Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Of course it will and your party will be the first demanding it once crime rises.
So, you're basing this on your assumptions that crime will increase when drugs are legalized, and that Libertarians would suddenly reverse their views on regulation if it did? I believe you're wrong on both counts. But of course neither of us can predict the future.
I assume cause I have seen it.
You keep on smoking pot and paying for sex if that's your thing just don't assume you are right cause of your hedonistic life.
Next January has been a lost cause since the Republican establishment decided Romney was "it". We can compound that loss, and endorse their selection, or we can look to the future and make it clear we won't follow along like sheep.
Tea Parties. Maybe you should join one.
Libertarian Party. Not seeing much in the Tea Party movement that appeals to me. I can appreciate their focus on less taxes, but that's not the whole story. I actually think we should be taxed more - we should actually pay for the government we're getting. It's the only way people will wake up to the fact that we're "getting" way too much.
Tea Parties. Maybe you should join one.
Libertarian Party. Not seeing much in the Tea Party movement that appeals to me. I can appreciate their focus on less taxes, but that's not the whole story. I actually think we should be taxed more - we should actually pay for the government we're getting. It's the only way people will wake up to the fact that we're "getting" way too much.
I think we should get better gov't for what we're paying before we give 'em more money. The more we give 'em, the more they waste. Does it not make sense that we should not give 'em more until they've cleaned up their act and shown us that they need more to meet whatever obligations we have? Which BTW also needs to be scrubbed, the obligations we have oughta be looked at.
Tea Parties. Maybe you should join one.
Libertarian Party. Not seeing much in the Tea Party movement that appeals to me. I can appreciate their focus on less taxes, but that's not the whole story. I actually think we should be taxed more - we should actually pay for the government we're getting. It's the only way people will wake up to the fact that we're "getting" way too much.
Those of us already being taxed heavily need no wake up call. The trouble is there are far too many with no tax burden thus they believe the government is a candy store with lots of goodies.
Libertarian Party. Not seeing much in the Tea Party movement that appeals to me. I can appreciate their focus on less taxes, but that's not the whole story. I actually think we should be taxed more - we should actually pay for the government we're getting. It's the only way people will wake up to the fact that we're "getting" way too much.
I think we should get better gov't for what we're paying before we give 'em more money. The more we give 'em, the more they waste. Does it not make sense that we should not give 'em more until they've cleaned up their act and shown us that they need more to meet whatever obligations we have? Which BTW also needs to be scrubbed, the obligations we have oughta be looked at.
Well, the thing is we ARE paying for all the excess government, we're just hiding it in the form of debt and currency devaluation. I'm simply calling for more honesty in government so that we can make some sensible decisions. As long as voters can get all the perks they want from government without feeling the pain of paying for it (because the payment is hidden or pushed off on future generations), they'll keep demanding more perks, and they'll keep voting for candidates who promise to deliver them.
Of course, this approach (of increasing taxes to reflect how much our government is actually spending) wouldn't work as I'm suggesting unless it was implemented through across-the-board tax increases. Everyone has to feel the pain, or we're simply scapegoating. Which brings up the even more fundamental taxation problem discriminatory taxation.
I think we should get better gov't for what we're paying before we give 'em more money. The more we give 'em, the more they waste. Does it not make sense that we should not give 'em more until they've cleaned up their act and shown us that they need more to meet whatever obligations we have? Which BTW also needs to be scrubbed, the obligations we have oughta be looked at.
Well, the thing is we ARE paying for all the excess government, we're just hiding it in the form of debt and currency devaluation. I'm simply calling for more honesty in government so that we can make some sensible decisions. As long as voters can get all the perks they want from government without feeling the pain of paying for it (because the payment is hidden or pushed off on future generations), they'll keep demanding more perks, and they'll keep voting for candidates who promise to deliver them.
Of course, this approach (of increasing taxes to reflect how much our government is actually spending) wouldn't work as I'm suggesting unless it was implemented through across-the-board tax increases. Everyone has to feel the pain, or we're simply scapegoating. Which brings up the even more fundamental taxation problem discriminatory taxation.
I'm good with more honesty in gov't, the only way I can see the people accepting less perks is if the politcal parties can agree on a bipartisan solution and present the problem and the solution to the American people in an open and straight forward way. Yes, everyone would have to take a hit, including the rich guys. But I don't see any of that happening without suffering through some very hard times first, or unless more and more people join together in pressuring the politicians to work something out. Which is what the Tea Parties are doing, but they're mostly working only one side of the street, the democrats have no pressure from their side to do anything except tax and spend. They ain't going to change their model until forced to existentially.
Seems odd that a libertarian would support tax increases, if I'm understanding you corectly. You do know that we can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit spending, right?
Seems odd that a libertarian would support tax increases, if I'm understanding you corectly. You do know that we can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit spending, right?
All I'm really talking about is a requirement to balance the budget. I don't see anything counter to libertarian principles in that.
