Why I Could Never Be GOP or Libertarian

[peach174]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.


I disagree.

As a libertarian, I can only respond by pointing out that you have a lot of misconceptions about libertarians. There's a distinct difference between rejecting coercive government and rejecting community action. In my experience, libertarians believe in community spirit, charity, and helping their fellow man more sincerely that most modern liberals. They simply don't believe it needs to be forced on us via coercive government programs.

Frankly, I find the liberal point of view deeply cynical, based on the tacit assumption that without government forcing it on us, we will turn our backs on those in need. I've heard it said that pretty much everyone starts with the base assumption that everyone else is like them. So people who are kind, charitable and forgiving assume the world will be likewise. Those who are less so, fear a world where people are free to be who they are. I couldn't take that as a blanket condemnation, because I know liberals who I believe are genuinely good people, but it does give me pause. What are you all so worried about?

Fact is, since the GOP made all their cuts to government programs that help the poor and since they implimented their unregulated free trade, more people have slipped into poverty. And charities and religion are proving they are not capable of handling or solving the growing problem. This is what our government is for.

This was written in 2007. This is why I laugh when Republicans try to suggest that Obama is at fault for the mess we are in.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Since Bush has been president:

•over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
•nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
•median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
•three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
•three million American workers have lost their pensions;
•home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
•the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
•the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
•entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
•wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

That is the whole point.
Government programs don't help the poor. It keeps them poor.

 

[jc456]

and someone cares?

 

[jc456]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.


I disagree.

As a libertarian, I can only respond by pointing out that you have a lot of misconceptions about libertarians. There's a distinct difference between rejecting coercive government and rejecting community action. In my experience, libertarians believe in community spirit, charity, and helping their fellow man more sincerely that most modern liberals. They simply don't believe it needs to be forced on us via coercive government programs.

Frankly, I find the liberal point of view deeply cynical, based on the tacit assumption that without government forcing it on us, we will turn our backs on those in need. I've heard it said that pretty much everyone starts with the base assumption that everyone else is like them. So people who are kind, charitable and forgiving assume the world will be likewise. Those who are less so, fear a world where people are free to be who they are. I couldn't take that as a blanket condemnation, because I know liberals who I believe are genuinely good people, but it does give me pause. What are you all so worried about?

In my brand of liberalism, I feel that the government offers the only real dependable solution for public assistance. It's not based on cynicism but based on what I think is factual insofar as, if it comes down to feeding my family and making sure they are comfortable, I'm going to do that before I open my checkbook to give money to others. When times are good and personal/family financial security is a given, I have no problem giving. When there are rounds of layoffs and my investments are not providing the returns they once did...it's harder to open the checkbook.

To expect the government to "step in" during downturns and provide assistance only during those stretches is unrealistic.

I never heard what the outcome was about the towns in New Hampshire that were trying the libertarian experiment. I believe they are called free-staters...Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems as though the movement is being rejected pretty much...new movements always are.

I feel for your family!

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know who you are or how much money you make but it makes a difference. If you are not rich then you are stupid for not joining the Democratic party. Then and only then will the GOP stop catering ONLY to the rich. They got you dumb middle class voters just with wedge issues. Got the entire southern vote with racism. Gets the religious nut vote with abortion and gay issues. Gets the gun nut vote. All these dumb ass middle class American's vote against their own financial interests. Cut ss and medicare, sure. Why? Because that's socialism. Destroy public schools? Sure, because that's socialism.

Then when all the dumb middle class republicans come over to our tent, then they can be the far right fringe of our party. They can tea bag us. Fine. But at least be in the party that represents the middle class. The Republicans got you on the cheap.

Here is some good reading you all need before election day. Oh and by the way, fucking show up and vote. People who vote Democrat tend to only show up every 4 years. Stop that. There should be a tax break only voters get. Then people would show up.

Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda

Only morons believe that the Democrat's tax and spend policies are beneficial to the poor and the middle class. That's why the Democrat party is full of morons.

The GOP tax and spend. They don't tax the rich, they tax you. And they spend alright. Show me the last GOP president that didn't spend.

But what do they spend it on? Infrastructure and schools? FUCK NO! The GOP even passed tax loopholes so rich people could hide their money overseas and corporations got tax breaks for moving their factories overseas. Who gives a company a tax break to help them move away? Wake the fuck up stupid middle class America. In fact, are you really even middle class anymore? A lot of you pretend to be but you haven't got a raise in years.

P.S. You do know the rich are doing great, right? So if you are complaining, that should tell you something. You are a loser not a winner. You are a worker bee not an owner. Or if you do own something, it's a Subway. Do you know how much a Subway owner makes per year? $30K.

It's a waste of time to even bother with a substantive response to your horseshit. suffice it to say that it's all lies. Almost everything you post is lies.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know who you are or how much money you make but it makes a difference. If you are not rich then you are stupid for not joining the Democratic party. Then and only then will the GOP stop catering ONLY to the rich. They got you dumb middle class voters just with wedge issues. Got the entire southern vote with racism. Gets the religious nut vote with abortion and gay issues. Gets the gun nut vote. All these dumb ass middle class American's vote against their own financial interests. Cut ss and medicare, sure. Why? Because that's socialism. Destroy public schools? Sure, because that's socialism.

Then when all the dumb middle class republicans come over to our tent, then they can be the far right fringe of our party. They can tea bag us. Fine. But at least be in the party that represents the middle class. The Republicans got you on the cheap.

Here is some good reading you all need before election day. Oh and by the way, fucking show up and vote. People who vote Democrat tend to only show up every 4 years. Stop that. There should be a tax break only voters get. Then people would show up.

Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda

Only morons believe that the Democrat's tax and spend policies are beneficial to the poor and the middle class. That's why the Democrat party is full of morons.

For 50 years we thrived when Corporations paid their fair share of taxes and when labor made a fair wage. $17 hr to start back then (in today's dollars) vs. $8 today.

The masses don't have enough money. Please tell me the GOP's plan on how to get the masses/workers a big fat raise. They don't have a plan for that. In fact they are against higher wages. If you work for someone else, you should be voting democratic.

And like I said, we can have a right wing of the Democratic party. Today we call them Blue Dog or DINO's or corporate Democrats.

Fact is if you are a worker you should not be drinking the GOP coolaid. Not good for you.

Sorry SB but the best plans I have seen for sustainable economy come from the GREENS.

The Democrats CENSORED and destroyed the plans of their own constituents to convert
public housing and welfare into sustainable community campuses:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
According to the co-author of this HUD reform legislation, 250 million was supposed to go into developing this campus plan. Instead, Democrat administrations hijacked the contracts to fund their bureaucrat buddies.

Some other post on here blamed similar on the Bush admin for the Katrina/FEMA funding that went to profit contractors and conflicts of interests.

Both Democrats and Republicans can be blamed equally for corporate hijinks at taxpayers expense.

The GREENS have stood up and campaigned to stop unchecked Corporate abuses, while Democrat and Republican candidates still depend on corporate financing and can't seem to get past that conflict of interest.

When the Occupy and Tea Party movements came out, the liberal media kept these divided when in fact, they are both against "corporate cronyism" abusing Government.

The GREENS have worked toward endorsing candidates of ANY party that support the right ideas.

Until we take a more COOPERATIVE approach, and stop this political bullying, the corporations can still buy out leaders and campaigns and keep wasting resources that way.

We need to focus on SOLUTIONS then demand that ALL party leaders and members support those SOLUTIONS. Not waste resources blaming and fighting "this party or that one."

Each party has PART of the solution. So we need to put these plans together, taking the best that each has to offer. And not try to force one party to be in charge of everything.

