Page 1 of 3 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,523
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Oct 2014, 2:16 pm

Because do any of the politicians running for president really represent you?


_________________
Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies, tell me lies.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

31 Oct 2014, 2:37 pm

There are good candidates sometimes, rarely are they Republican or Democrat on the ballot unfortunately. In my short time as a voter I've voted third party unless there is some compelling reason otherwise, went Gary Johnson in 2012 last time who I thought was a good man. I'm not voting this midterm.

In general I agree that no candidate really represents yourself, that's why I like the idea libertarianism which emphasizes the freedom of the individual.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

01 Nov 2014, 12:51 pm

Anyone who is trying to privatize Social Security, VA health Care or Medicare is going against my self interest. Anyone trying to destroy the social safety net so that they can give breaks to corporations are against the interests of a civilized society. Anyone trying to limit health care to only those who can afford it are going against the interests of a civilized society. Anyone who is against a minimum wage hike is an enemy of a civilized society. If anything, there should be a maximum placed on earnings. Most of the super wealthy are not trying to support their families so much as they are trying to achieve status and bloat their own ego, again, an enemy of a civilized world.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

01 Nov 2014, 1:40 pm

You have to run first.

It is unrealistic to expect that a candidate represents an individual fully. That is just common sense not a failure of politics.

In fact I'm glad you didn't represent me, and I don't represent you. It would be a dangerous thing, if that was that case.

Democracy has a push pull, that is necessary.

I tend to lean toward libertarianism/liberalism too. But I also think manifesto politic is BS.

People are disappointed partly because they believe that the politician almost perfectly represents them they are complicit in the deception, and the personalities are those that are electable are so for a reason. In essence people want to be lied to. They want to be lied to convincingly, not unconvincingly. That is where the expression lying through your teeth comes from.

Reality is people need to accept more that the facts on the ground change, policy must change to fit the here an now you cannot chisel it in stone. You cannot rely on party politic. They also need to accept that they could be wrong and the is not easy.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,856
Location: Stendec

01 Nov 2014, 1:49 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Vote for yourself! Because do any of the politicians running for president really represent you?

The Libertarians.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

01 Nov 2014, 1:54 pm

Fnord wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Vote for yourself! Because do any of the politicians running for president really represent you?

The Libertarians.


Do you mean the actual party in the US? I found their policy quite inconsistent.

Lot of people/politicians in the US are identifying as Libertarian I question if they are. All parties are fond of protectionism, there are Libertarian for themselves, but necessarily for others.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

01 Nov 2014, 3:34 pm

khaoz wrote:
Anyone who is trying to privatize Social Security, VA health Care or Medicare is going against my self interest. Anyone trying to destroy the social safety net so that they can give breaks to corporations are against the interests of a civilized society. Anyone trying to limit health care to only those who can afford it are going against the interests of a civilized society. Anyone who is against a minimum wage hike is an enemy of a civilized society. If anything, there should be a maximum placed on earnings. Most of the super wealthy are not trying to support their families so much as they are trying to achieve status and bloat their own ego, again, an enemy of a civilized world.


There are perfect world beliefs and there is pragmatism, ideally in a perfect world none of that stuff would exist as it wouldn't be even benecessary but pragmatically we do live in a world where there is human pain and suffering on an individual level. The reality is we're not starting from zero and the government does a lot more than just things that help your own personal self interest, it does far more to benefit the interests of the small section of the super wealthy elite and ideologues whose own interest's might run quite contrary to the vast majority of Americans and this never changes whether their a president has a D or an R behind his name. An inherent problem its seems to me with our democratic systems and bureaucratic government is that it inevitably leads to trampling of the right of minorities by mob rule and those that manipulate them, the smallest minority is the individual itself.

I believe the principle of non-aggression, the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you is something strongly believe in and consider that to be the epitome of a civilized society but unfortunately that doesn't seem like a very popular sentiment in this country right now. Libertarianism to me isn't a right or left thing to despite whatever labels partisans might put on it, libertarianism of today which so many erroneously call right wing or even far right is the same as classical liberalism. I understand you have your interests and needs which is understandable and I sympathize but there is no reason to make it black and white, you don't have to support a total revolutionary and absolutist postion. Saying that, there is good and evil in this world some bad intentioned goodness and most damagingly well intentioned evil. The most evil things are done self righteously, real evil does not often think of itself a such.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,856
Location: Stendec

01 Nov 2014, 3:35 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Do you mean the actual party in the US? I found their policy quite inconsistent...

