The Libertarian Party

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
removing guns from the US makes about as much sense as introducing them in the UK. it's a different culture.

Wait. Havn't gun crimes gone up since the 1997 ban? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

[horse-fly]

[humor]for gun control... we should do what chris rock suggested... make bullets cost a crap load, so people get an education, then a really good job, then they buy a single bullet.[/humor]

personally i think guns will only lead to trouble, but to take them away would only cause more trouble

[gaekwad2]

How many people get shot in Switzerland (where gun ownership per capita is actually higher than in the US)? How do you know that murder would go up in those countries if they had guns? Equating gun ownership to gun deaths is an over-simplification at best. It is true that gun deaths are higher in the US than other countries, however, it's not really a matter of gun control than it is a matter of failed social services.

It is or it may be? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of: jumping to conclusions.

According to the Department of Justice in the US, approximately 51% of murders are committed by black people (and 47% of victims are black), while accounting for only 12% of the population.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

So whether it's a problem of poor inner city management, racist schools, racist workplaces, or whatever, one can easily see it's not simply a problem of 'gun control',

So maybe european socialist ways and asian collectivism aren't so bad after all?

which is an over-simplification and only truly hurts the honest.

Seriously, with that logic you could also demand that shoplifting be legalized because "having to pay only hurts the honest".

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
It is or it may be? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of: jumping to conclusions.

The other possibility is that black people are inherantly violent. So yeah, ok, I jumped to a conclusion, but the other possibility is pretty damn unlikely.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 So maybe european socialist ways and asian collectivism aren't so bad after all?

So maybe you're too closely associating an economic policy with a social one?

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Seriously, with that logic you could also demand that shoplifting be legalized because "having to pay only hurts the honest".

No. That analogy is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin.

First, stealing is never used lawfully. Guns are.
Second, the mere act of having a gun isn't harmful. It's like saying "we're going to close the store because someone might steal something!"

Stealing from stores is inherantly harmful, while guns may be used in hunting or self-defense, or for simple recreational target shooting.
... Shall I go on?

[ertmann|CPH]

This is why i think gun violence is bigger in the US....

ok, so picture this scenario...

I find out my wife has been cheating on me with my best friend, i get all worked up in anger, and decide to kill the person, no, passion murders are pretty common...

In the US, i take the gun from my closet, drive to his house, knock on his door, he opens the door, i point my gun at him and shoot him.

In Europe, i'll have to get close to him and stab him the right place with a knife, cz i will have no clue where to get a gun.

what scenario has the biggest chance of turning into a fatality?



Another one, i come home from town at nighttime, turn on the light, abd surprise a robber,

In the US, the robber will most likely be armed, and i will have a gun too, so in all likelyhood one of us would end up pulling the trigger.

In Denmark, i won't have a gun, so if (very unlikely) the robber has a gun, he'll point it at me, and run out the house, cz he won't have to worry about getting shot, most likely the crook won't have a gun, so either he'd try to run, or he'll have to fight with his fists...

where do you think someone is going to killed?


ok, one more?

you're working night time in a store, an armed robber comes in, points a gun at you. and ask you to empty the register. You're obviously scared shitless, so you accidentially make a rapid movement reaching for the cash.

In the US it likely that the robber would think you're reaching for a gun, and pull the trigger.

In Europe, the robber don't have to worry about that, so he won't be on the edge about it.

Where do you think someone is going to get hurt?

[xzxzzx]

Of course you have lower gun incidents with less guns. But do you have less murder? And in the US, since you'd be able to illegally to get guns anyway, do you think inner-city gun violence would decline?

If you remove the US black population from the picture (12% of the population), the US has a better murder rate than Germany, a country with strict gun control laws (if I recall correctly).

Your arguments are good, ertmann, but if you were a robber, wouldn't you think twice if a majority of the population carried a gun? What about if you were getting robbed, and you shot the robber? Yes, that's gun violence, but it's also a stopped robbery, and prevention of robberies in the future. What about if every third time a robbery took place, the robber got shot?

Guns do not mean gun violence. See Switzerland statistics for proof of that.

Yes, the US has a 'problem' with gun violence, but I assert (but cannot prove) that if the other problems of the country were resolved, gun violence would disappear. I assert (but cannot prove) that gun violence is a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.