Some solutions the GREENS offer
* independent currency based on labor and local business networks
* proportional representation and inclusion of diversity instead of "winner takes all" by majority rule
* consensus decision making, including and answering objections to reach agreements
* setting up fair trade cooperatives locally owned, which respects free enterprise
* revoking charters or personhood from corporations that abuse collective influence to violate equal protections of individuals and communities affected
[my solution is to hold collective organizations equally responsible for upholding the Bill of Rights defending individual rights of due process, right to petition, etc. so that citizens, corporations and govt all agree to enforce the same Constitutional standards and ethics]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whoa SB is not stupid.

Oh yes he is.

A mindless automaton spewing hating points from DailyKOS and ThinkProgress.

He defines stupid.

That's not what is causing the lack of understanding here.
SB brought up selfishness. When both parties get so selfish about pushing their agenda,
they can't fully hear out or include the ideas and objections of others,
that is what is causing these deadlocks.

SillyBonobo recites what his masters at the hate sites have trained him to recite.

He moronically spews about science, which he is completely ignorant of. But for those with an IQ greater than 30 - leaving SillyBonobo out, obviously - what is the goal of evolution?

I'll give you the answer, survival, the propagation of the species. We are genetically designed to survive, to do what it takes to ensure the survival of ourselves and our offspring.

When Communist attack "selfishness," what they are demanding is that we devolve and work against our survival, against the advancement of our genetic code.

Ayn Rand wrote that "selfishness is a virtue," but Lisa Randall (Chair of Quantum Physics, Harvard) got it right when she noted that "selfishness is a biological imperative."

It's from some mix of FEAR and Unforgiveness of past conflicts.
People don't mean to be selfish or come across as not caring, or as "stupid."

This is like saying "people don't mean to be warm blooded."

The drive to better ourselves is the foundation of our survival. Those who demand that we "not be selfish," are really demanding that we die - a demand they make based upon their own selfishness.

SillyBonobo is uneducated and incapable of formulating a cogent argument, yet he deigns to present himself as an intellectual - that is stupidity.

We all get blindsided by what we know is right or wrong,
we don't hear what each other is saying that could actually help us with solutions.

First thing to work on is stop the namecalling and assuming the other side is the problem.

The problem is we don't understand each other's objections or biases,
so we imagine that the other side is selfish or stupid.

It's clear to me people on here CARE about solving problems.
We just don't agree on the angles to take. We can understand the direction and focus we relate to.

Where we need HELP is how to work in the corrections and objections that other people have, coming from other directions or experiences, and find better ways to improve on solutions and reform the systems to address ALL these concerns and solve problems TOGETHER. That is a much better use of given resources than wasting that fighting over problems we could be fixing instead.

Maybe "stubborn" is more the term, but certainly not "stupid."
We can all be 'stupid' by missing the obvious, but that's because we are so used
to focusing on something else, we don't get what someone else sees from their angle.

Take care, and let's try to work on finding good points and better ideas we can respect in each other, not just jumping on weak points that need correction. We need both. Thanks!

I understand perfectly the "ideas" of SillyBonobo. I need only log on to DailKOS or the other hate sites to know exactly what he "thinks."

200 million innocent, peace time civilians were slaughtered by their own governments based on the ideas that he ignorantly promotes. So yes, i will condemn the ideas he promotes, and I will point out that he promotes them on the basis of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Avatar4321]

I just don't understand how I am selfish unless i want to force my will on my neighbor. It makes no sense.

 

[kaz]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

Wow, another Marxist who wouldn't be a Republican or a libertarian. Who would have seen that coming?

 

[emilynghiem]

In my brand of liberalism, I feel that the government offers the only real dependable solution for public assistance. It's not based on cynicism but based on what I think is factual insofar as, if it comes down to feeding my family and making sure they are comfortable, I'm going to do that before I open my checkbook to give money to others. When times are good and personal/family financial security is a given, I have no problem giving. When there are rounds of layoffs and my investments are not providing the returns they once did...it's harder to open the checkbook.

