Any Libertarians in the house ?

I don't know much about these types, but I think it is where everyone has to pull their own weight, am I close ?

Libertarian party:

US party est'd 1971. Opposes laws which limits human behaviour, advocates free market economy without govt regulation or assistance. Opposes govt spending on welfare etc. Favours neutral foreign policy and withdrawal from United Nations. In 1980 US presidential elections Libertarian candidate polled 920,000 votes. Has steadily declined since Reaganomics was deployed. ...

Hmm, appearantly their not all bad, how come so few in number ?

What does either of the Big Parties have over them ?

Ya, but that's just a matter of experiance...give the new guys a chance.

Does it have to be the Federal government, couldn't those worried about neighbors simply herd up in Home Owners Assosiations and such ?

the reasonthe libertarians get no traction is because they dont believe in all the corporate welfare going to the corporatons.....because of that they dont get the huge corrupt lobby efforts and funds from the corporations that are given mainly to the republicans and the dems second behind them

I see that Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" will be made into a movie. From what I understand, Ayn Rand's ideas are, to a point, the basis for a part of the Libertarian philosophy.
One of the big obstacles to third party establishment is the way the tax campaign funds are allocated to the other two entrenched parties.

Oregonian,

I used to be a semi-Libertarian. Unfortunately it had the effect of wasting my vote and allowing scumbag Republicans get elected who have used their power to help transfer all wealth to the already wealthy. I've been voting for a bevy of Democrats ever since, mainly as a defense mechanism to try to keep Republican slime from over-taking all aspects of American life.

There's a lot about Libertarian philosophy to like, unless you're already deeply wired into either corporate or social welfare. The one thing about Libertarianism I most opposed is the complete lack of public resources. I mean, sure, it would be possible to have private toll roads everywhere, but it's a lot more efficient to have well planned public road systems. I also like the concept of public ownership of national parks, forests, and water, which Libertarianism would convert all of those to private ownership to the highest bidder.

Further, as I've become older, I think my human compassion has increased, and I'm not opposed to a reasonable degree of social welfare. Yeah, I do hate welfare cheats, but we know it's the exceptions to the rule that make the news stories. I do believe that the extensive corporate welfare will bring our nation down long before social welfare does.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.;

The private ownership of parks/water thing would probably work out because groups of people who care the most would join forces to get control of what they care about.......

Something similar would have to happen with transportation too, even if it would work on paper though......how to make the switch ?

AuntyM;

So you do find some comfort hiding behind W's skirt ?

Heh, read your post above.....you feel more comfortable with the current arrangement than with "NO PUBLIC OVERSIGHT"...


I quipped something like you don't mind hiding behind W's skirt, how did you not make the connection ?

Okay, I'll try to explain my remark in more detail, and I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or be too mean either........


We were discussing what it would be like living in a Libertarian society, where Uncle Sugar would be mostly gone........you expressed fear over who gets to do what, and I made the comment about you feeling safer behind W's skirt........

You did seem to favor the status quo over the system being discussed, and I thought it somewhat humorous to point that out since you generally seem to think Sadam himself would be a better President than W.

At this point in the delivery I will concede that the humor is gone, probably with a facial expression or tone of voice I could have done better.....

I guess you are implying that you think you have both age and wisdom on me, is that what they call smug ?


When someone makes a funny at my expense I enjoy the funny, and start paying closer attention...

What are you reffering to with this remark ?

<quote>"It's funny that you posted an opinion without any fore thought and then tried to weasle out of being shown the error of your thinking with innuendos you can't support."<quote>

I guess I may have went a little too quickly there.....


In our discussion of a Libertarian society I thought we were assuming private ownership of pretty much everything, and I think people with similar interests would join together to make whatever impact they desire.........

I think you are saying that all the bad people will buy all the good stuff that you want, and leave you with no President to condemn for it.......

In our imaginary Libertarian society supply and demand economics will really be powerfull....no Uncle Sugar interfering with those pesky subsidies and lucrative contracts, so a large group of motivated citizens will swing a bigger hammer......

Sure, timber companies will still manage their land in the interest of sustained yield, instead of trying to grow 600 year old forests.......

There will still be millions of people who want millions of acres of land set aside untouched by mankind...........

If a particular company goes bad, then consumers will avoid their product until they get the message........

I may have a little more faith in mankind's ability to think than you, but I only expect that under a completely different government, the way things are now, thinking isn't necessary, Uncle Sugar likes dummies, and hands out the cash to keep them alive and lazy.