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

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078944]1. yes it does amendment 14, section 1: the civil rights act of 1964 goes into more detail. 2. if the tax rate is at an adequate level for libertarian ideas of government spending, then no, its not a bad idea.[/QUOTE] but if you had a libertarian style of government, there'd be a lot of people in very bad situations left to those bad situations.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078965]I imagine it would really only depend on the advertising of such a chain.[/QUOTE] What? How would that matter, i can't imagine an ad from a place that had "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" on it's doors. "Savings at low, low prices, also no darkies" Money maker right there, pro business model My point is, i guess, is it's economically beneficial to be [i]not[/i] racist, and [i]not[/i] homophobic as it opens the doors (literally i guess) to more consumers.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078953]First off, there wasn't any financial collapse in Soviet Union, it was a political collapse. And the government definitely didn't offer any nanny services to its population. Saying that socialised health care is flawed and using Soviet Union as an example is like saying that privatised health care is flawed and using Chad as an example.[/QUOTE] im not referring to the collapse of the soviet union in that sense. im talking (mostly) about the russian financial crisis of 1998.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078978]exactly. president eisenhower put this perfectly during the little rock nine situation by saying something along the lines of "you cant legislate people to like eachother".[/QUOTE] Never said or even felt, that you could. In fact, that goes directly in contrast with what I believe but that doesn't mean discrimination(Different from racism or what have you)doesn't happen.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078944]2. if the tax rate is at an adequate level for libertarian ideas of government spending, then no, its not a bad idea.[/QUOTE] I suppose it's a good thing that'll never happen in America.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078944]1. yes it does amendment 14, section 1: the civil rights act of 1964 goes into more detail.[/quote] It obviously doesn't as LGBT individuals have less rights in most of the US [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078944]2. if the tax rate is at an adequate level for libertarian ideas of government spending, then no, its not a bad idea.[/QUOTE] A flat tax hurts the poor more than the rich, why can't you see this? Poor people spend proportionately more of their money on things necessary for survival so a flat tax takes proportionately more of the money they need.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078979]but if you had a libertarian style of government, there'd be a lot of people in very bad situations left to those bad situations.[/QUOTE] do you have any grasp of the concept of personal responsibility?

The what? Librarian party??

[QUOTE=s0beit;29078839]When you live under a 2 party system and neither system represents you accurately, your points are all very moot. Even people who support one of the two parties in a two party system such as ours are out of luck when there is another party in power. I would prefer the people decide where their money goes, government programs would need to compete with each other and display real, noticeable results for people to direct their tax dollars in their direction. At all times, government funding would be allocated according to demand from [b]the people[/b]. I can't imagine a better system than that, really. Please point out the holes in my logic.[/QUOTE] Okay I will give it a try since you asked :buddy: You say that you would prefere that the people decide where the money goes, the programs would have to compete with each other. Making sure they produce results. Wouldn't this eventually create a huge seperation between people? Or would it create one huge government that makes sure the people get what they want all the time without caring for the ones who disagree? Wouldn't that alienate thousands, if not millions of people from the governement that is the most popular? How would this be decided from time to time? Considering you say that the people have the say, kinda like a direct democracy, how would this be decided? Wouldn't there be chaos eventually? Wouldn't this create a majority that just undermines the whole: People have the vote?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079011]do you have any grasp of the concept of personal responsibility?[/QUOTE] do you have any grasp of the concept of circumstances beyond one's control?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079011]do you have any grasp of the concept of personal responsibility?[/QUOTE] So if a particular group or person is being discriminated against or put in a position of poverty they cannot get out of, they should just "deal with it"?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29079010]It obviously doesn't as LGBT individuals have less rights in most of the US[/quote] if youre simply taking about marriage then you have missed quite a bit of discussion. its state issue. [quote]A flat tax hurts the poor more than the rich, why can't you see this? Poor people spend proportionately more of their money on things necessary for survival so a flat tax takes proportionately more of the money they need.[/QUOTE] you are an idiot. if you didnt read, let me explain it again, this time without requiring you to implicate: if taxes are low to the point where libertarian-favored spending would exist, then the impact on social classes would be negligible. [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;29079031]do you have any grasp of the concept of circumstances beyond one's control?[/QUOTE] then elaborate. [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29079038]So if a particular group or person is being discriminated against or put in a position of poverty they cannot get out of, they should just "deal with it"?[/QUOTE] explain an applicable situation like that in modern american society.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079011]do you have any grasp of the concept of personal responsibility?[/QUOTE] Im personally responsible for my broken leg, being born poor, having a drug addicted family or just simply being unlucky.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079011]do you have any grasp of the concept of personal responsibility?[/QUOTE] In fact, I do, I have a very strong one. But most people being born into bad situations don't deserve to be stuck there. Why do you deem them to be stuck there? Hard work doesn't save you from everything, hard work doesn't fix everything, and if hard work was the only thing that caused success... well, you get it.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]you are an idiot.[/quote] Great ad hominem bro. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]if you didnt read, let me explain it again, this time without requiring you to implicate: if taxes are low to the point where libertarian-favored spending would exist, then the impact on social classes would be negligible.[/quote] Regardless, people should still pay taxes proportionately.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29079029]Okay I will give it a try since you asked :buddy: You say that you would prefere that the people decide where the money goes, the programs would have to compete with each other. Making sure they produce results. Wouldn't this eventually create a huge seperation between people? Or would it create one huge government that makes sure the people get what they want all the time without caring for the ones who disagree? Wouldn't that alienate thousands, if not millions of people from the governement that is the most popular? How would this be decided from time to time? Considering you say that the people have the say, kinda like a direct democracy, how would this be decided? Wouldn't there be chaos eventually? Wouldn't this create a majority that just undermines the whole: People have the vote?[/QUOTE] I would say the politicians can and should put forward programs to be funded, and people should be able to vote on programs officials slap on the paper, beyond that people should be in control of the funding. Even if people vote a certain party into office you can't ever be sure you agree with all of their points on all issues. This would directly fix that problem. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;29079086]Regardless, people should still pay taxes proportionately.[/QUOTE] Agreeing there, people should pay proportionate to their consumption of resources. It doesn't require the income tax to accomplish that, though.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]if taxes are low to the point where libertarian-favored spending would exist, then the impact on social classes would be negligible..[/QUOTE] yea but I would be homeless because no libertarian wants to pay for my pills or homeless shelter.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046] then elaborate. [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] explain an applicable situation like that in modern american society.[/QUOTE] Did you pick where you were born? Who your parents were? Your financial situation as a kid? No, you didn't, conditions people are born into are not their control and they shouldn't be responsible for that. wow, you're worse than strider, you're so fucking sheltered if you don't think any of those situations happen in modern society...

