People in general seem more open to Libertarian views these days. Republicans seem to want less government involvement and smaller government. Dems seem to want a more open drug policy where people are responsible for their own actions. And despite the increased government control in healthcare and taking away people's choice of whether or not to get health insurance, Dems in general seem to be pro choice for women (obviously not for the fetus). So the question is whether people are more open these days to the Libertarian view of smaller government and more personal freedoms or whether it is simply an issue by issue decision where both sides are guilty of hypocrisy. Just FYI before people get off track and begin debating abortion, personally I am fine with the debate between pro choice and pro life as I don't think there is a good solution to make both sides happy.
Uh, the democrats just passed a huge entitlement. Pretty much the antithesis of libertarian views. By People, do you mean voters? If so, I don't know. There certainly is a large group out there right now making a lot of noise about smaller government. The problem is, there will always be lazy people out there voting for handouts and politicians out there who will hold the carrot on the stick for votes.
I don't believe Republicans (I am speaking of Republicans in Washington) want smaller government at all. Look no further than the Dept of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
Republicans seem to want less government involvement and smaller government. Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. How much did the govt grow under the last Republican president? Facts and reality should form at least a small basis of one's outlook.
Dems seem to want a more open drug policy where people are responsible for their own actions. __________________________________________________ no, this is not what this is about. neither are the republicans really for smaller government. see mccain, bush and graham as the forces behind some of our greatest entitlement spending over the last 8 years. they made bill clinton seem like a lunatic right winger. no, the democrats want control. if they wanted people more respnsible for their own actions they wouldnt have passed tarp, the health insurance bill, decreasing the responsibility of young people by keeping them on their parents insurance til 26(FYI, it is cheaper for a 22 year old to get their own insurance than be included on an adult policy), a party policy of redistributing wealth, etc. No, legalizing drugs is about more money for them at the expense of the health of the population and its a distraction from reality. its why they want consequence free sex for teens. another school the other day i think arranged for an abortion for a teen without informing the parents. condoms and drugs for everyone, watch american idol, dont pay attention to what we are doing up here in washington, we will take care of you.
Republican/Democrat/Libertarian, is all too complicated a game. You exist to be controlled by lawmakers so that you can be legally fleeced by large corporations. I know, you have the ability to mentally accept this fact, relax, and happily live out your life. But there's one big problem! You want a better life for your children, right? Carry on.
I agree with more libertarian planks than repubs or dems, but they will never be taken seriously because their fringe is even more over the top than the others'. Also, complete abolition of the income tax is too extreme right now. The libertarian label is just being used more to refer to moderates on certain issues, that is why we see it more.
I'd conclude that the GOPs are in it to maintain the byzantine wealth and power of the rich. Would I be right? _________________________________________________ i would hope they are, i would also hope that they are there to allow the small guy to make it on his own to wealth and prosperity, true freedom. it is getting harder and harder to do that. everytimne congress passees a bill to "regulate" the big corporations, all it does is make it hard for the little guy and increases the strength of the big players. whenever you have capitalism, it is going to create a disparity in classes because there are always going to be those better at making money.
Almost to a (wo)man, politicians like big government, irrespective of claims to the contrary. Some like a standing army, others social entitlements, others want restrictions on behaviors. If people were asked whether they would rather be free than controlled, almost everyone would ask for freedom. The problem is that freedom is eroded piecemeal and in ways that people do not always immediately perceive as losses of liberty. The social trap kicks in that, "I don't want big government, but I don't want to have to pay a toll to use a private or tolled road," or "I don't want big government, but I want to fight those bad Al Qaeda in Afghanistan," or even, "I don't want big government, but I am not going to give up my Medicare." To break the cycle of enlarging government, people must be willing to identify things they get from government or that they like government to do and learn to live without government providing or doing those things. Politicians know that people as a group are in this trap and thus they do not have to do any real cutting. No one will give up his piece of the little pie so no one ever gets a chance to share in the bigger one that could be baked if only people would abstain.
