logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> IMPORTANT NOTICE

This forum is for declared Libertarians ONLY. If you have not declared yourself as such, DO NOT post here.

> As a Libertarian..., What do you not agree with?
VDemosthenes
post Jun 25 2005, 09:53 PM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



The answer is pretty much in the title:


Questions for Debate:

1.) As a Libertarian is there an issue (or issues) you do not agree with the official platform on? Why?

2.) How would you modify the party's thinking on the issue(s) if you could?




Useful link:

Party Platform





This post has been edited by VDemosthenes: Jun 25 2005, 09:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
CruisingRam
post Jul 4 2005, 03:57 AM
Post #2


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



1.) As a Libertarian is there an issue (or issues) you do not agree with the official platform on? Why?


2.) How would you modify the party's thinking on the issue(s) if you could?

Let me address them as the party enumerates them:

1) on crime, nothing, I am a 100% true believer in this area of the party platform thumbsup.gif

2) Enviroment, I am about 50% in agreement- but turning over public land to private owners is asking for corruption and problems as well, unless you want to start a beauracracy of oversite LOL- ranchers are not the best stewards of the land either, but I also don't have any answers for what would work better at this time.

3) Family budget- well, this is one of the utopian aspects of the libertarian party for me- like communism, sounds good on paper, but is so easily corrupted and worked by smart individuals, that it is unworkable. I would rather see a federal flat tax based on net worth increase.

4) Foriegn policy- 100% in agreement, true party believer

5) Freedom of speech- 100% true believer, change nothing

6) Gun ownership- couldn't have said it better myself for the most part- though I do believe in a licensing on the level of the drivers license, with some guaruntees that they are not considered a "privilege" but more to determine mental competency to own one.

7) Internet- 100% party believer

8) Immigration- so common sense and reasonbleness it boggles my little brain- true party believer thumbsup.gif

9) Welfare- here is where I seperate some from the platform- welfare is only 1% of the budget and NOT a drain the federal budget- I think corporate welfare reform, which, in fairness, the libertarian party want that ended too, which is somewhat addressed in the entrepenerual section (sp)

I think they are way off base on education- there is one area we need to reform society more than goverment. It is parent's abdicating thier responsiblity and treating school as daycare that it the problem, not the NEA or school boards or school choice

10) Privacy- 100% true believer- agree 100%

11) Soc Sec- not a true believer- but I want reform- it is a matter of national security, as highlighted by the great depression, that we have some sort of national retirment insurance to keep from total economic failure in another downturn- but not the abortion it has become today either

12) Well, yes and no on this one- we have an income tax because it is more realistic for an industrial society than the agrian society tarrif system it replaced. I believe in a flat tax on the net worth increase.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaellon
post Jul 29 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 130
Member No.: 4,523
Joined: February-16-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Like CruisingRam, I'll just go with the party's outline:

Crime and Violence
1. Require restitution to the victims, don't just jail the perpetrator - I agree
2. End Drug Prohibition - I'm undecided. They make good points here, but I would have to see a full debate from both sides before I could take a stand.
3. Stop releasing convicts of violence to allow drug users in - I agree to the extent that we shouldn't free those who commit serious crimes to make room for those who commit minor ones. I'm still undecided on where I stand on drug-related crimes, though.
4. Allowing Firearms - Agree. There is plenty of empirical evidence that shows that gun restrictions only keep the guns out of the hands of those who would use them responsibly (I can provide stats if anyone requires, but otherwise I'm not going to bother).
5. Reduce welfare, taxes, red tape - Agree

Environment - The environment is one of the very rare issues where I don't believe that the free market will do the right thing. Profit is always going to come before conservation, at least to enough companies to cause serious problems. I agree that we should get it out of the hands of the U.S. government (fox and henhouse is a good example they use), but I think there should still be laws to protect the environment (within reason, not to the extent that many "environmentalist wackos" would like). As an initial step, I would like to see it all turned over to States.

Family Budgets - Disregarding the cheesy emotional pleas contained therein, I agree that taxes need to be rolled back drastically. I didn't really grasp the distinction between this section and the Taxes section later, though.