[gaekwad2]

The other possibility is that black people are inherantly violent. So yeah, ok, I jumped to a conclusion, but the other possibility is pretty damn unlikely.

The other possiblity I was thinking about is that it is (at least in part) a matter of gun control.

So maybe you're associating an economic policy with a social one?

European economic policies can hardly be called socialist. What americans constantly denounce as socialist ways is the fact that european countries spend more money on welfare and social security than the US (and the Libertarians want to even decrease that).

If you're saying gun deaths, which are much higher in the US than in any other 1st world country, are caused by failed social services that implies that other countries' social services aren't "failed", right?

As for the "flawed analogy": I was referring to your argument that "gun control would only hurt the honest".
This could be said about any law because those who break it and get away with it will profit from it.

You argument basically says: "Because there are so many illegal guns out there we can't keep people from legally owning guns to protect themselves against the illegal ones." Or have I misunderstood something?

Well, you could also try to clamp down on illegal gun ownership.

And how does owning a gun protect you anyway? If somebody broke into my house he'd steal my stuff, if he broke into your house knowing you may be armed he might kill you just to be sure. Grrreat protection!

Hey, I'm not saying that gun control would have an immense effect, but you'll never know for sure unless you try and your dismissing the possiblity of it working right away. It does work in most countries, not perfectly of course but it does.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
The other possiblity I was thinking about is that it is (at least in part) a matter of gun control.

So you're saying that inner city violence is caused by the fact that (since they have less money, presumably, as I can't think of any other reason) guns are easier to get?

By the way, in California, each county has it's own ability to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons - what's the county with the highest gun violence rate? Los Angeles County. What's the county with the lowest rate of issued licenses (you basically have to have serious political weight to get one - it's nearly impossible)? Los Angeles County.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 European economic policies can hardly be called socialist. What americans constantly denounce as socialist ways is the fact that european countries spend more money on welfare and social security than the US (and the Libertarians want to even decrease that).

No, Libertarians want to have private charity do actions like welfare, and allow those who don't want to participate in the failed US social security system to setup their own social security system, in a nutshell.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 If you're saying gun deaths, which are much higher in the US than in any other 1st world country, are caused by failed social services that implies that other countries' social services aren't "failed", right?

Yes, it does imply that. The US welfare system is a piece of shit, and could be done much, much better. Besides, a job is always better than welfare, or at least, it should be.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 As for the "flawed analogy": I was referring to your argument that "gun control would only hurt the honest".
This could be said about any law because those who break it and get away with it will profit from it.

I know what you're saying, and it's wrong, because this is a very special type of law that takes action prior to any actual harm being inflicted, or even intended to occur.

Since the honest wouldn't do actions like robbery, the law doesn't hurt them.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 You argument basically says: "Because there are so many illegal guns out there we can't keep people from legally owning guns to protect themselves against the illegal ones." Or have I misunderstood something?

That's mostly correct. There are far too many illegal guns to simply "legislate the problem away". Criminals are not going to go "oh, ok, here's my gun because it's illegal for me to have one!".

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Well, you could also try to clamp down on illegal gun ownership.

This would work about as well as clamping down on drugs. The US "War on Drugs" is a failure, the "War on Poverty" is a failure, and a "War on Guns" would also be a failure.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 And how does owning a gun protect you anyway? If somebody broke into my house he'd steal my stuff, if he broke into your house knowing you may be armed he might kill you just to be sure. Grrreat protection!

I think he'd be more likely to break into your house when he knew you weren’t there, or be extra cautious of not alerting you, because he'd be afraid of getting shot. Even criminals have a conscience, my friend.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Hey, I'm not saying that gun control would have an immense effect, but you'll never know for sure unless you try and your dismissing the possiblity of it working right away. It does work in most countries, not perfectly of course but it does.

You're saying it does work, but where has it worked? In order to compare if something works, you need a baseline, and where is the baseline of a country that didn't have the law, and then implemented a gun control law to show it's effectiveness?

[mikeflca]

Criminals are not going to go "oh, ok, here's my gun because it's illegal for me to have one!".