The form of Libertarianism I espouse has these features:
  • Limited government. The government should confine itself to "... establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...", just like it says in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.
  • No government intervention in a person's private life. A person's sex life, gender preference, reading materials, et cetera, are nobody's business but their own.
  • A completely secularized government. Any principles established for governance must be firmly rooted in empirical principles, and not in any allegedly 'Supernatural' source. Thus, morality is not something that the government should concern itself with, but only legislation that ensures justice, peace, freedom from invasion, public health and safety, and freedom from oppression.
  • Freedom of speech, press, and expression of personal beliefs. What a person says, does, or thinks should not be regulated (threats against life notwithstanding).
  • Freedom from self-incrimination. Personal confessions (written or verbal) shall not be held as evidence against a person without first obtaining valid material evidence to support it ( ... accusations are not evidence ... suspicion is not evidence ... beliefs and opinions are not evidence ... hearsay and rumors are not evidence ... et cetera).
  • The right to self-defense. I should not be punished for killing a person who is attempting to kill me, or who breaks into my home uninvited.
  • The right to arm myself. This means that I should be allowed to carry on my person the firearm of my choice during the course of daily living, and use it if needed.
  • No seizure of assets without due process. No private or public agency has the right to seize my land, my home, my bank accounts, or any other property I own unless it has first been determined beyond any reasonable doubt that I have obtained it illegally.
  • No seizure of self without due process. No private or public agency has the right to seize me and hold me "on suspicion" or for questioning unless it has first been determined beyond any reasonable doubt that I have engaged in an illegal activity first.
  • Free access to education. If I want to earn a university degree in order to escape poverty, then I should be able to take the coursework and earn the degree without personal cost, and without regard to my own race, gender, sexual preference, political belief, religious belief, or handicap.
  • Free access to medical care. Whether preventive, corrective, or palliative, I should be able to receive the treatment that I need without personal cost, and without regard to my own race, gender, sexual preference, political belief, religious belief, or handicap.
Now, I know that there are many 'flavors' of Libertarians out there, and the one you are most familiar with may not completely match what I've listed, but these are the general "Libertarian" principles that I espouse. Yours may vary.

Of course, all these features are based on the concept that people know how to govern themselves and deal with miscreants without government involvement or interference.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

01 Nov 2014, 4:20 pm

You didn't mention trade and immigration.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,856
Location: Stendec

01 Nov 2014, 4:50 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
You didn't mention trade and immigration.

Personally, I believe that immigrants should follow the immigration laws or expect to be deported immediately. If their children were born here, then they go back with them.

Also, I believe in a free-market system -- a Laissez-faire system -- an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.

I also do not believe in economic protectionism -- the imposition of duties, tariffs, and taxes upon lower-priced, higher-quality imported goods to jack up their costs to the consumer just to protect the jobs of people who produce higher-priced, lower-quality domestic goods. Open competition in a free market benefits those who produce the highest-quality goods in the most economic, effective, and efficient ways. Failure to operate under this principle nearly cost General Motors its very existence during the most recent recession. I still wonder if that bailout was a good idea...


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

01 Nov 2014, 4:55 pm

Fnord wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
You didn't mention trade and immigration.

Personally, I believe that immigrants should follow the immigration laws or expect to be deported immediately. If their children were born here, then they go back with them.


Like what immigration law? Immigration law is a form of protectionism too. Of course you will have to have some rule but what rules?

Are you in favour of economic migrants who contribute taxes?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

01 Nov 2014, 5:13 pm

Fnord wrote:
Also, I believe in a free-market system -- a Laissez-faire system -- an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.


Some so called property rights are also a form of protection and not really much to do with real property such as IP?/atent system, which is lacking reform.

In a way the whole concept of IP, apart from being a a total misnomer, is in fact contrary to principles of property law. It is is also fundamentally against competition, in which people should be free to build on ideas.

We have also got super use to it, like we can't remember a time before it. Really it is just protectionism, not really property, an short termist revenue orient, at he expense of developing the economy.

I think you could have a Limited system, which expires, only register to the inventor (not a company or an investor, so relationship to the IP would have to be through contract/agreement with inventor). It would have to be something that is currently possible, and demonstrable, and genuinely new and not a reapplication of something old. I would expire and cannot be renewed, it would be non-transferable. If not used to bring to market the protectionism would be removed. Trademark I view differently as this is less harmful to competition, but there may be room for reform. I think it is fine to protect identity, so people know who they are buying from, just the whole concept of protecting "ideas" is nonsense. In fact it is tantamount to thought control.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,539
Location: Reading, England

01 Nov 2014, 5:51 pm

Two points, Fnord.

1) You advocate for free healthcare and free education, as well as promotion of general welfare, securing liberty, establishing justice, and ensuring tranquillity. I think this is a laudable goal. However, you are also against "seizure of assets". Many people who are against "seizure of assets" feel that all forms of taxation are "seizure of assets". Are you against taxation? If yes, how would you fund these not-inexpensive programs without taxation?

2) You say the government should not concern itself with morality, yet you rail for justice and liberty, amongst other things. Are these not moral?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

01 Nov 2014, 6:08 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Two points, Fnord.

1) You advocate for free healthcare and free education, as well as promotion of general welfare, securing liberty, establishing justice, and ensuring tranquillity. I think this is a laudable goal. However, you are also against "seizure of assets". Many people who are against "seizure of assets" feel that all forms of taxation are "seizure of assets". Are you against taxation? If yes, how would you fund these not-inexpensive programs without taxation?


Not Fnord obviously but not all taxation is the same; I find things like income taxes, property taxes, estate tax, etc., to be much more offensive than tariffs, fees, sales, or excise taxes. You shouldn't be taxed just to live, you shouldn't be taxed for inactivity, you should be encouraged to save and invest and become as self sufficient as much as possible instead of just consume consume consume.



Last edited by Jacoby on 01 Nov 2014, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,920
Location: temperate zone

01 Nov 2014, 6:09 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Fnord wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
You didn't mention trade and immigration.

Personally, I believe that immigrants should follow the immigration laws or expect to be deported immediately. If their children were born here, then they go back with them.


Like what immigration law? Immigration law is a form of protectionism too. Of course you will have to have some rule but what rules?

Are you in favour of economic migrants who contribute taxes?


Exactly.
If you really are a "libertarian" then you would be for abolishing most immigration laws, and be for the free movement of labor (as well as for the free movement of capital). Just let 'em all in!