He's baiting someone...also, I'm bumping so I can read it later and think about it.

I'm with ahhh_crap on this one. The main basis would be to set up the *partisan system with the same checks and balances as our current government; constantly playing one party against the other two would make for very interesting challenges and I think ultimately a more cutthroat experience would keep these 80-year-old yesteryears out of government and allow more modern ideas to prevail.

Libertarianism always sounds great on paper. It assumes that people are going to do what is in thier best interestes as well as what is rational. Its too bad people hardly behave rationally and often times not in thier best interest.
Libertarianism doesnt build strong nations. Its my belief that left to run unchecked, it would destroy the freedom it supports by creating social and economic castes. Ok so you dont have to put your children through school...or they choose not too go because the law supports them. Uneducated, worker Caste created - can't afford to send thier childeren to school, probably dont care to.
Dissolve public fire brigades..make it private. - Neighborhood X burns down because they didnt prepay for fire service. Collaterally damages half the city because response was too late.
There are a million other examples of how Liberarianism breaks down when you expose it to reality. Its like a beautiful dream that cant exist outside the ether.

Sorry, I'm too conservative to participate in a discussion here. You'd all just scoff at me from your liberal armchairs.

Okay, it's about time I got in on this 3rd-party-turned-libertarian-bash...athon.

Libertarianism isn't like communism or socialism in that it could only work in theory. Point in fact it has never been tried, and any system that allows the real freedoms that libertarianism requires has ultimately been defeated by politicians and stupid people voting for greater and more centralized governmental power.

Rikaelus, the Tea Party is awesome in its fiscal responsibility, but it has absolutely been corrupted by the Republican establishment. Anyone who espouses smaller government and increased freedoms, but starts shaking and cowering at the suggestion of cutting/removing entitlements isn't playing straight. I actually attended a "Tea Party" rally in April 2009, long before it was a formal movement, but just "tax day tea party" protests. I proudly held up my "Who is John Galt?" sign and thought it was nice enough, but I did note that the featured speaker was a local radio personality who I think is an ignorant right-wing zealot. Now, the only thing I still like about the Tea Party movement is that its more organized forces intentionally dodge the question of social issues in favor of pure fiscal policy -- specifically, smaller government. I think these midterms will be their great hurrah, after which it'll be absorbed into the Republican party proper. Obama will have real opposition to blame for the shit that happens (whereas now, continuously blaming Bush looks increasingly disingenuous), and might even net himself a second term. 100% certainty if the Republicans are stupid enough to put Palin or Huckabee against him. Partisan politics will return to normal, and fiscal sanity will continue unchecked.
But Rikaelus, that said, I think infrastructure spending IS something that sound fiscal folks can discuss as a valid government role. And if the federal government got out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Social Security, Medicare and education, they'd have PLENTY of money for roads, wouldn't they?


Giller, you make me sigh with how cut-and-dried you make it sound. Libertarianism won't work because if people aren't forced by the benevolent government to edumacate their kids, it won't happen and we'll have whole social castes that can barely read, right? YOU MEAN LIKE WE HAVE IN OUR INNER CITIES RIGHT NOW, with all the government spending on education? You brought up private fire brigades, presumably in response to crap like this? You do realize, don't you, that the people in those areas would have NO fire coverage whatsoever, but for the neighboring community that couldn't really afford to just pay for fire coverage for other towns, but offered to extend it if more distant individuals would help cover the costs? You make it sound like no one should ever be denied any service if it is POSSIBLE to be provided, regardless of cost. Now, could the firemen have taken a check on the spot, or saved the house and given an increased bill afterwards? Sure, and that is a more rational discussion of the issue. But it's incorrect to hold this up as an example of libertarianism gone wrong; in fact it's the opposite: it's what happens when people come to expect that the state will take care of them, entirely oblivious to the cost of that care.
I almost agree with you that libertarianism can't truly exist outside the ether, but not because it's inherently flawed in any way. Freedom includes the freedom to choose leaders, policies, governments, and as long as there are more apathetic, uninformed, or blindly self-interested people whose votes can be swayed into eroding the system, a true libertarian "ideal" can't ever be achieved.

That pretty well defines the Republican establishment, in my opinion. They gain power by the use of catchphrases such as "small government", "increased freedoms", "tax cuts", and "personal responsibility"; but they all go right out the door once they get into office. Then they have the gull to accuse Democrats and liberals of "flip-flopping".



I would have had a lot more respect for the Tea Party if it wasn't a reaction to Obama. Fiscal irresponsibility existed long before Obama took office, and yet the movement only started up when he took office. Why? Well, it seems to me that they don't mind conservatives being responsible, but it's the end of the whole damn world when a liberal is. That reeks of hypocrisy.



Out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree with. The money we dump in those countries aren't benefiting the American people. It's bad enough so much of our money goes to oversea manufacturing, but now for our tax money to go to build up other countries' infrastructures? Ridiculous.

Social Security and Medicare (which I admit I don't know a lot about) and education... at least it's tax money going to help Americans. And education is something I feel should be managed and funded federally. The education of Americans is in the best interest of the country overall. The system needs a lot of work, yes, but I'm all for the Feds being in charge of it. It's simply not right for one state to offer a better public education than another, and that will only serve to harm the country. And private schools should remain an option for those willing to pay.

The sentiment goes to health care as well. I fully believe we should have a national health care system, with people having the capacity to go to private doctors and hospitals if they want to pay.

Normally I'd agree, but I think Obama has actually done a pretty decent job of sticking to his campaign promises. He promised big change and the current congress has pushed through a lot more legislature than it normally does, and has tackled several issues that would normally be pushed under the rug as political suicide.



Oh, it won't die off on 11/3, but it won't be the Tea Party that was founded. It's already ceased to be that. It may have started based on legitimate complaints, but it quickly became a banner for everything anti-Obama, everything anti-liberal. It's not their fault... it happens to every political movement and large gathering for a cause; everyone wants co-opt the crowd to express their own views. You think Palin hops up on stage with her handicapped child to help the Tea Party? Na... she's garnering political support for herself. If the Tea Party wanted to stay true to its cause she should have been booed off that stage; not applauded.



Maybe. What I know is that the high school I went to was old and needed help, while another school in an area of higher income looked like a bloody mall. This not only within the same state, but within the same city. That ain't right. And frankly I don't trust states to make it right. Besides fifty billion campaign signs along the road during election time, barely anyone pays attention to local government to even keep them in line.




Erm.. I believe in flat taxes with the only exception being taxes on those below the poverty line and not able to afford life essentials already.

Edit: Actually.. I believe in abolishing income tax and replacing it with federal sales tax, but that's a bit farther from reach than flat income taxes.