To expect the government to "step in" during downturns and provide assistance only during those stretches is unrealistic.

I never heard what the outcome was about the towns in New Hampshire that were trying the libertarian experiment. I believe they are called free-staters...Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems as though the movement is being rejected pretty much...new movements always are.

Hi Candycorn: If you believe in using govt as the equivalent of your church, that's fine.
But it's not fair to other taxpaying citizens who don't believe in using govt this way.

To me, charities and LOCAL self-governing organizations can be used for all that, and manage resources better since people are more accountable where there is more direct representation.

I respect Constitutional beliefs equally in a limited federal govt that only manages the central functions, such as national military etc. that REQUIRE Congress and representation from all States under one policy.

For social programs, the diverse needs, supply and demands of populations per locale are so different, this requires INDIVIDUALIZED assessment and services, so it is better localized. This is VERY burdensome and bureaucratic to manage on a federal level.

One Libertarian friend of mine suggested to delegate the federal budget "per State" and let local States manage their own allocations and programs per the needs of their population.

When I ask Liberals, it seems the biggest objection is that States have been hijacked by politics, so to protect individual interests, people are bypassing States and seeking Federal Protections where Constitutional arguments can be made in conflicts over State policy.

The solution is to invoke Constitutional rights and enforcement on an Individual level
in Districts and Cities, such as through local law enforcement and schools per region.

So there is no need to "ABUSE the Federal Level of Govt" to try to correct problems at the State level (such as concerning gay marriage, health care, schools and other social programs that really deserve Individual and Localized attention and representation)

We need localized democracy invoking Constitutional rights and freedoms directly. All the same programs we need are better managed democratically without fighting politically
(which happens anytime social agenda gets pushed into federal hands against the beliefs of people and parties who DON'T believe in using Federal govt for those type of issues).

Then we won't have to keep running to Congress and Feds to try to enact things globally.
We can govern our own programs locally, and ONLY go to the State or Federal levels when absolutely necessary. This should NEVER have become a regular dependency -- because it burdens the higher levels of govt that cover broader programs, not individual local needs.

The ideal is to have as INDEPENDENT as possible self-governing local districts,
and then the State level is only for things that affect the whole State which the local levels do not have authority to do; and the Federal level is only for what affects the whole Nation that the States and local levels cannot do on their own.

We are backlogging our govt systems "backwards" by dumping too much at the top.

It should be the other way, where we handle individual issues locally, and save the "general" policies and programs for the upper levels that manage on a national scale.

CC where I think we are heading is applying the liberal approach to localized govt, where "inclusion and diversity management" are needed one on one to address constituents.

And let the Libertarian/conservative approach to limited govt apply to the top at the federal levels, and delegate more resources and responsibility to the States to manage locally.

We shouldn't have conflict between these two systems, but apply both where they work best. Apply liberal policies to diverse populations locally, where everyone is included, protected, and represented equally; and keep resources and authority local by NOT pushing decision making to Federal govt and Congress, in keeping with Constitutional framework with limited federal authority, giving more power to people and States.

 

[emilynghiem]

I just don't understand how I am selfish unless i want to force my will on my neighbor. It makes no sense.

As long as people see the other party as competing with their own views,
it is "selfish" to promote one party's views over the other's.

The only way NOT to be selfish is to respect all people to be under their own party views,
and quit imposing "either way."

But if people don't agree with THAT,
then "I'm" being selfish by imposing MY views of either
respecting consensus or agreeing to separate.

Where people are afraid of change or control by others,
they become more concerned with "defending their way"
than getting the solutions that rely on parties working together to solve problems.

I think it's a perception problem more than anything.
Once people are convinced "the other party is trying to impose"
they can't even hear the content of each other's arguments, ideas or objections.