I agree. Guns are simply much too widespread to simply be 'gotten rid of'.


My views on the libertarian party:

Corrupotion--i agree., especially since congressmen/congresswomen have a DRASTICALLY better health and social security system than us lowly normal citizens.

crime+violence: i agree about forcing criminals to pay back or hatever, but legalizing drugs simply will not solve the problem. Gun control already stated..."alcohol prohibition didn't work, neither does drug prohibition"? hehe....and alcohol problems went down after being legalized?

I kinda-sorta agree on economy, employment...

Education: I have said before that it is the student's job to learn, not the school or teacher's job to make the student learn(ok that sorta makes sense....). If privitization happens, the prices for these schools would have to be droped drastically or the tax incentives would have to be huge in order for the cost to be sensible.

Environment-The only feasible way to blame the govt for pollution would be that right now, it (with the help of Geaorge Bush) is cutting a lot of non-pollution laws....If these are replaced once Bush get replaced, this election or next one, this could be more or less solved.

Family--I agree.

Foreign Policiy---I agree with withdrawing troops, but foreign aid would have to be changed to help the country in question develop before being totally cut. I would not go as far as saying 'No more interfering with the rest of the world', but at the moment we are too overextended(if that's a word).

Freedom of Speech--I agree.

Gun laws--stated before.

Health--I agree that costs are out of control, but privitizing(sp?) medicare and medicaid might just lead to more corruption. Meddical savings account

Internet--

Immigration--this one is really complicated; the ideas given by the LP might work, but I have a feeling that the borders would simply overflow, at least at the Mexican border, I dn't know about Canada, I have not read bad things about Canada in these forums...

National defense--I agree, but i think that paying for 'actual defense needs' should be angled more towrds airport security, if there even is such a thing. I've already posted my doubts about that somewhere else, I think....

Poverty+welfare--It is just barely possible that this could almost work. I honestly doubt that even with the tax-deductible contributions, the private charities would be able to support everyone who needs help.

Privacy--courts should be able to force encryption keys. If the court has built enough evidence, it has the right to force encryption keys. I think that one is pretty simple.

Social Security--use that new system, get rid of old social security

Taxes--we have a 377 billion dollar deficit which is growing, partly from tax cuts and partly from wars. Please note that this was a surplus when Clinton left....but nevermind. The point is that until the budget is fixed, tax cuts should not happen. Bringing our troops back might solve the problem, though. Besides, all that tax cut crap is just the normal political stuff, almst every political party says it.

Trade....I agree that trade is a bit screwed, but fixing it....I dunno....

Well thats what I think, have fun quoting + making a fool of me

[xzxzzx]

There's hope for you yet, mikeflca!

Legalizing drugs isn't completely about making the drug problem go away, it's about making the crime associated with drug problems go away, which would reduce drug problem.

I not sure you get the tax-deduction idea: Taxes would be reduced by the same amount you donate. If you donate $10, that's $10 less taxes you pay, unlike like the current "deduction" system.

With all the other reductions in the government, the tax cuts would be natural.

[ertmann|CPH]

well

* If the foreign policy politics goes through
* The stop donating to poor nations is dropped
* The budget deficit is fixed

than im all happy, that's the things hurting the rest of the world....

1st one because Europe is the ones getting all the refugees Bush creates. And it makes a mess of the geopolitical situation in areas europe is sensitive too...

2nd one, because it would destabalize the world even more

3rd one because the weak dollar is hurting our exports

Then you can do whatever you want to do with your country, I just PERSONALLY think it'll screw it up even more...

[Futile]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Cause you're the richest country in the world, if being humanitarian isn't good enough for you, then if we don't do something about 3rd world poverty it's going to get back on us - September 11th proved that in the clearest way possible.

I think our system is extremely flawed. It would be better to focus solely on a few third world countries at a time and completely overhaul their entire system, from law enforcement to their waste management system. I do not think that we should just supply the field experts and the money and the country and the UN can do the rest. We should preserve their natural cultures and let them make their own constitutions. The only catch is that they have to be a democracy and cannot dedicate over a certain amount of their tax revenue to their military.

Not all bleedy hearts are liberal.

