Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?What successful libertarian government is a good model of what you have in mind?Which libertarian government should we aspire to?
It depends on what you think the purpose of government should be. If you think the purpose of government includes running society, or the economy, you don't want a libertarian government at all.
Not playing. Do you think the purpose of government is to "run" society?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?What successful libertarian government is a good model of what you have in mind?It depends on what you think the purpose of government should be. If you think the purpose of government includes running society, or the economy, you don't want a libertarian government at all.
Not playing. Do you think the purpose of government is to "run" society?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?What successful libertarian government is a good model of what you have in mind?
Not playing. Do you think the purpose of government is to "run" society?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?Not playing. Do you think the purpose of government is to "run" society?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
Same difference.
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
Same difference.
not even close.
Gator has a point. Libertarians do want some rules and not anarchy, there is a spectrum of libertarian thought that ranges from as little govt as possible (which would end the US) to govt should control certain things.It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.I'm not playing either. Is there a proven libertarian form of govt that is better than our current system of govt or is the just a hypothetical. Or do you believe in anarchy and whoever has the most might "runs society"?
This thread is about the purpose of government. There's been a persistent effort of late to sell socialism as "no big deal"- as something we're already doing anyway, so why not a little more? But it's really a lot more than that. The idea that government should "run" society, much less the economy, is a radical departure from traditional US government. Don't you think it's worth a discussion?
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
Same difference.
It is. And I think different frames of thought can agree on some things that could improve our current government. As you are a libertarian I wanted to see where you stand as some are too extreme anti govt imo. I think there is a case for government in certain roles like we already have. That doesn't make it "socialism" like anything govt controlled that someone doesn't like is labelled nowadays.
I like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
Same difference.
not even close.
mmkay so Libertarianism is like anarchy-lite, then.
What about having a strong central government for certain things though, like defense and aid in disasters like tornados where local aid and charity is not enough? aka welfare when it is neededI like some of the libertarians who post on this forum but their ideology is dumb. No way can it work, people need rules otherwise society will end up like Mad Max. Maybe that's what they want.
libertarians are not opposed to rules, that is anarchy.
Same difference.
not even close.
mmkay so Libertarianism is like anarchy-lite, then.
No, not even close. Under Libertarianism your liberty ends where it interferes with mine.
Under anarchy there is end, might makes right and nothing else matters.
Right now Trump is giving aid to farmers, welfare, to help with the blowback of his aggressive trade policies. Does that make Trump a socialist?
So you don't consider govt welfare socialism?Right now Trump is giving aid to farmers, welfare, to help with the blowback of his aggressive trade policies. Does that make Trump a socialist?
No, it just moves his economic slider a little bit to the left.
So you don't consider govt welfare socialism?Right now Trump is giving aid to farmers, welfare, to help with the blowback of his aggressive trade policies. Does that make Trump a socialist?
No, it just moves his economic slider a little bit to the left.
So the debate is over how many hand outs and where they go. I just have gotten sick of when someone says we should put welfare here=socialism commie lol. I like capitalism a lot, just think government has a role, and some things the profit motive should be left out-healthcare and defense come to mind.So you don't consider govt welfare socialism?Right now Trump is giving aid to farmers, welfare, to help with the blowback of his aggressive trade policies. Does that make Trump a socialist?
No, it just moves his economic slider a little bit to the left.
Pretty sure socialism requires the govt to take full control of industry, so...no. I think a moderate economic policy is best. Not too much in either direction. I like that we live in a nation where the children of irresponsible parents or disabled people don't suffer. But I also think that being too generous with the handouts only makes people lazy.
So the debate is over how many hand outs and where they go. I just have gotten sick of when someone says we should put welfare here=socialism commie lol. I like capitalism a lot, just think government has a role, and some things the profit motive should be left out-healthcare and defense come to mind.So you don't consider govt welfare socialism?Right now Trump is giving aid to farmers, welfare, to help with the blowback of his aggressive trade policies. Does that make Trump a socialist?
No, it just moves his economic slider a little bit to the left.
Pretty sure socialism requires the govt to take full control of industry, so...no. I think a moderate economic policy is best. Not too much in either direction. I like that we live in a nation where the children of irresponsible parents or disabled people don't suffer. But I also think that being too generous with the handouts only makes people lazy.
Well, I think the Socialists want to do a little more than "coach"The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.
The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".
What prompted me to start the thread was reading the "About" page on the Democratic Socialists of America webpage. There they say "Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That sounds like totalitarian government to me. Running society and the economy covers pretty much everything.
This is a radical departure from our tradition of Constitutionally limited government and I think it's very dangerous - especially with the utterly dysfunctional state of our politics.
Why did the referee give farmers 32 billion dollars last year?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.
The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".