The defensiveness has to be removed first. I think it's a process of forgiving past
differences and conflicts, and building trust between groups learning to interact instead of reject.
Once we overcome the mistrust and negative judgments we have of each other's groups,
maybe we can hear what each other is really trying to say, propose and correct.

The learning curve is mutual. The more we share, the process grows exponentially.
Everyone I know is going through this same struggle of dealing with political diversity.
It's all been thrown in our faces, and we are all in the midst of sorting out what to do.

 

[jc456]

I just don't understand how I am selfish unless i want to force my will on my neighbor. It makes no sense.

As long as people see the other party as competing with their own views,
it is "selfish" to promote one party's views over the other's.

The only way NOT to be selfish is to respect all people to be under their own party views,
and quit imposing "either way."

But if people don't agree with THAT,
then "I'm" being selfish by imposing MY views of either
respecting consensus or agreeing to separate.

Where people are afraid of change or control by others,
they become more concerned with "defending their way"
than getting the solutions that rely on parties working together to solve problems.

I think it's a perception problem more than anything.
Once people are convinced "the other party is trying to impose"
they can't even hear the content of each other's arguments, ideas or objections.

The defensiveness has to be removed first. I think it's a process of forgiving past
differences and conflicts, and building trust between groups learning to interact instead of reject.
Once we overcome the mistrust and negative judgments we have of each other's groups,
maybe we can hear what each other is really trying to say, propose and correct.

The learning curve is mutual. The more we share, the process grows exponentially.
Everyone I know is going through this same struggle of dealing with political diversity.
It's all been thrown in our faces, and we are all in the midst of sorting out what to do.

They call it negotiations. I have something I believe in and you have something you believe in and what each is willing to give up is negotiated. IMHO, the left is the least to negotiate. They actually drive the GOP not to. Foolishness. The left just wants it all, so selfishness comes from the left first, followed by the right. It's sad. And the folks who tag along like a puppy on a leash aren't worth my time anymore. If they wish to wallow in waste then let them. Me, I'd prefer to see someone innovated, willing to step out and agree to something as long as something is given back. To expect to get all is not democratic at all. And why Washington is a mess.

 

[emilynghiem]

They call it negotiations. I have something I believe in and you have something you believe in and what each is willing to give up is negotiated. IMHO, the left is the least to negotiate. They actually drive the GOP not to. Foolishness. The left just wants it all, so selfishness comes from the left first, followed by the right. It's sad. And the folks who tag along like a puppy on a leash aren't worth my time anymore. If they wish to wallow in waste then let them. Me, I'd prefer to see someone innovated, willing to step out and agree to something as long as something is given back. To expect to get all is not democratic at all. And why Washington is a mess.

[MENTION=46512]jc456[/MENTION]
Yes I believe in replacing welfare handouts with sustainable microlending and education/training as part of the plan (and paying back taxpayers for corporate abuses by restitution and credits that allow immediate investment of those reimbursed millions while the wrongdoers pay back the debts over time)

I believe this will take a coordinated effort between Democrat and Republican leaders, as well as the other Third Parties focused on labor reforms and sustainable economy.

I even heard Dr. Ben Carson mention Microeconomics on the radio, which aligns with Microlending and education supported by President Obama.

These are the same ideas, the only thing stopping or separating us from implementation is political division and this pattern of attacking people from other parties for media points.

 

[emilynghiem]

Also [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
if you believe so much in depending on govt this way, that you would impose this belief on other people who don't share the same faith in govt,
are you OKAY with OTHER GROUPS taking THEIR political beliefs about govt
and imposing those despite YOUR beliefs or objections otherwise?

Is this practice okay if it imposes on you, or only okay if you are imposing on others?

In my brand of liberalism, I feel that the government offers the only real dependable solution for public assistance. It's not based on cynicism but based on what I think is factual insofar as, if it comes down to feeding my family and making sure they are comfortable, I'm going to do that before I open my checkbook to give money to others. When times are good and personal/family financial security is a given, I have no problem giving. When there are rounds of layoffs and my investments are not providing the returns they once did...it's harder to open the checkbook.