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
well, again, you seem cynical, so ill go for the cynical approach. If the poorer gets poor, the poorer get's more desperate, crime is going to skyrocket, and you will not be safe in your own home anymore... unless you want to live like the rich in poor countries, fenced in, paying an armed execution squad to protect you.
[/B]

I was not trying to be cynical but you cannot be positive when describing the state welfare is in. Instead of hiring illegal immigrants to pave the roads why not have the people on welfare do that? Why not have them plant trees or clean schools?

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
that one is simple.... yes.

When?

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Besides I never understood why americans don't wonder about WHY they need a gun to feel safe instead... could it maybe have something to do with social security system?

Because Law enforcement spends too much time doing drug raids rather than protecting us. Also why not protect ourselves?

http://www.2asisters.org/press/facts.htm

It cites all of the sources.

[zootm]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Wait. Havn't gun crimes gone up since the 1997 ban? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

irrelevant. and the ban was on ownership of handguns. violent crime in general has risen.

[mikeflca]

@xzxzzx
I not sure you get the tax-deduction idea: Taxes would be reduced by the same amount you donate. If you donate $10, that's $10 less taxes you pay, unlike like the current "deduction" system.

yes yes yes i know. It makes perfect sense. At least it makes perfect sense until you factor in the distrust left over from the red cross CEO-taking-all-the-money thing. But I guess it could work....

With all the other reductions in the government, the tax cuts would be natural.

"All the other cuts" would ALL have to work as planned, otherwise this could just turn into a budget fiasco.

BTW call me mike or screech, everyone else does

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
irrelevant. and the ban was on ownership of handguns. violent crime in general has risen.

Violent crime has risen in general - perhaps because the criminals know you won't be armed? There's no way to prove that, of course, short of repealing the ban...

[xzxzzx]

From Futile's link:

FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

That can't be right. Two hundred and fifty MILLION self-defense cases per year? Perhaps it's 250,000?

[gaekwad2]

FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

And in how many sex abuse cases did the attacker use a gun?

You want to have guns, you want to carry them around, you don't want anybody to tell you that "guns are bad mmmkay".

Who would have thought anti-smoking laws would have an effect?

But agreed, welfare, racism and drug prohibition probably contribute much more to crime and violence.

The drug issue is the one point at which I'd fully support the LP (mainly because the US are atm using their power to prevent progress in other countries) though I fear it'd also be the first to be dropped once it got anywhere near power.
In the years between the fall of communism and the rise of Bin Laden drugs were put up as the ultimate evil by those who just need an enemy for their own mental health as well as those interested in preventing cuts in "defense" spending (how many % of California's economy, Mr. Statistics?).
It would be very hard to get anywhere against the massive propaganda still spread by the (privately owned, btw) media.

Didn't see anything about how the LP wants to fight racism, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

Welfare: You say the LP doesn't want to cut welfare but then you say welfare keeps people from getting a job. How do you want to force people to take any job (cause that's what it comes down to) without cutting welfare?
Now the state could use the money it spends on welfare on creating jobs instead but attemps like that have always been denounced by conservatives as evil communism. Instead conservatives and libertarians propagate the lean state which means firing even more people.

Instead of hiring illegal immigrants to pave the roads why not have the people on welfare do that?

As in: real jobs or as in: labor camps?

A lot could be done against companies that hire illegal immigrants right now but hey, they're cheaper.
And of course private companies are never the problem, I almost forgot that.

Isn't the whole LP program just based on state==bad private==good?

[xzxzzx]

Issue: Affirmative action
Government-mandated discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other group characteristics has less respectability now than it has had in several decades. George Will describes the political momentum that has affirmative action on the defensive, and Thomas Sowell reminds us that it was a bad idea all along-even before politicians had the nerve to say so.

"In 1996, California voters almost certainly will use the initiative process to put into the state constitution a ban on the state using 'race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the state's system of public employment, public education, or public contracting.' Advocates of affirmative action, who understandably prefer to denounce its detractors than to defend its premises or consequences, call the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) a provocation. The initiative is prompting emulative legislation in Congress and is exerting a gravitational pull on the competition for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination.