Foreign Policy - Mostly agree. I would really rather that the U.S. didn't confiscate American's money, give it to other countries "in need", and piously call it "charity". It is no more charitable than me stealing your wallet to give to a homeless man. I could, however, be fairly ambivalent about it if we were really doing any good. 40+ years of history has shown us that all our foreign aid has failed to make a difference. What African nation can say that it is better off now than in 1960 because of our help? The answer for them is simple. Adopt a government that enforces rule of law, protects rights, and allows citizens to elect their own representatives. Only then would I be ok (at best) with our handouts...and I would really prefer that we oversee the distribution of aid, and not just give it to the foreign government.

Freedom of Speech
Pornography - Disagree completely - Pornography is not and has never been a "freedom of expression". Proponents have just latched onto that clause in an attempt to gain legal standing. I support every law that restricts and prohibits it.
Electronic communication - Agree. To the extent that internet content is not vulgar or pornographic, it should be completely unrestricted. I get especially worked up when I hear that major political parties try to restrict internet communications because they fear opposing ideas reaching the masses.

Gun Laws - Agree. The only restrictions that make sense are those against people who have already demonstrated criminal behavior.

Internet - As a communications medium, agree; As a tool to promote porn, disagree

Immigration - I agree that we should allow immigration. Economically, it makes sense. As a matter of security, however, I think we should close our borders and do thorough investigations on anyone who wants to enter the states.

Poverty & Welfare
End Welfare - agree
Tax credits - Ok, sure. If people feel it's important, I won't argue this one.
Remove laws - I agree to a point. However, I think companies should be responsible for providing a safe workplace (or disclosing to the employee that it is NOT safe) and not abusing the environment. For purely economic matters, however, the government should just get out.
Reform Education - I agree, if not for the exactly same reasons. I think the U.S. is a poor overseer of education. Turn it back over to the States, and let them decide how to handle education.

Privacy
Electronic surveilance - Ambivalent
Encryption technology - Haven't seen the other viewpoint, but I see no reason to restrict it.
Identity card - Agree
SSN as PIC - Agree

Taxes
Limit government to protecting lives, rights and property - Agree
Privatize what can be privatized - agree
Stop defending other nations militarily - agree
Stop bailing out failed industries - agree
Stop welfare - Agree. Private charity does a much better job of meeting the individuals needs, and "driving" them out of poverty.
Income tax - I don't think it was ever a good idea. Our previous taxation methods (tariffs, etc.) aren't either. I look at a national sales tax and see some promise, though.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Izdaari
post Aug 2 2005, 05:09 AM
Post #4


*******
Winner: Member We'd Like to See Elected 2002-2003

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Member No.: 578
Joined: March-4-03

From: Pacific NW, USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



There are only two issues I can think of where I'm not in full or at least substantial agreement with the LP platform:

1) Foreign policy, but that's a biggie. I don't think the LP's hardcore isolationist stand is realistic in today's world. I think we need to aggressively go after the Islamofascists, so on that I'm more comfortable with Bush's team.

2) Borders and immigration. While I'm all for allowing a large amount of legal immigration, I think we do need to control the borders and take steps to sharply reduce illegal immigration, though that could certainly include a guest worker program.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Condor
post Aug 3 2005, 03:04 AM
Post #5


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5,336
Joined: August-3-05

From: Michigan, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Crime and Violence- Agree.

Environment- This is the only issue I have some disagreement with. I think it is very important that we institute alternative energy. I believe global warming constitutes a national security risk and therefore should be taken very seriously. I don't believe the free-market alone will be able to make an affective transition.

Family Budgets- Agree.

Foreign Policy- Agree 100%. The constitution gives us NO right to perform any kind of international offense, only national defense. It is also not our job to be giving monetary aid to other nations.

Freedom of Speech- Agree 100%. This is probably one of my biggest issues. I have the right to express myself however I choose as long as I respect the rights of others. Abolish ALL laws in any way infringing on this right. Abolish the FCC and all censorship of music, movies, the internet and everything else. Also keep pornography legal. Pornography is consensual and is therefore free expression and must be protected.

Gun Laws- Agree 100%. No gun restrictions AT ALL.

Internet- Agree. No restrictions at all unless material violating the rights of others is distributed to make a profit (ie rape, etc.)

Immigration- Agree 100%. We should welcome all who are willing to work.