To expect the government to "step in" during downturns and provide assistance only during those stretches is unrealistic.

I never heard what the outcome was about the towns in New Hampshire that were trying the libertarian experiment. I believe they are called free-staters...Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems as though the movement is being rejected pretty much...new movements always are.

Example:
CC if you are okay with imposing government mandates on health care on the public,
due to beliefs about depending on govt for health care, using "insurance mandates,"

are you EQUALLY okay if I take my beliefs about "health care for all"
which involves using "SPIRITUAL HEALING" to cure all cases of mental or physical illnesses that can possibly be eliminated this way,
in order to reduce costs and allow resources to serve as many people as possible,
and make THAT a requirement for receiving public assistance?

Are you OKAY with imposing "spiritual healing" for all persons to reduce health care costs on the public?

Again, is this practice only okay for imposing INSURANCE mandates to cover costs (note that insurance does not treat or cure any condition),
but NOT okay for imposing HEALING mandates to reduce and cover costs (where this free therapy DOES treat, cure, remove or prevent various illnesses at no cost or risk of side effects).

If one is okay and one is not, why is it okay to impose YOUR BELIEFS about health care, but it is NOT okay for other people to impose THEIR BELIEFS about health care through govt?

Can you explain why your beliefs are acceptable to impose on others who disagree?
Thanks candycorn!
No other liberal on here has been able to answer this question. Will you be the first?

I am a fellow liberal progressive/Democrat. I'd like help to
address this issue of medical research into spiritual healing
in the Democrat Party Platform, since the Republicans support reparative therapy.

 

[candycorn]

Also [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
if you believe so much in depending on govt this way, that you would impose this belief on other people who don't share the same faith in govt,
are you OKAY with OTHER GROUPS taking THEIR political beliefs about govt
and imposing those despite YOUR beliefs or objections otherwise?

Is this practice okay if it imposes on you, or only okay if you are imposing on others?

In my brand of liberalism, I feel that the government offers the only real dependable solution for public assistance. It's not based on cynicism but based on what I think is factual insofar as, if it comes down to feeding my family and making sure they are comfortable, I'm going to do that before I open my checkbook to give money to others. When times are good and personal/family financial security is a given, I have no problem giving. When there are rounds of layoffs and my investments are not providing the returns they once did...it's harder to open the checkbook.

To expect the government to "step in" during downturns and provide assistance only during those stretches is unrealistic.

I never heard what the outcome was about the towns in New Hampshire that were trying the libertarian experiment. I believe they are called free-staters...Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems as though the movement is being rejected pretty much...new movements always are.

Example:
CC if you are okay with imposing government mandates on health care on the public,
due to beliefs about depending on govt for health care, using "insurance mandates,"

are you EQUALLY okay if I take my beliefs about "health care for all"
which involves using "SPIRITUAL HEALING" to cure all cases of mental or physical illnesses that can possibly be eliminated this way,
in order to reduce costs and allow resources to serve as many people as possible,
and make THAT a requirement for receiving public assistance?

Are you OKAY with imposing "spiritual healing" for all persons to reduce health care costs on the public?

Again, is this practice only okay for imposing INSURANCE mandates to cover costs (note that insurance does not treat or cure any condition),
but NOT okay for imposing HEALING mandates to reduce and cover costs (where this free therapy DOES treat, cure, remove or prevent various illnesses at no cost or risk of side effects).

If one is okay and one is not, why is it okay to impose YOUR BELIEFS about health care, but it is NOT okay for other people to impose THEIR BELIEFS about health care through govt?

Can you explain why your beliefs are acceptable to impose on others who disagree?
Thanks candycorn!
No other liberal on here has been able to answer this question. Will you be the first?

I am a fellow liberal progressive/Democrat. I'd like help to
address this issue of medical research into spiritual healing
in the Democrat Party Platform, since the Republicans support reparative therapy.

