EPTOn September 17 2010 17:24 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
I´m Above
I´m Above
And I'm on top.
LOL
Your Political Position - Page 3
| Blogs > Musoeun |
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
And I'm on top. LOL | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Chomsky says classical liberalism would turn into Libertarian Socialism; but I don't quite see it. Edit: where not wear lol | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
Eg. Romans w/ Jews The Caliphate The Crusades The Inquisition (not the Spanish one  )The Holocaust The Intifada (sp?) j/k @ above I'm all for individual freedoms except for the individual paying to support a basic social safety net for the state; a slowly progressive tax that CANNOT be amended; inflation-based financial penalties on laws and regulations with fines. Legalization of abortion up to the 30th week (any fetuses beyond have a probability to SURVIVE outside the womb medically), prostitution and regulation on drugs. Minimal gun regulation but mandatory registration (so if it's stolen I'd be able to say that it wasn't me handling the weapon). Implementation of a merit-based system for education and the sciences. Blah I don't want to be too comprehensive. I'd take forever. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4374 Posts
1.Bring back tariffs on imported goods , especially those made in slave labour countries like China 2.Reduce government spending , cut taxes , cut red tape 3.End illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , close most offshore military bases 4.Child benefit payments stop after first child (to avoid these people that have 10 kids and live off the welfare) 5.Bring back death penalty 6.Decriminalize drugs , thus cutting police budget and prison population. 7.Allow euthanasia for terminally ill people , people over 85 have the option available regardless of whether they are ill or not 8.Better border protection , throw out illegal immigrants I doubt i'll check this thread much so if you agree with me thats cool , if you disagree with me thats also cool. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4374 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:01 Cauld wrote: No, you don't economics at all. The government can inflate the supply of money at any times. I never said they wouldn't have to pay it back. You have no concept of keynsian economics at all. Anyone see gold hit a new record the other day of 1271 US/Ounce , probably a strong correlation between that and the government heating up the printing presses.Just a thought. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:13 Yurebis wrote: If you support socialized healthcare and education, you shouldn't be calling yourself a libertarian imo. Might be other stuff I need to address, but this was the first. Yeah, I'm not really a libertarian. Good point. But first of all, I call myself libertarian with reservations, as I mentioned. But here's why I don't think it's entirely inaccurate: I believe government has two main responsibilities. The first is what we variously might call justice, order, safety, or protection: the guarantee of those (largely negative) rights which can be clearly violated and thus clearly defended and offenders clearly condemned. Now, on the whole, many libertarians will limit the government's role to this purely negative or protective one. However, some will allow - as I understand it, and this is why I still class myself - that in order to accomplish these negative goals, the government also has some responsibility to maintain larger things, those "necessary" things which private enterprise cannot or historically will not provide. The main one cited is almost always a standing army: most will also allow roads: I would argue that similar logic would extend to schools and hospitals. I realize this is a different point of view from the mainstream of libertarian thought, so I'd like a better label but I don't have one. But I also insist that these programs ought to be worked out on as local a level as possible, rather than being centralized. If I gave myself a label, rather than borrowing current ones, I'd call myself a "localist". | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:19 chocopan wrote: When you say you are against abortion, you give a moral position. What is your position on the law? Do you believe it should be criminalized? Yes, just like theft or murder or assault or fraud or any other form of violence committed against another person. I also tend to think the majority of the blame/penalty should be placed on "doctors" who perform the procedure. I do understand that removing all abortionists wouldn't remove all abortions, but I view it like any other organized criminal activity: you remove the mafia boss, that doesn't remove all the swindlers, but you still have to do it. I understand that my condemnation of abortion is due in part to my religion, but I really believe that you can't kill human life of any kind without setting the stage for further transgressions of natural law rights. Unlike, for instance, the following: On September 17 2010 13:28 Mothxal wrote: A bit more specific on your points: nice veiled anti-gay sentiment there. I guess you'd be opposed to people that divorce and get re-married having their union called a marriage too, since that's the traditional view? Please go ahead and tell a gay couple that they can't actually marry. since that term is reserved for proper people. My "anti-gay" sentiment, such as it is, is irrelevant to the argument. And what is it, anyway? Well, it's a personal religious belief. Being gay isn't equivalent to murder or anything; it's more like being an atheist: something I personally disagree with, think is wrong, and aside from conversion and repentance will land you in trouble with God eventually - but in the meantime, it's not really my business, it's between you and God (or if I'm wrong, it's entirely your own business and I was wrong even to think you're wrong at all), and it's certainly not politically relevant. Go ahead, be gay: you still get to vote, conduct business, etc. etc. My objection to "gay marriage" is semantic, not political: I think that the core of marriage is the reproductive union, which isn't really available to homosexual couples. If it has to be called marriage to make people happy or get their unions recognized, fine I guess, but a distinction gets missed. On September 17 2010 13:46 Yurebis wrote: Even then, the op is clearly not either, hes a moderate imo, trying to reconcile everything and sound nice to everyone. No offense, thats what politics is after all. "Trying to reconcile everything", certainly. Or at least as much as can be reconciled. I don't know about trying to be nice to everyone. On September 17 2010 13:56 Cauld wrote: State governments are generally terrible, country and city even worse; watch them on C-SPAN sometime. I'm fine with them existing as they currently are but do some research into the level of corruption that goes on the more local politics become. This is also how creationism gets into school curriculum, and how Texas gets to screw with textbooks used nationwide. I realize that local governments are a mess (I live half an hour from Detroit, how could I not?): but I'm thinking, for the moment, that this is at least partly due to the (relatively recent) emphasis on the federal government. And it's not like the Federal government is a bastion of purity either! | ||
|
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:02 Mothxal wrote: I didn't say that at all, please reread what I wrote. "I find it amusing, as an European, that when I see a thread about how government can't work and everything needs to be set up in such a way that government is completely optional because of the horror of taxing people, that it's always by a reasonably young person from the United States." ??? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 18 2010 00:50 Sentenal wrote: "I find it amusing, as an European, that when I see a thread about how government can't work and everything needs to be set up in such a way that government is completely optional because of the horror of taxing people, that it's always by a reasonably young person from the United States." ??? He said most of the people who think everything should be optional are reasonably young people from the United States, not that most reasonably young people from the United States want government to be optional. | ||
| ||
