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

Bad thread to make, considering the political leanings of the majority of facepunchers.

[QUOTE=Metzgemeist;29006769]Bad thread to make, considering the political leanings of the majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] funnily enough not all people care about being disagreed with on the internet as much as u

You might as well be a conservative the way you preach THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! Which fucks over any one who isn't white and rich.

[QUOTE=Winters;29006817]You might as well be a conservative the way you preach THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! Which fucks over any one who isn't rich.[/QUOTE] *fixed*

Everything is all well and good until a natural disaster occurs. I'd bet you would want a strong government to help you out with that.

[QUOTE=Metzgemeist;29006769]Bad thread to make, considering the political leanings of the majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say FP is "dominated" by any particular ideological group. Not Liberals, not Conservatives, not Socialists, and not Libertarians.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29001361]You seem pretty libertarian yourself You do know that libertarianism does not just encompass the small-government laissez-faireism of the Libertarian party, right? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism[/url] If that's not part of your political philosophy I've seriously misinterpreted previous posts of yours.[/QUOTE] Socially I suppose I'm libertarian but definitely not economically. I'm for high taxes for the rich to support free healthcare, education, and social security. I'm also for laws against hate speech (to a degree, it doesn't have to be a slippery slope), and I don't think anyone should be allowed to refuse service to someone in their establishment just because they're a different race/religion/sex/gender/sexual orientation, so that isn't very libertarian either.

Economically is where there's the most contention I figure, but I think anyone who thinks we should default to letting people do whatever the fuck they feel like when there isn't some other important issue weighing against that qualifies as at least partially libertarian, and most liberals as well, even though some social policy issue differ between liberals and libertarians, like gun control, and also run-on sentences.

Anything but the conservative party.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29008047]Economically is where there's the most contention I figure, but I think anyone who thinks we should default to letting people do whatever the fuck they feel like when there isn't some other important issue weighing against that qualifies as at least partially libertarian, and most liberals as well, even though some social policy issue differ between liberals and libertarians, like gun control, and also run-on sentences.[/QUOTE] I just don't like the libertarians who go on about the gold standard and how useless homeless people are and how if you can't pay for your cancer treatment you shouldn't get it because you don't work hard enough You know, the loudest American libertarians

The Libertarian libertarians.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29008957]The Libertarian libertarians.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the ones willing to actually label themselves with it.

Here are my questions with universal medical care: When and why did medical treatment become a right? Where should the line be drawn for what medical treatment people have the right to and who gets to decide what that line is?

[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;28983096]no school uniforms[/QUOTE] That's a selling point?

[QUOTE=sgman91;29016394] When and why did medical treatment become a right?[/quote] Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1945, states the following: [I]"[B](1)[/B] Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. [B](2)[/B] Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."[/I] Source: [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] [quote] Where should the line be drawn for what medical treatment people have the right to and who gets to decide what that line is?[/QUOTE]The government, the county, the municipality. It doesn't really matter as long as it's not private interests that steer the health care market. Where the line should be drawn is a tricky question, if there is any dispute whether a patient has the right to get a treatment or not, it should be resolved individually in courts.

oh thank god i thought it was the liberal party

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29007897]Socially I suppose I'm libertarian but definitely not economically. I'm for high taxes for the rich to support free healthcare, education, and social security. [/QUOTE] Isn't that more socialism than libertarianism?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29017652]Isn't that more socialism than libertarianism?[/QUOTE] They're not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=XxTheAvengerxX;29001717]You're speaking about one party in one region as if it were the entire region. That's like saying the United States is communist because they have a Marxist party. And even then the Social Democratic party still isn't technically socialist.[/QUOTE] It greatly depends on what you compare it with. Comparing it with the two major American parties for example, it's far far far left, and would most definitely be considered socialism. Even the current right-winged government we have here in Denmark, would be defined as socialist libertarian party. So to say that Scandinavian policies such as universal welfare and flexicurity aren't socialist policies would be a gross understatement. And yes, while it may not be full-blown socialism (I doubt such a state could even exist) I would say that Scandinavia is as close as it gets. Besides even if you call it social libertarianism, or social democracy or popular socialism, it still is socialism.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29017705]They're not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] I'd still say that socialist/liberalist is a better description that social libertarian if you have those views.

[QUOTE=Taishu;29017709]It greatly depends on what you compare it with. Comparing it with the two major American parties for example, it's far far far left, and would most definitely be considered socialism. Even the current right-winged government we have here in Denmark, would be defined as socialist libertarian party. So to say that Scandinavian policies such as universal welfare and flexicurity aren't socialist policies would be a gross understatement. And yes, while it may not be full-blown socialism (I doubt such a state could even exist) I would say that Scandinavia is as close as it gets. Besides even if you call it social libertarianism, or social democracy or popular socialism, it still is socialism.[/QUOTE] And it fucking rocks. Problem America?

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29018298]And it fucking rocks. Problem America?[/QUOTE] It's so fucking retarded that they instantly think of Soviet and Communism when you mention Socialism to them, and Soviet wasn't even communist.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Beaverlake;29018426]It's so fucking retarded that they instantly think of Soviet and Communism when you mention Socialism to them, and Soviet wasn't even communist.[/QUOTE] Soviet was communist, they just didn't follow Marx's principles entirely. The Soviet ideology was imposed through revolution, and it contains communist ideas such as planned economy, collectivisation, dictatorship of the proletariat etc, so they are essentially communist.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29018574]Soviet was communist, they just didn't follow Marx's principles entirely. The Soviet ideology was imposed through revolution, and it contains communist ideas such as planned economy, collectivisation, dictatorship of the proletariat etc, so they are essentially communist.[/QUOTE] It loosely followed Marx's ideas until Stalin came to power and fucked everything up.

[QUOTE=Stupideye;29019025]It loosely followed Marx's ideas until Stalin came to power and fucked everything up.[/QUOTE] I'm p. sure it was communist.

[QUOTE=Implosions;29019060]I'm p. sure it was communist.[/QUOTE] Far from it. Stalin was a fascist in a communist suit.

The general gist I've got off of people against the state healthcare seems to follow "FUCK HER CHEMOTHERAPY. I WANT AN IPAD"

[QUOTE=Implosions;29019060]I'm p. sure it was communist.[/QUOTE] It never got that far; communism at it's heart is a classless, [b]stateless[/b] society. The closest they got was a socialist state.

Several countries have done the two option system, such as Australia and Hong Kong. We should have two choices: Public healthcare - Which people who choose that option have to pay higher taxes for. Government run hospitals. Private healthcare - No higher taxes for people who choose this option. Privately run hospitals.