The libertarian label is just being used more to refer to moderates on certain issues, that is why we see it more. __________________________________________________ This is true. We need taxes. we need roads, schools, and a millitary. However, a 15% across the board income tax easily should pay for all of our public needs. I pay about 35% in income taxes alone. If the funds were not robbed by politicians, our roads are paid for by a state and federal gas tax. in addition, we have property taxes that pay for schools. on avg we spend about 10,000 per student per year in our public schools. We dont truly have home ownership because if you pay off your house, pay all the taxes on it and run into financial problems during retirement, the government will take your house away for failing to keep paying the taxes. essentially, we pay rent to the government. this was not the plan of our founders. today we live in a society where 1/2 supports the other 1/2 and if the government wasnt so wasteful, we could still have healthcare for everyone. however, because of our waste, the gas tax doesnt pay for the roads, the property taxes pay for schools and local hospitals and other projects leaving a deficit every year. local and federal politicians and officials are getting rich working in government. when i got out of law school 10 years ago i went to a private school and my loans were too high to go work for one of the agencies because they didnt pay high enough for me to make my loan payments. i wanted to work for them to get some good experience, then leave. this should be the design of government jobs. a place to go work and serve, get experience and leave for the private sector. now if you go work for the government, even local governments, 6 figure salaries are common, throw in the pension and mid level employees will be retiuring much better off than the regular citizen. that is an unsustainable system and to use a calling card of the left, not fair.
Republican voters seem to want less government involvement and smaller government. I don't really see that as a fix. Repub voters may say that but they don't act like it. As long as it's a pet project Repubs are fine with big govt.
We are getting more towards my general question which is whether the citizens of the US are now ready to adopt libertarian ideas and vote for libertarian candidates in upcoming elections.
i think they are more open than ever before, but one of the main problems they will have is the networks. fox has all the old people and about half the rest of the population, msnbc slides towards the dems.... so where will they get their coverage? on the web? cnn? don't think that will get enough votes. who knows though. i voted libertarian two out of the last three POTUS elections.
I guess my post about Homeland Security and the Patriot Act didn't necessary mean bigger government in the literal sense of more federal employees, federal buildings, inefficiencies, taxes to pay for such, etc - even though DHS is a large new agency and the Patriot Act requires more manpower for enforcement purposes. Rather, I see the Patriot Act and DHS as justification for a HUGE intrusion by the gov't into the private lives of citizens, and that is my definition (and fear) of Big Government. The probable cause requirement to probable search and seize a person has been severely eroded, if not done away with, thanks to the Patriot Act. Ben Franklin said it well (paraphrasing): Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither and will lose both."
Also, hasn't the whole Libertarian dogma changed over the years to incorporate more mainstream voters? I remember the Libertarians of 25 years ago having an absurd romantic vision of the lone homesteader defending his house with his own gun in a country that wouldn't even need police. Am I wrong about that? Libertarians were pretty kooky back in the day.
I personally equate the word Libertarian with Constitutionalist. But then again, my wife and I just bought a chicken coop to raise chickens for eggs, and I have an organic garden that produces a lot of our veggies, so maybe you're right about Libertarians, Roma.
Johnny, I think what you're doing is cool. My neighbor does the same thing and it has me wondering about it, too. I don't mean to knock the modern libertarian. Even the Libertarian as I recall them was something of a romantic although they would never have seen themselves that way. I think part of it sprang from the real possibility that we would be living in a nuclear post apocalyptic environment. I saw myself living on the Badlands, subsisting on snakes and hiding in caves with my hunting bow. I would have lasted about two days in the real situation.
Has a family member recently died? Believe it or not Home Land Security plays a role in how executors manage Estates.
"So the idea of homeland security makes no sense in this comparison. The job of national defense is readily accepted as the realm of the federal government, and people believed at the time that establishing that department was needed to perform that duty." no.
Point taken. Just wanted to clarify that you might have needed a modifier like "some" people or "some Liberty-fearing" people or "some never enough room for more government" people there. I was abjectly opposed to the creation of this department and am interested to see if one of Pres. Obama's recess appointments is the guy the Repubs have been blocking as there's a potential that he might allow our Fatherland Security Team to unionise... Sorry to interrupt.
