Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Paulie]

The majority of GOP voters understand national defense is important, so the extremist crowd of the GOP loses support in primaries when they blame Middle East problems on the US/Israel and that Iran is really, really a nice country if we just ignore them.

Throw in their extreme views on personal freedoms like using drugs, doing whatever you like if it just feels good, etc.....they are just liberals that don't like taxes and big Govt, thus why they are rejected within the GOP.

You could have really used our votes back on election day.

That's cool though, no big deal

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because I say you are, just as you say others are.

You are not the center of the world, little one: sorry bout dat.

bripat is one of those sucking-hard ticks he talks about.

How am I a tick, Fakey? Who am I sucking off of?

 

[bripat9643]

Because I say you are, just as you say others are.

You are not the center of the world, little one: sorry bout dat.

bripat is one of those sucking-hard ticks he talks about.

How am I a tick, Fakey? Who am I sucking off of?

That's what I expected from you, Fakey: irrefutable logic.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, just talking to my friend, the refutable bripat.

 

[LibertyForAll]

You said libertarians have a "I got mine, Fuck You!" sentiment. That implies that libertarians feel they have achieved success and don't care about other people. Both of these statements are false, maybe some feel that way, I can't speak for everyone but I am not rich, I do care about other people and I am a libertarian.

I think libertarians care about other people who deserve to be cared about. If you're going to work hard, support yourself and be a good person and member of society, then sure: why shouldn't you be cared for? If you're going to look to freeload, be an ass and just cause trouble, then fuck you.

Libertarians prefer less government administered stuff because people should be expected to be responsible for themselves. In addition, people are expected to be good people and help those in need. So when safety nets are needed, it's on the good will of the good people that make up the society.

As with any society, you're going to have bad apples and people that look to game the system. Libertarians seem to prefer that the freeloader who wants to try to live off the fruits of someone else's labor either find someone willing to support their ass out of their own free will or be up shit creek without a paddle. The flip side is also true: the onus of protecting the public in general from assholes that would look to take advantage of people falls more heavily on the individual, not government regulation and oversight.

To many of these "libertarians" freeloaders are everyone who gets some sort of public assistance when the hard reality is that vast numbers of people work like dogs and still qualify because wages have stagnated for decades whereas public assistance sort of keeps pace with inflation. Additionally they do not seem to have a high opinion of minimum wage laws so it seems they are just fine with further efforts to depress wages and benefits. Overall the sense I get is that they are anti-worker as well as anti-poor and would short circuit the tenuous avenues available to advancement and upward mobility in what they sometimes like to call a meritocracy.

Do you think that if you raise minimum wage that companies will just eat the loss? They will maintain profits at the expense of the consumer. They just pass on the loss as inflation which hurts the people you are trying to help the most since their hard earned dollars now buy less. This is on top of the inflation caused by the ever increasing government spending. There may be some short term relief until the price of money catches up but it will be very short lived. Do you think the rich care if their groceries cost 25% more? I don't but I know that if mine went up that much I would be hurting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are misdefining what happened from after WWII to the Nixon-Carter era, when oil embargoes damaged the economy.

Pay all working men and women decent living wages, and you will find the economy humming along, profits up, and stock holders with decent dividends.

I think libertarians care about other people who deserve to be cared about. If you're going to work hard, support yourself and be a good person and member of society, then sure: why shouldn't you be cared for? If you're going to look to freeload, be an ass and just cause trouble, then fuck you.

Libertarians prefer less government administered stuff because people should be expected to be responsible for themselves. In addition, people are expected to be good people and help those in need. So when safety nets are needed, it's on the good will of the good people that make up the society.

As with any society, you're going to have bad apples and people that look to game the system. Libertarians seem to prefer that the freeloader who wants to try to live off the fruits of someone else's labor either find someone willing to support their ass out of their own free will or be up shit creek without a paddle. The flip side is also true: the onus of protecting the public in general from assholes that would look to take advantage of people falls more heavily on the individual, not government regulation and oversight.

To many of these "libertarians" freeloaders are everyone who gets some sort of public assistance when the hard reality is that vast numbers of people work like dogs and still qualify because wages have stagnated for decades whereas public assistance sort of keeps pace with inflation. Additionally they do not seem to have a high opinion of minimum wage laws so it seems they are just fine with further efforts to depress wages and benefits. Overall the sense I get is that they are anti-worker as well as anti-poor and would short circuit the tenuous avenues available to advancement and upward mobility in what they sometimes like to call a meritocracy.

Do you think that if you raise minimum wage that companies will just eat the loss? They will maintain profits at the expense of the consumer. They just pass on the loss as inflation which hurts the people you are trying to help the most since their hard earned dollars now buy less. This is on top of the inflation caused by the ever increasing government spending. There may be some short term relief until the price of money catches up but it will be very short lived. Do you think the rich care if their groceries cost 25% more? I don't but I know that if mine went up that much I would be hurting.