Not sure we're comparing apples to apples.

If you're a salesman making $85,000 a year...
If you're a mill worker making $75,000 a year...
If you're a stewardess making $48,000 a year...

You're in a position, most likely, to be charitable in your giving to the churches, charities, or other humanistic outreach organizations.

Lets say your commission gets cut and you pull in only $60,000...
Lets say your hours get cut and you pull in only $45,000...
Lets say you lose your job all together and are making $0...

Are you going to be as generous? No. And nobody would expect you to be; those in the religious sector, charities, and other organizations would be the first to tell you that they see the feast and the famine that comes with our market economy.

The only hegemonic entity that can provide steady aid to those who require public assistance is the government. That is my point and I don't believe that I'm inflicting anything on anyone else except good old fashioned reasoning and common sense.

 

[sealybobo]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

Wow, another Marxist who wouldn't be a Republican or a libertarian. Who would have seen that coming?

Remember when the blacks in Mississippi and Alabama were fighting for the right to ride on buses in the 1960's? That's what the white ignorant racists called the Freedom Riders. They called them commies, socialists and Marxists. Your reply exposes your ignorance. Thank you.

Oh, and that is not why I came here. Last night I was watching Too Close For Comfort. Remember that show? The dad was a total dick. He was playing the part of a Republican to a tee. Last night he was against rock and roll. I wonder how he would have acted if Monroe would have ever come out of the closet.

I thought of who else was probably a republican. Mr. Ferley from Three's Company was. Remember how he teased Jack for being gay and how cheap he was and how he dressed bad and couldn't get laid? Plus he was sponging off his brother who actually owned the building but still probably thinks he's a Republican just because he's white and old.

Gomez Adams was generous so a liberal rich guy.

Mr. Drummund from Different Strokes may have been a Republican fiscally but socially he was a liberal.

Can you think of any other characters on tv who were probably repubicans?

Mr. Douglas from Green Acres was a Republican I'm sure.

 

[kaz]

Remember when the blacks in Mississippi and Alabama were fighting for the right to ride on buses in the 1960's? That's what the white ignorant racists called the Freedom Riders. They called them commies, socialists and Marxists. Your reply exposes your ignorance. Thank you.

LOL, after your eight year old post about TV characters you don't like being Republicans.

Did you know that Jim Crow laws were ... wait for it ... government? WTF! So basically you're blasting an anti-government libertarian for government laws. LOL. Liberalism, stupidity you can't even make up...

 

[sealybobo]

Remember when the blacks in Mississippi and Alabama were fighting for the right to ride on buses in the 1960's? That's what the white ignorant racists called the Freedom Riders. They called them commies, socialists and Marxists. Your reply exposes your ignorance. Thank you.

LOL, after your eight year old post about TV characters you don't like being Republicans.

Did you know that Jim Crow laws were ... wait for it ... government? WTF! So basically you're blasting an anti-government libertarian for government laws. LOL. Liberalism, stupidity you can't even make up...

Huh? Seems to me that my story is a perfect example of the purpose of our government. The hick governor and police weren't protecting black citizens in Alabama and Mississippi and Kennedy had to step in. The racist white power structure back then complained about states rights then too just like you republicans do today. It's getting old.

My only point was that's what the racists down south called the freedom riders simply for wanting to ride on a grayhound bus. Today we don't want the corporations to own our government, which they pretty much do now, and when we say we don't like it, here you guys go again calling us those same names. Do you even know what that word means schmuck?

 

[deltex1]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

And beside all that.....you're gay.

 

[Stephanie]

wow, are we suppose care?

all those words to say he's a rabid liberal/left devoted to a party and proud of it

 

[sealybobo]

wow, are we suppose care?

all those words to say he's a rabid liberal/left devoted to a party and proud of it

Yup and I don't care if you or your masters the Koch brothers care.