"People who consider the language of CCRI provocative should remember the way Democrats talked just 20 years ago. Their 1976 platform said: 'To achieve a just and healthy society and enhance respect and trust in our institutions, we must ensure that all citizens are treated equally before the law. . .' But the next paragraph pledged 'vigorous' policies of 'compensatory opportunity.'

"For two decades liberalism, which by now has little ideological clarity beyond its belief in racial, ethnic, and sexual preferences, has tried to speak the language of the nation's convictions while serving the diametrically opposed desires of a few factions. This project is about to collapse under the accumulating weight of its contradictions."

Syndicated columnist George Will in the Houston Chronicle, March 2, 1995.
"When I did an international survey of affirmative action programs for my 1990 book, 'Preferential Policies,' the consequences I found again and again were these:

"* The benefits of affirmative action went overwhelmingly to people who were better off, while the poorer members of the same groups either didn't gain ground or actually fell further behind.

"* Polarization between groups increased, erupting repeatedly into lethal violence in India, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka.

"* Frauds became commonplace, whether by false claims of belonging to the group in question or by having a genuine member of such a group become a 'front' for people who weren't members but who received government favors anyway.

"* Despite claims that such programs are a 'temporary' means to advance particular groups, the programs have not only persisted but expanded to include other groups, ultimately encompassing a majority of the country's whole population.

"No wonder defenders of affirmative action don't want to talk about its consequences but only about its good intentions."

Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell in The Dallas Morning News, Feb. 19, 1995.
Although George Will writes about affirmative action as if it has been imposed on the country entirely by liberals, it has in fact also been supported by conservatives, including two leading contenders for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination.

"The candidate leading in the polls is Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, and the one now favored by the Beltway conservative phone booth is Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. It was Mr. Gramm who led the presidential poll at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual group-grope that is to the Beltway Right what the Mystic Knights of the Sea was to Amos 'n' Andy.

"Indeed, both Mr. Dole and Mr. Gramm these days do good imitations of Sir Galahad, whose strength was as the strength of 10 because his heart was pure. But the tarnished truth is that neither gentleman is especially pure of heart ideologically. Both voted for the 1991 Act and thereby helped expand affirmative action and its racial discrimination against whites. When they strut about how against it they are now, rank and file Republicans need to recall the truth.

"Not only did Mr. Gramm vote for the racial quotas imposed by the 1991 Civil Rights Act, he also supported the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which outlaws discrimination against the 'disabled' and includes those infected with AIDS. Like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA is an affirmative action measure, creating government privileges for one group at the expense of others."

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
And in how many sex abuse cases did the attacker use a gun?

Does it matter? Do you really think that the 230+ million guns in the US are going to disappear because some lawmaker says "guns are bad, turn them in, mmkay?"

Originally posted by gaekwad2 You want to have guns, you want to carry them around, you don't want anybody to tell you that "guns are bad mmmkay".

No, I don't want to have people tell me "guns are bad", because there's nothing inherantly bad about them, it's only their use that can be bad.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Who would have thought anti-smoking laws would have an effect?

What anti-smoking laws?

Originally posted by gaekwad2 But agreed, welfare, racism and drug prohibition probably contribute much more to crime and violence.

This I agree with.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 The drug issue is the one point at which I'd fully support the LP (mainly because the US are atm using their power to prevent progress in other countries) though I fear it'd also be the first to be dropped once it got anywhere near power.
In the years between the fall of communism and the rise of Bin Laden drugs were put up as the ultimate evil by those who just need an enemy for their own mental health as well as those interested in preventing cuts in "defense" spending (how many % of California's economy, Mr. Statistics?).
It would be very hard to get anywhere against the massive propaganda still spread by the (privately owned, btw) media.

Well, it's refreshing that there's something you and I agree on. I don't know how much of California's economy specifically is used on the military, but about 276 billion is spent on military funding by the federal government, or about 2.5% of the GDP of the country (10.45 trillion). It accounts for about 35% of the entire world's military budget.

Anyway, propaganda can be overcome if there's a sheer overwhelming force in terms of people, "libertarian media" can be setup, etc. Of course, I'm not sure how one would get to that point...