 

[beagle9]

I think libertarians care about other people who deserve to be cared about. If you're going to work hard, support yourself and be a good person and member of society, then sure: why shouldn't you be cared for? If you're going to look to freeload, be an ass and just cause trouble, then fuck you.

Libertarians prefer less government administered stuff because people should be expected to be responsible for themselves. In addition, people are expected to be good people and help those in need. So when safety nets are needed, it's on the good will of the good people that make up the society.

As with any society, you're going to have bad apples and people that look to game the system. Libertarians seem to prefer that the freeloader who wants to try to live off the fruits of someone else's labor either find someone willing to support their ass out of their own free will or be up shit creek without a paddle. The flip side is also true: the onus of protecting the public in general from assholes that would look to take advantage of people falls more heavily on the individual, not government regulation and oversight.

To many of these "libertarians" freeloaders are everyone who gets some sort of public assistance when the hard reality is that vast numbers of people work like dogs and still qualify because wages have stagnated for decades whereas public assistance sort of keeps pace with inflation. Additionally they do not seem to have a high opinion of minimum wage laws so it seems they are just fine with further efforts to depress wages and benefits. Overall the sense I get is that they are anti-worker as well as anti-poor and would short circuit the tenuous avenues available to advancement and upward mobility in what they sometimes like to call a meritocracy.

Do you think that if you raise minimum wage that companies will just eat the loss? They will maintain profits at the expense of the consumer. They just pass on the loss as inflation which hurts the people you are trying to help the most since their hard earned dollars now buy less. This is on top of the inflation caused by the ever increasing government spending. There may be some short term relief until the price of money catches up but it will be very short lived. Do you think the rich care if their groceries cost 25% more? I don't but I know that if mine went up that much I would be hurting.

Instead of the minimum wage being run as a socialism type program, (imho) I think this nation should take the time and to rate labor by fields and expertise, starting with one year experience, therefore setting a minimum standard to be paid in the many many fields for example seperately - A mechanic should be rated at a minimum of and/or a starting pay with one year experience upon entering the workforce, and this after schooling thus counting as the one year experience upon graduation, and therefore giving the new employee a starting pay of "12.50" per hour, and then we have a welder next with the one year experience also 13.50 per hour, and a custodian with one year also 10.00 dollars and hour, and a truck driver with one year experience 15.00 dollars and hour etc. etc. etc. Then each one of these should be subject to a cost of living increase (changing the base rates a little each year), just like what is given to senior citizens on their social security checks recieved each year.

This is the way the base introductory for minimum pay in all the fields that exist or in which we know of should be delt with, in which have been rated by the experts that are chosen from each field. It could then be set up in America as a standard or minimum pay rate to be paid per field registered, and then the companies could structure it out anyway they want to beyond that, otherwise to give benefits and pay raises and profit sharing as based upon the workers character, their dependency, energy, training achieved, consistancy, (note not to be based upon ever a persons skin color), along with having or keeping a minimal footprint to any losses incurred until retire or move on to something else maybe.

So why do we have a socialized retirement system, and a socialized minimum wage system in America ? It's not right is what it is..

This deprives people of their right to a more just run and basic/base compensation system for entering the workforce & leaving it, in which is one that involves many different fields that have many different structures, profit makings/sharings and etc. We have a system now that is throwing everyone in the same basket regardless of their achievements in life, and later on with social secuity the same way in which it is set up also. It denies people of their differences that are found in their abilities to keep going in their elder life or to not keep going all depending on their job or job titles in life. Example, if I am a contractor lineman, and I am exposed to the harsh elements and radiation fields that exist around powerlines, storm damage operations, extreme dangers and etc. then should I be held in the same boat with a workmen who works in a cubicle all day ? You see he could go far beyond my days in the workplace, but yet we both have the same date given us by government when it comes to retiring at 62 in order to recieve my retirement/social security along with him the same ? Shouldn't retirement plans be catered to the fields and expertise of individuals and their lines of duty ? Otherwise maybe my retirement should come due earlier than his (like age 55 maybe), and this all due to my field of expertise in the line crew department in life, that has destroyed my body quicker than his, but here I am held to the same standard and exit date as him according to government ?

Like I said we have been playing with socialism for far to long now it seems, and it has caused some serious pain among many in this nation, and this shouldnot be... We are a better nation than this or we should be, so why all the idiocy that goes on in this nation now I wonder ? Oh I know, it is a way to steal everyone blind or hold people to lower standards equally is what it all comes down to in the end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Define socialism.

Define social democracy.

Then try again.