Akvod said: Wait so do you guys believe in a Stand Alone Complex? Where everyone looks out for themselves, but yet ends up working almost like a united group?

What you're describing is basically Anarchy... And not in the wildly misused form of the word. Too many people confuse Nihilism (a philosophical movement) with Anarchy (a political movement).

Anyway, been a registered Libertarian for a decade or better. I'm extremely moderate by Libertarian standards when it comes to governmental power (not EVERYTHING should be privatized outside of money and defense) but I'm pretty much in line with their views on personal responsibility, civil rights, and personal freedom.

I've found that there are a surprising amount of libertarians on these gaming forums. At least on here and joystiq, at any rate.

 

Anyhoo, I've found that the libertarian movement has outlived its usefulness. At one point, necessary for guaranteeing a framework of individual rights, but the modern libertarian movement is far too reactionary to fit into a realistic world. Socialism (not Communism) is the future, but because of our strong social background in Libertarianism, we might temper the socialism to reap the maximum benefits (the curing of social ills), while minimizing the costs (the loss of individual rights)

moderation is needed, as in all things.

CommunistHater said: Churches are made up of people.  Sweden a guy went to jail for speaking against anal-sex.  In America a photographer had to pay thousands to a same-sex couple because she did not believe in their behavior.  Peoples personal religous beliefs are being litigated away. Opposite Sex relationships fill a vital need in society.  Society could go on forever without allowing same-se relationships.  Government should not be involved in things that do not serve  a vital interest Religion is protected in America.  Sexual Behavior is not protected.  Anal Sex has many health issues.  Just ask a proctologist.

Uh... straight people have anal sex too, and that doesn't mean they can't get married.  The government shouldn't be basing laws about personal health issues.  Hurting other people is bad.  Hurting yourself is ... probably stupid, but morally neutral.  Maybe you think being gay is stupid.  I think smoking crack is stupid.  I think both should be legal.

Government either needs to allow marriages for everybody or marriages for nobody.  There is no other constitutional option.

TheRealMafoo said: Squilliam said: Its because of the failure of private and church institutions in the past that we rely on the government to provide this essential service. Yea, because it's not the failure of the guy who doesn't provide for himself. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

The mlikman, the paperboy, and EVEN TV?

Sqrl said: akuma587 said: ... Approach to war on terror (I'm sorry, but even if Dick Cheney is right, he still hurts Republicans. Guy has a 19% approval rating) ... Normally I don't quibble over polls but your number is so completely off I have to make an exception: Courtesy of a Politico article: "The survey showed Cheney’s favorability rating spiking 8 percentage points since he left office in January, increasing from 29 percent to 37 percent." Which is doubly relevant since his spike is at least in small part due to his more vocal approach to making the case on this very issue since January (note the poll was before his recent speach so it might have changed up or down).  Regardless his recent speach was not his only public comments on this and he has risen 2 more points than Bush has in the same period, this means people are finding him more favorable, at least in part, because of his position on this issue, which contradicts the point you were making. Additionally polling indicates that republicans hold the most popular position on 5 of the 9 issues you listed and aren't far behind on 2 others (3 depending on how you measure).  Especially the issue of less taxes and less government they are overwhelmingly winning in the polls.  Although it is fair to note that this has been their rhetoric and not their actual policy which is one of the main reasons they have lost party ID. My take is that while the Republicans are certainly in an organizational and leadership crisis right now you're taking the opportunity to set a narrative that is more representative of what you want to be true than what is actually true by extending it to a policy problems.  They don't need to change their positions (even though I do disagree with them on a couple of those you listed), they need to actually adhere to them while in office.

If Republicans let people like Cheney fill the leadership vacuum in their party, a guy who has no future in politics and in normal times would have been thrown in federal prison, Republicans will be in the wilderness for a very long time.  And even the Bush Adminstration abandoned almost all the policies Cheney is beating the war drum about by 2004.  They knew they weren't effective, highly questionable morally, and overall more of a liability when fighting terrorism rather than a strength.  Its much easier to argue for these policies in the abstract than it is when the news spills out and you have to do damage control for the remaining time you are in office.  Cheney is fighting a battle that was lost about 5 years ago.  He's stuck in the past and is worried about his legacy.  He's moving the Republican Party in the wrong direction and is fighting battles in the past rather than offering an articulate view of the future.

As to the rest of your post, the problem is that Republicans are unwilling to budge on pretty much ALL those issues I listed.  The Democratic Party is more flexible.  You want to be a pro-life Democrat, that's not a problem (the DNC ran quite a few in the South in the last few election cycles).  You want to be a pro-gun rights Democrat, that's cool too (DNC also fielded quite a few of these candidates).  You want to be big on national defense, that's alright (many Democrats in places of power have this stance, like Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman).  The problem with the power holders in the Republican Party is that if you don't agree with them on every issue, they want to kick you out of the party.  You can't run the same kind of candidate in New York City that you can in Alabama. 

Republicans are actually finally starting to figure this out and will do a better job of fielding candidates who can ACTUALLY WIN in the places they are running outside of the Deep South.  Thank people like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham.