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Didn't see anything about how the LP wants to fight racism, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

See my post above.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Welfare: You say the LP doesn't want to cut welfare but then you say welfare keeps people from getting a job. How do you want to force people to take any job (cause that's what it comes down to) without cutting welfare?
Now the state could use the money it spends on welfare on creating jobs instead but attemps like that have always been denounced by conservatives as evil communism. Instead conservatives and libertarians propagate the lean state which means firing even more people.

There's a difference between government welfare and private charity welfare. It is done by people who care, not some 9 to 5er looking for a stable government paycheck. Furthermore, a charity is not going to be used as a permanent solution (unless, of course, there is some real reason someone cannot work, but that would be a different type of charity), it will be used as a temporary crutch to getting another job.

As an intresting side-note, those who are simply unwilling to work in the bible (I'm not Christian, I just think it's intresting):

2 Thess 3:10

"If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat"

Yes, a leaner government means firing people, but other changes in the economy would pick those people right back up, if they were truly competant at their jobs. This is a critical point. A private school would not hire incompetant teachers, but a public school most certainly would, and does - I've met enough to be sure of that, and I've also gone to private schools. The difference is quite remarkable.

And how, exactly, would the government "create jobs" with it's welfare money? Hiring MORE people? That's brilliant! Let's waste even more tax money, remove even more people from the economy.

Every person who works in government and has thier pay come from taxes is a person who's basically removed from the "real" economy, and inserted into the leech that is the US government. Taxes are a form of economic jail time - "go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200".

Eventually the money makes it back into the economy, of course, but the detour was unnecessary and wasteful.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 As in: real jobs or as in: labor camps?

As in "real jobs", not "workfare".

Originally posted by gaekwad2 A lot could be done against companies that hire illegal immigrants right now but hey, they're cheaper.
And of course private companies are never the problem, I almost forgot that.

Illegal immigrants wouldn't exist under the Libertarian "plan". In the libertarian view, the government exists only for national defense and prevention of the deprivation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 Isn't the whole LP program just based on state==bad private==good?

Yes, that is the basic idea.

[gaekwad2]

"If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat"

case closed

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
case closed

Huh? What? How? You're quoting an intresting side-note that comes from the bible. Uehaheja?

[gaekwad2]

Well then why did you quote it as if you agreed with it?

Isn't this the alternative you have for those that just wont fit into your brave new free-market world?

Yeah right, there'd be jobs for everybody once taxes are cut. Any proof for that? Or just wishful thinking?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the economy doesnt work like that. It's not there to create jobs, it's there to create revenue for investors. If company A created new jobs whereas company b raised profit by firing people, whose stock would you buy?

Ande quoting your sig "A free mind, and a free market, are corrolaries." That's just BS trying to make those that don't blindly follow your ideas look like they don't have a free mind.

Do I even have to mention that a totally free market leads to monopolies?

Iirc the DMCA wsn't the government's idea, it was proposed by the industry.

Oh, and I didn't ask about how much California spends on defense, I asked how many % of California's industry are defense-related. Those are the ones who pressured the 1st Bush administration not to cut defense spending.

It seems you are deliberately ignoring corporate power in order to being able to put all blame on the state.

I'm getting more and more the impression that the LP is just another right wing extremist party.

Why extremist? All extremists have one simple solution for everything and if that doesn't work then of course the people are to blame and therefore deserve to die.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Well then why did you quote it as if you agreed with it?

Isn't this the alternative you have for those that just wont fit into your brave new free-market world?

I didn't. I said that it was just an intresting side-note. Twice.

I do think that those who are simply unwilling to work, that is, they can, and there are jobs available for them, but simply refuse to, should starve.

I am not cold-hearted. I think the "private welfare" idea would be great. I would donate to help those in true need. But when the "need" is created by a simple unwillingness to work, then I don't see why I should pay for their bread.

However, this doesn't matter in the system proposed by the Libertarian party. If enough people were willing to support those who don't like to work, then they would be supported. My views would be irrelivant, and not forced upon the entire country like a mold.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Yeah right, there'd be jobs for everybody once taxes are cut. Any proof for that? Or just wishful thinking?

Ok, let's think with this. Public schools close. Private schools open. Those students who were in public school now go to private school. Where do the teachers come from, cloning vats?