Yay! Alucard_extreme is finally banned! :buddy:

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29079101]Did you pick where you were born? Who your parents were? Your financial situation as a kid? No, you didn't, conditions people are born into are not their control and they shouldn't be responsible for that.[/QUOTE] "but the social ladder is there for a reason!!"

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]if youre simply taking about marriage then you have missed quite a bit of discussion. its state issue.[/quote] Why? The constitution says otherwise. Or do we only have to follow the constitution when it's things YOU like? [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]you are an idiot. if you didnt read, let me explain it again, this time without requiring you to implicate: if taxes are low to the point where libertarian-favored spending would exist, then the impact on social classes would be negligible.[/quote] The impact on the poor would still be [b]greater[/b], get some damn reading comprehension. [QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]then elaborate.[/quote] Your mom's a hobo and your dad is dead and you were born in an alley, how do you survive in a libertarian society?

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29079046]explain an applicable situation like that in modern american society.[/QUOTE] Here is one. My mother has a mentally incapable child and cant work. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] Also how expect a lot of poor children not being able to pay for school.

He's banned and unable to reply, by the way guys.

[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078001]"prove it xd" but really, life isnt fair. the social ladder is there for a reason. if someone acquires that quantity of money through legal means then you have no right to direct how they use it, you manipulative fuck. keep in mind that i use the term legal loosely.[/QUOTE] wow you actually did say the social ladder is there for a reason you manipulative fuck. no surprise you got banned.

I think he was banned for alts [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29079160]wow you actually did say the social ladder is there for a reason[/QUOTE] Well, to be completely fair, playing devil's advocate here, as i brought up earlier in the topic, if everyone in the world was educated and had no motives to do manual labor or otherwise shit jobs, how would society continue to function? You could argue maybe they should be paid more, but really, its an interesting question.

Also think about all the people on food stamps. I remember when I was little and on food stamps and with out those things I would probably be dead.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29079096]I would say the politicians can and should put forward programs to be funded, and people should be able to vote on programs officials slap on the paper, beyond that people should be in control of the funding. Even if people vote a certain party into office you can't ever be sure you agree with all of their points on all issues. This would directly fix that problem.[/QUOTE] So the government should put forward programs that either get shot down, or brought up by the people, and what happens if it is something bad that comes along and people vote for it? Who will stop it? Since the people are in control wouldn't this destroy the entire concept of the people voting for what programs to fund? How would it fix the problem of alienating people from the government that has completely different views? What would happen to me if a government that you and the rest of the country have voted in? Will I get silenced for thinking differently? What would happen with the smaller governments that hasn't as much support? Will they get emerged in the bigger ones or would they simply go away?

[QUOTE=s0beit;29079190]I think he was banned for alts Well, to be completely fair, playing devil's advocate here, as i brought up earlier in the topic, if everyone in the world was educated and had no motives to do manual labor or otherwise shit jobs, how would society continue to function?[/QUOTE] I will say most repetitive jobs are and can be replaced by machines. In fact almost all of the manufacturing industry is or can be replaced by machines. This is why now a days most jobs are in the service industry.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29079190]I think he was banned for alts Well, to be completely fair, playing devil's advocate here, as i brought up earlier in the topic, if everyone in the world was educated and had no motives to do manual labor or otherwise shit jobs, how would society continue to function? You could argue maybe they should be paid more, but really, its an interesting question.[/QUOTE] It's a very interesting question, and somewhat important if we ever wanted to not have a "lower class" or proletariat.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29079198]Also think about all the people on food stamps. I remember when I was little and on food stamps and with out those things I would probably be dead.[/QUOTE] Yes but you're ignoring so many factors when using your own personal experiences you aren't really looking at the grand scheme of things. You have to ask questions like, how come my parent's money couldn't afford enough goods to feed our family? Why didn't my parents get the proper education? (Once again, back to the money problem, I'm not saying they didn't work hard enough, only to analyze how the educational system works and how goods could be affordable proportionate to your parent's income bracket, as opposed to just redistributing funds from wealthier individuals to poorer individuals in an attempt to correct the imbalance that shouldn't have existed in the first place) libertarians (good ones anyway) acknowledge there is problems in these areas, right now, today. Socialists and Libertarians have a philosophical and/or practical basis for debate. Bad libertarians and republicans don't really have any philosophical or practical ground to stand on.