TheRealMafoo said: Squilliam said: Its because of the failure of private and church institutions in the past that we rely on the government to provide this essential service. Yea, because it's not the failure of the guy who doesn't provide for himself. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Not all welfare cases are cases where the guy fails to provide for himself/family. You have instances of:

• Recession/Depression
• Mental illness
• Congenital defects
• Accidents
• Illness

Now at heart im probably a libertarian as well. However I feel that people should be compelled to do a minimum to help themselves in case of disaster with the government providing a backbone for those who can't. This minimum is a retirement fund which is compulsary to have, but can be used for personal welfare in times of need.

There is one instance of where the government must help promote egalitarianism, which is in education. Everybody must have access to a high standard of education because poverty and the unfair distribution of opportunity are one of the leading causes of crime and social unrest. Its not really an issue of race or culture, its mainly an issue of poverty and the stress that some of the hardest working individuals feel when they are just getting by on the poverty line or there abouts.

Squilliam said: TheRealMafoo said: Squilliam said: Its because of the failure of private and church institutions in the past that we rely on the government to provide this essential service. Yea, because it's not the failure of the guy who doesn't provide for himself. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Not all welfare cases are cases where the guy fails to provide for himself/family. You have instances of: Recession/Depression Mental illness Congenital defects Accidents Illness Now at heart im probably a libertarian as well. However I feel that people should be compelled to do a minimum to help themselves in case of disaster with the government providing a backbone for those who can't. This minimum is a retirement fund which is compulsary to have, but can be used for personal welfare in times of need. There is one instance of where the government must help promote egalitarianism, which is in education. Everybody must have access to a high standard of education because poverty and the unfair distribution of opportunity are one of the leading causes of crime and social unrest. Its not really an issue of race or culture, its mainly an issue of poverty and the stress that some of the hardest working individuals feel when they are just getting by on the poverty line or there abouts.

I already said people with handicaps are a different issue. The only bullet on that list not handicapped, is Recession/Depression.

In those cases, the government can create jobs. I have no problem with the government giving a man a job.

The Ghost of RubangB said: The government shouldn't be basing laws about personal health issues.  Hurting other people is bad.  Hurting yourself is ... probably stupid, but morally neutral.  Maybe you think being gay is stupid.  I think smoking crack is stupid.  I think both should be legal. Government either needs to allow marriages for everybody or marriages for nobody.  There is no other constitutional option.

While I agree with all of this 100%, it only works if the Government doesn't have to pay for your screw-ups. This is one of the reasons I am against National healthcare.

If you want to live in a free country, you have to be willing to accept for the consequences of your actions.

Oh, and I think marriage should not be recognized by the Government for anyone. 

History has shown that the best economic system is one which is blanced between the extremes, government should play a role in regulation, performing services that it can do better due to its size, supplying a minimal level of services and insurance to people, etc.

Socially government should take a view that any action which does not harm (or potentially harm) yourself or another (except under certain circumstances) and does not infringe upon the rights of another, shouldn't be restricted.

Avinash - If you think that balance is good, and supplying a minimal level of service, why are you vouching for socialist democracies, where the government supplies a hefty amount of services?

I mean, some social democracies provide just about everything but a car and job, ranging from every kind of insurance to pension, civil services, and such, taking insane amounts of the GDP that not even Communist China cares to take & use from its people. How is that 'balance'?

I'm probably disqualified outright from this particular group since even Finnish hardcore right-wingers are more to the left than your so-called socialists and I consider myself to be center-leftist, but I'll take a look anyway since I'm bored. :p

Honestly? Over here, your choice of school isn't restricted in any way (IIRC) - you can pick any school you want, from any municipality/city you want, at any level (elementary/secondary/tertiary). You don't even have to use a government-funded school - there are several alternatives like private schools and Steiner schools, and even homeschooling if you choose to do so.

We have a duty to learn, but the method of learning isn't enforced.
But then again, stirring up enthusiasm for learning can't really be done by schools alone.

Haven't really looked into this, but it seems to be more free around here as well: As far as I know, there isn't a single pension plan for everyone, and everyone can influence their own pension plan, at least to an extent.
And wouldn't a completely privatized social security have problems with proper allocation of help where it's needed?

It is, but stupid lifestyle choices shouldn't affect one's value as a human being. And for the record - Finland has universal health care without stuff like "fat tax" or "smoking tax". Smokers blow a metric buttload of money on tobacco annually anyway and end up crippling themselves along the way, anyway.


I can agree with this and the solution. The pointlessly hard stance on drugs causes problems here as well.
 
As far as taxation goes... well, I live in a welfare state, a vast majority of people and political parties support it (even the right-wingers), and it simply works around here. Kinda expected, huh?

Around here, a flat tax would be set too high, thus putting too much pressure on the lower (-middle) income classes. A progressive tax, on the other hand, ends up screwing the upper-middle and high classes - which is by no means a great solution, but the better choice out of the two. Plus, we have progressive fines to discourage rich idiots from breaking the law and paying a pittance instead of actually getting punished.

Not to sound like an ass, but that sounds awfully naive.
As for the rest:

I agree that US should withdraw its forces from at least Europe. Maybe that will push some people to create a coherent armed forces for the rest of EU instead of relying on NATO for intimidation.

And I don't think anyone cares for bloated bureucracy.

I don't think ANY nation on the planet is really ready to embrace total equality on anything (and I find your constant promotion of self-sacrifice somewhat humorous), but no real complaints besides that.