What proof, by the way, do you have that they'll be jobs in the current system a month from now? I'm just asking. How do you prove that there will be jobs at any given time?

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the economy doesnt work like that. It's not there to create jobs, it's there to create revenue for investors. If company A created new jobs whereas company b raised profit by firing people, whose stock would you buy?

The truth of that can readily be seen by the fact that there are people employed, therefore, it's not fully true. All companies need workers. Some companies have grown beyond where they should have, and downsize to becomes smaller, and some companies downsize when it's inappropriate.

However, another part of the libertarian party's views would be to make forming a buisness much simpler, and therefore, cause people to create new buisnesses which, naturally, create new jobs.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Ande quoting your sig "A free mind, and a free market, are corrolaries." That's just BS trying to make those that don't blindly follow your ideas look like they don't have a free mind.

No, it's just a quote that I like. The full quote reads:

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.

-- Ayn Rand

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Do I even have to mention that a totally free market leads to monopolies?

No it doesn't. A totally free market is the best defense against a monopoly.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Iirc the DMCA wsn't the government's idea, it was proposed by the industry.

It probably was. That doesn't mean the government isn't at fault for passing it.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Oh, and I didn't ask about how much California spends on defense, I asked how many % of California's industry are defense-related. Those are the ones who pressured the 1st Bush administration not to cut defense spending.

I don't know, and I don't care. Cutting defense spending will displace workers, yes, but that's not what I want to spend my money on. I would spend money on a missle-defense system, though.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
It seems you are deliberately ignoring corporate power in order to being able to put all blame on the state.

What, exactly, does corporate power do that is so evil? Can you give me specific examples?

Originally posted by gaekwad2
I'm getting more and more the impression that the LP is just another right wing extremist party.

Why extremist? All extremists have one simple solution for everything and if that doesn't work then of course the people are to blame and therefore deserve to die.

It's only extremist depending on your viewpoint. Anarchism is extremist. Libertarianism is closer to an exreme than some other political parties, perhaps.

If it doesn't work, then one would find out why, and fix it.

[zootm]

a totally free market does not protect against monopolies. the theory may dictate that it should, but it doesn't.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
a totally free market does not protect against monopolies. the theory may dictate that it should, but it doesn't.

Alright, so are there any free-market monopolies you can point out?

[gaekwad2]

Joy! Ayn Rand! My favorite writer next to the guy who wrote Mein Kampf.

I do think that those who are simply unwilling to work, that is, they can, and there are jobs available for them, but simply refuse to, should starve.

And I think that that violates the most basic rules of humanity.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss any further. Go to hell!

[baafie]

You first.

[Fickle]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Joy! Ayn Rand! My favorite writer next to the guy who wrote Mein Kampf.

And I think that that violates the most basic rules of humanity.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss any further. Go to hell!

huh? So I'm supposed to give people unwilling to work my paycheck? What the fuck?

Oh, and xxyxyxx: Free market Monopoly: Standard Oil, the first one.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
And I think that that violates the most basic rules of humanity.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss any further. Go to hell!

You think those who are just too lazy to work deserve support, even though they are a willing leech on society?

The differences between us are truly unreconsilable, then.

I think you tend get what you reward, and rewarding those who don't like to work will get you nothing but perpetual leeching families.

On another note, I like how you take the smallest part of an argument (or something totally irrelivant, like my sig) and make it into a big fucking deal. That's really quite a talent.

No, wait, it's just stupid.

Ok, fine. Goodbye, and go to hell yourself.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
You think those who are just too lazy to work deserve support, even though they are a willing leech on society?

Most of the welfare societies in Europe, have laws implemented that prevents this...

In Denmark fx. you are put into work or worktraining by the goverment if you're on support for more than a month, mostly shitty unatractive jobs like road maintenence, parking guards and stuff like that.

Offcourse there are people that are not able to have a job, and yes, they deserve support in my opninion...

noone should starve or live on the street in a rich country...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
In Denmark fx. you are put into work or worktraining by the goverment if you're on support for more than a month, mostly shitty unatractive jobs like road maintenence, parking guards and stuff like that.

And what if the person just doesn't show up?

Anyway, that's sort of irrelivant, because it's not a question of implementation, it's a quesion of ideological concepts.