s0beit;29078325]Please do elaborate? I thought a majority of socialists viewed medical care as a basic human right. That's what plenty of people at the beginning of this topic said, anyway. How can you possibly justify coercing people into living a certain way? How is that social freedom in any sense of the word?[/QUOTE] Medical care is indeed a basic human right, but if someone just goes out and destroys their liver after drinking way too much alcohol, I don't think they deserve a free liver transplant. If they just got pancreatic cancer or TB or something, then yes, the care should be paid for by the state.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078386]if i clearly said that this a subjective matter then why do you continue to pester me for citation?[/QUOTE] Because you said it's from personal experience, so you must have some examples of where you've seen it.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078332]are you saying that theres no way to justify the social balance that has been prevalent since the beginning of mankind? clearly you are too ambitious to make a good point. spoon feeding the poor money from the rich isnt going to solve problems of inequality.[/QUOTE] The rich people aren't voluntarily going to share their wealth and economic power; the government has do it for them. Yeah, balance of resources may have been prevalent since beginning of mankind, but we aren't cavemen anymore. We are cabable of rational thought and solidarity, just unwilling to give up our own possesions for the well-being of the entire society. Therefore, the government has to help us do so.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078386]if i clearly said that this a subjective matter then why do you continue to pester me for citation?[/QUOTE] What political ideology are you?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078372]because then people begin to rely on the government for everything for fear of financial insecurity. what you dont realize is that the government isnt liable for anything it fucks up, while private companies [i]are[/i]. what are you going to do if the government's services are inadequate, start a violent revolution?[/QUOTE] Our government is extremly liable if they fuck up as you so nicely put it. If, and when, our government would begin to provide inadequate services, we have the right to kick them out of the government (through the help of a neutral section in the government) that does a search on what they have done and keeps the government under control. Not that difficult.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078397]The rich people aren't voluntarily going to share their wealth and economic power; the government has do it for them..[/QUOTE] theres your problem why are they [b]obligated[/b] to share [b]their[/b] wealth that they earned? [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078393]Because you said it's from personal experience, so you must have some examples of where you've seen it.[/QUOTE] im not going to recount my entire life just for some angsty teenager on the internet [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078426]Our government is extremly liable if they fuck up as you so nicely put it. If, and when, our government would begin to provide inadequate services, we have the right to kick them out of the government (through the help of a neutral section in the government) that does a search on what they have done and keeps the government under control. Not that difficult.[/QUOTE] i find that hard to believe "prove it xd" [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;29078419]What political ideology are you?[/QUOTE] i identify myself best as a libertarian, but in all honesty, using labels is a childish, immature, and mundane belief to allude to

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078372]because then people begin to rely on the government for everything for fear of financial insecurity.[/quote] Elaborate. [quote] what you dont realize is that the government isnt liable for anything it fucks up, while private companies [i]are[/i]. what are you going to do if the government's services are inadequate, start a violent revolution?[/QUOTE] Many countries have a new innovation called democracy. If a government misbehave, we can simply choose to not elect them. If the government break laws, they can be punished.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078433]im not going to recount my entire life just for some angsty teenager on the internet[/QUOTE] First off, I don't see how I'm being angsty here. Second, I'm not asking you to write a ten page essay on this, but at least [B]one[/B] example. If it's just a sentence or two with a place and a time. Even subjective matters have some grounding in reality.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078372]because then people begin to rely on the government for everything for fear of financial insecurity.[/QUOTE] I forgot to answer this one aswell. What you forgot to learn about is that if you have problems with your economy, you can get a months salary for keeping yourself on the track. You lose this if you don't look for a job or do something actively to find a new way of providing yourself. Easy.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078433]i identify myself best as a libertarian, but in all honesty, using labels is a childish, immature, and mundane belief to allude to[/QUOTE] Good news for you, I identify myself as a Totalitarian! We are going to get along SOOOO WELLLLL!