All I'm really talking about is a requirement to balance the budget. I don't see anything counter to libertarian principles in that.
A 100% tax on all wages over $100K would not balance the budget.
Your proposal doesn't hold water. Balancing the budget will depend on scaling back the welfare state, not taking by force what does not belong to us.
Of course I lean toward Rothbard as an example of Libertarian thought, rather than Marx.
Sure, but you're missing the point. I'm saying we should be paying for all the government we're voting for, and that's not happening. If it were a requirement, if Congress had to fully fund all the legislation it passed - voters would retaliate. As it is, most are happy to put it the national credit card. This is the disconnect between the two equally irrational stands of the Dems and Repubs.
Seems odd that a libertarian would support tax increases, if I'm understanding you corectly. You do know that we can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit spending, right?
All I'm really talking about is a requirement to balance the budget. I don't see anything counter to libertarian principles in that.
The Tea Partiers are all about balancing the budget, and they took a lot of flak for it too. They wanna do it through spending cuts rather than tax increases, but they wanna do it all at once. Libertarians are for that too, limited gov't and less spending and lower taxes?
Personally, I'm for gradually reducing our deficits in a way that doesn't lead us into another recession. And I would accept the much ballyhooed tax hikes on the rich once the GDP starts growing consistently above 3.5%.
Seems odd that a libertarian would support tax increases, if I'm understanding you corectly. You do know that we can't possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit spending, right?
All I'm really talking about is a requirement to balance the budget. I don't see anything counter to libertarian principles in that.
The Tea Partiers are all about balancing the budget, and they took a lot of flak for it too. They wanna do it through spending cuts rather than tax increases, but they wanna do it all at once. Libertarians are for that too, limited gov't and less spending and lower taxes?
Personally, I'm for gradually reducing our deficits in a way that doesn't lead us into another recession. And I would accept the much ballyhooed tax hikes on the rich once the GDP starts growing consistently above 3.5%.
the U.S. Government is not suppose to:
1. Pass Laws/Make decisions on my behalf without my permission
2. Arrest or detain me without cause indefinitely
3. Raise my taxes without my permission
4. Go to War on my behalf without my permission
5. Sell the farm behind my back
6. Spy on me through my walls, TV and telephone
7. Assasinate my most valuable political servants
8. Usurp and Destroy the Constitution of America
9. Threaten to take my kids from me (CPS)
10. Select a non-American born individual to be the President of the U.S.
Click here to read the canards. . .The most common activist strategies, such as street demonstrations, protests, etc., rarely seem to bring about any change in government. There is only one nonviolent tactic that has been proven to work. Recently I asked the new president of a local activist group that had banned me from speaking, if I would be allowed to speak under the new leadership. I explained that I'm an election boycott advocate. The reply I got was:
"So my question is - how does NOT voting change anything? I can see actually writing in someone you believe in - but not voting simply is giving up."
I decided to answer the question as thoroughly as I could. Here's what I wrote, which I'm posting here with the person's name removed:
South Africa endured many years of violence under the Apartheid regime. Many people and countries worldwide boycotted Apartheid, but the US government insisted on supporting the Apartheid regime, saying that while the US abhorred Apartheid, the regime was the legitimate government of South Africa. Then the Apartheid regime held another election. No more than 7% of South Africans voted. Suddenly everything changed. No longer could the US or anyone else say that the Apartheid regime had the consent of the governed. That was when the regime began to make concessions. Suddenly the ANC, formerly considered to be a terrorist group trying to overthrow a legitimate government, became freedom fighters against an illegitimate government. It made all the difference in the world, something that decades more of violence could never have done.
In Cuba, when Fidel Castro's small, ragged, tired band were in the mountains, the dictator Batista held an election (at the suggestion of the US, by the way). Only 10% of the population voted. Realizing that he had lost the support of 90% of the country, Batista fled. Castro then, knowing that he had the support of 90% of the country, proceeded to bring about a true revolution.
In Haiti, when the US and US-sponsored regimes removed the most popular party from the ballot, in many places only 3% voted. The US had to intervene militarily, kidnap Aristide, and withhold aid after the earthquake to continue to control Haiti, but nobody familiar with the situation thought that the US-backed Haitian government had the consent of the governed or was legitimate.
Boycotting elections alone will not oust the oligarchy, but it is the only proven non-violent way to delegitimize a government.
A lot of people here are complaining about the Citizens United decision. Some want to amend the Constitution because there is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision (their edicts have the same weight as the Divine Right of Kings), but getting enough states to ratify is a long drawn out and not always successful process, as I'm sure you recall from the ERA. But suppose that the corporations spent ten to fifteen billion dollars on an election (they spent at least five billion on the last midterms, so that's not unreasonable) and almost nobody voted. Do you think their boards of directors would let them do it again?
Here are some of the most common canards that political party operatives use to argue against not voting:
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
It's good to see Obama winning as predicted.
