|
Gaunab posted:My friend recently came out as a libertarian recently. Should I support him or shame him? That depends. Is he a Randian "Libertarian" (and thus not a Libertarian at all, really) or is he an actual Libertarian, in that he supports smaller government, strong local government, states rights >>> federal rights, and an abolishment of the drug prohibition?
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Yeah, I don't think libertarianism works on an economic level. That is to say, I don't think the free market and private companies can be trusted upon to act ethically, despite what Gary Johnson thinks. It's the biggest point we diverge on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
That Robot posted:both are still lovely philosophies that hurt the poor regardless, all so some loving fatass plutocrats can buy a few more yachts Maybe so. My experience is more with rural communities than the urban poor, so my perspective is different in this, but what I see is a lot of local agencies--particularly schools--who are essentially slaves to a pithy federal handout that doesn't really ever address the budget issues in these towns. Populations are drying up too, and when school populations decrease, so does their budget. With a system that has a very distant moneylender doling out allotments to those who deserve it, you end up with a "one size fits none" solution. Maybe the Dept of Education will give ten thousand dollars to a school to buy more computers. But maybe this school doesn't need computers, maybe it needs something else--a specialized piece of equipment, or structural repairs or better curriculum tools. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, and overall the result is that small towns feel very alienated by a government who is clearly more interested in urban populations than rural ones. It seems to me that matters like education, and a lot of social issues as well, would be best left to state governments. The Federal government honestly has enough to do with the maintaining of a standing army, regulating taxes, passing national budgets, defense decisions, and general global issues. In my mind, a community is well aware of what it needs or wants--even if, like in Texas, those needs and wants begin and end at football. There's no elegant solution, but in my state I've seen education budgets shrink and a major ecological disaster occur as a direct result of mistakes or poor decisions made by federal agencies. It seems to me that local governments could stand to be empowered, so that their knowledge of the realities of their community might be better applied to actionable solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:blah blah blah all you want to do is eat the poor YOU loving MONSTER The poor do not eat well, and thus are not healthful to consume. Always eat the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Serviette posted:I'm sure this is a drat fine story, but could I have a brief plot summary please? I ask because I don't want my chicory to go cold whilst I read. TLDR: Shooting people is the only way to solve your problems
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
mazzi Chart Czar posted:The only things rural America are good for are: electoral votes, gun deregulation, and sucking money from them via heroin or Wal*mart. Also producing all of the food.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:News flash if you take any ideology to the extreme you end with with a pretty hosed up system. There are good things we can take from libertarianism in the right quantities. One of those I think doesn't get enough of the spotlight is making the small business more accessible. I honestly feel empathy for the fast food employee struggling to get by. When you think about it though I'm pretty sure that guy probably could make a pretty good burger. I'd much rather eat one of those instead of what McD's is serving. I think it would be awesome to see him gather a few of his coworkers and set up a bbq next door. I just I hope I could get there to buy one before the government shuts him down. Precisely. And to that end, I personally think we could stand to add more socialist elements to our society--particularly in fixing our hosed health insurance problem, preventing health insurance companies from turning a profit (like pretty much every other first world capitalist country does), providing some semblance of a universal health care system, as well as doing something to address the student loan debt problem. Outlawing private prisons is also an absolute necessity. It's great to not be limited by ideological labels and try to find active solutions to problems!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:Uh okay except it is true just look at the budget numbers. You think individual states have the tax base to adequately fund programs by themselves without federal grants? So then why don't they just do that when the federal government waves its club and goes 'if you don't comply with X, no more funding.' That's how they got the drinking age to be 21 nationwide, among other things. The problem is is that the Fed hasn't respected states rights for quite awhile. Recall how Marijuana Dispenseries would get raided by federal troopers even though they were legally allowed to operate in their states. Obama in particular has ended his tenure as president with a downright monarchical approach, just issuing executive orders willy nilly about this and that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:I don't disagree with this and I think that yes, there are some things that should remain under state discretion that the federal government shouldn't interfere with. But again, this isn't libertarianism. That's just believing in the federal system already established. Has the federal executive branch gathered too much power? Yeah I think so definitely but libertarians don't offer any real solution other than to just bitch and point to corruption. It's really why labels such as these are no longer useful. Both "libertarianism" and "socialism" have come to represent so many different things that their technical meaning is lost and their colloquial meaning is varied. Gary Johnson represents much of what libertarians ought to be, which is an emphasis on empowering common people, allowing communities to decide on issues that concern them, and to open the presidency up to transparency, to meet with people and talk to them face to face. He's also the one candidate who'd probably do the least harm, and would eliminate the War on Drugs and probably dissolve the NSA, two big positives in my book.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Also, more fascism, such as mandatory weight-loss training, mandatory laser hair removal, and sexier uniforms. I only support sexy uniforms. Hair is fair.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
The problem is ultimately going to be that we're going to have a largely indolent population within the next generation or two. Work is drying up. Once McDonalds and WalMart fully automate their services then there'll be very little in the way of a base work force anymore. A socialist reform is going to HAVE to take place in some respect, because ultimately we're going to enter a scenario where we'll have to pay people not to work, because there's no work to be done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:02
|
|