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078471]Elaborate. Many countries have a new innovation called democracy. If a government misbehave, we can simply choose to not elect them. If the government break laws, they can be punished.[/QUOTE] clearly, the US government's fuck up with HMOs hasnt been solved with democracy (just one hole in your argument) the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. representatives here side with special interest groups that masquerade to be in the favor of the people. clearly your point is invalid.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078497]clearly, the US government's fuck up with HMOs hasnt been solved with democracy (just one hole in your argument) the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. representatives here side with special interest groups that masquerade to be in the favor of the people. clearly your point is invalid.[/QUOTE] You do still vote those representatives in, however.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078477]I forgot to answer this one aswell. What you forgot to learn about is that if you have problems with your economy, you can get a months salary for keeping yourself on the track. You lose this if you don't look for a job or do something actively to find a new way of providing yourself. Easy.[/QUOTE] that sounds nice and sweet on paper, but doesnt that contradict your whole point of not leaving people behind?

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29077750]It isn't robbery. They contribute to society by giving what they have earned back to society. By doing this, everyone have a better chance of surviving, a better chance of making sure everyone gets a fair chance of becoming happy. It also provides everyone with better social programs, the goverment can distribute the money into those who are not as lucky.[/QUOTE] I had this discussion with somebody the other day. Your position doesn't state it isn't robbery but rather that it is robbery, it's just for the greater good of society. Sorry but often money doesn't just go to the poor or disadvantaged and even when it does you can't be sure the person agrees philosophically with your subjective position. The very reason it is robbery is because it is devoid of choice at all. If you don't pay you are punished, you can't decide which services to pay for or keep funding from. If there were a sliver of choice in the matter it might not be robbery, assuming they want to pay taxes at all. I would allow people to choose which programs to pay for, or none at all, and bar them from utilizing the services (or other services) if they chose to not taxed at all. It's the only real way it isn't robbery. [QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078236]No, there's no way to justify that some people in America have multiple billions of money while others are under the poverty line. Government has all the right in the world to impose a proggressive tax in order to even out gaps.[/QUOTE] That is a subjective position and i hope you understand that. Most libertarians do know there is a problem in income, the gap, we just don't see the solution to be the same as yours. Your solution, to us, isn't just being morally bankrupt (as you're robbing people just to give to another) but also doesn't solve many problems inherent in the gap itself. The problem is an economic one. Unfair trade perpetuated by government. [QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078426]Our government is extremly liable if they fuck up as you so nicely put it. If, and when, our government would begin to provide inadequate services, we have the right to kick them out of the government (through the help of a neutral section in the government) that does a search on what they have done and keeps the government under control. Not that difficult.[/QUOTE] Considering our government is a two-party system this doesn't really apply to us at all. There are a small minority of moderates who vote for each individual party as the tide turns, but it really isn't a perfect system to regulate government. That's blatantly clear over the past 10 years.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078522]You do still vote those representatives in, however.[/QUOTE] who are backed by corporations and special interest groups do not be fooled, a good number of them really [b]dont[/b] reflect the intentions of the people

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078433] i find that hard to believe "prove it xd" [/QUOTE] Here is your proof that we have an entire sectore dedicaded on controlling the government: [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/proof3.JPG[/IMG]

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078497]clearly, the US government's fuck up with HMOs hasnt been solved with democracy (just one hole in your argument)[/quote] What the hell is a HMO? [quote] the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. representatives here side with special interest groups that masquerade to be in the favor of the people. clearly your point is invalid.[/QUOTE]I don't see how being a republic and being a democracy are mutually exclusive. It's still the people that elect the representatives. Besides, The Economist classifies U.S. as a full democracy in its democracy index.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078533]who are backed by corporations and special interest groups do not be fooled, a good number of them really [b]dont[/b] reflect the intentions of the people[/QUOTE] That's generally why you only vote in people that do. Take Bernie Sanders (a US Senator) for example. He doesn't exactly get behind corporate interests.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078523]that sounds nice and sweet on paper, but doesnt that contradict your whole point of not leaving people behind?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but what do you mean with: leaving people behind? I don't remember I said anything about leaving people behind.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078544]Here is your proof that we have an entire sectore dedicaded on controlling the government[/QUOTE] clearly this is some gibberish nonsense language mind actually supporting your argument on an english language forum?