Poverty & Welfare- Agree 100%. Leave it to charity and individuals.

Privacy- Agree 100%. What we do in our personal lives is no business of the government.

Taxes- Agree 100%.

The only thing I disagree with is the libertarian stance on the environment. Alternative energy is extremely important and needs some government intervention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nivekelly
post Aug 15 2005, 12:50 AM
Post #6


****
Contributor

Group: Validating
Posts: 61
Member No.: 3,346
Joined: July-28-04

From: NY
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Condor @ Aug 2 2005, 10:04 PM)

Gun Laws- Agree 100%. No gun restrictions AT ALL. 
Immigration- Agree 100%. We should welcome all who are willing to work. 
*



This is not a personal attack, j.m.o on your beliefs. I don't understand how you can believe in NO GUN RESTRICTIONS, I think you need to think about what you are saying because that is just outrageous. In terms of immigration...you don't think that would be a severe threat to national security to let anyone cross the border.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amendment69
post Oct 19 2005, 04:46 AM
Post #7


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 27
Member No.: 3,303
Joined: July-14-04

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I have had this argument with myself many times and some times I am a Libertarian and other times I dont know what I am. The Party Platform seems so extreme on some issues that it makes me wretch and on others I agree 100%.

So I try to imagine how these stances fit in to the political landscape with other parties having influence.

1) The victimless crime thing is a joke; Drugs are illegal for a reason, they are dangerous. I wouldn't want some one to get killed by some one who was driving on Cocain or heroin or God knows what. As far as Prostitution goes-legalize it but it does have to be regulated for VD safety.

2) Education, Law Enforcement, and Public Saftey (fire fighters) Cant be privatized!We are not prepared for extreme emergencies now. And I dont trust private companies looking to make a Buck to not cut corners or become corrupt.

Sorry folks but some of these Ideas are stupid, utopian, and unatainable. Maybe Ishould be a member of the Realistic Party
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 19 2005, 05:54 AM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amendment69 @ Oct 18 2005, 10:46 PM)
1) The victimless crime thing is a joke; Drugs are illegal for a reason, they are dangerous. I wouldn't want some one to get killed by some one who was driving on Cocain or heroin or God knows what.


But these activities would still be illegal....you couldn't get off of killing someone simply because you were under the influence. In fact, if drugs were legalized, just the opposite, as using them would make your actions your responsibility.

That being said, I'm not in favor of this plank. I don't think it fits the country's moral landscape, nor do I think legalizing them would help any in the war on drugs or on regulating them. You think large corporations would risk the backlash from producing and selling them? I don't. Also, the people who sells drugs now already do so illegally....what's to stop them from continuing to peddle them on the black market even if they were legalized? I think you'd end up with the same problems, but less ability to stop them since it would be a legal activity.

QUOTE
As far as Prostitution goes-legalize it but it does have to be regulated for VD safety.


Agree here. I think prostitition really is a completely victimless crime (what other 'victim' so willingly seeks to be wronged smile.gif ?).

QUOTE
2) Education, Law Enforcement, and Public Saftey (fire fighters) Cant be privatized!We are not prepared for extreme emergencies now. And I dont trust private companies looking to make a Buck to not cut corners or become corrupt.


I could make arguments against this, but as with drugs I think this isn't worth the effort. The party needs to make smart choices about things that can be accomplished now. Even if it were feasible or desirable, this is simply too large a change. Why push for it now? Cops are underpaid currently....I don't really see privatization being able to improve service without also increasing wages, which would cost more money.

QUOTE(Izdaari)
1) Foreign policy, but that's a biggie. I don't think the LP's hardcore isolationist stand is realistic in today's world.


Completely agree. The world is becoming more and more intertwined...the days of isolationist policy are long behind us. Even if we wanted to be, I don't so how it would be remotely possible to achieve. Isolationism would essentially let others drive the bus...I'd rather have some influence on where it was going.

QUOTE
2) Borders and immigration. While I'm all for allowing a large amount of legal immigration, I think we do need to control the borders and take steps to sharply reduce illegal immigration, though that could certainly include a guest worker program


Agree again. Uncontrolled immigration is simply a recipe for disaster. Why exactly would we want to take steps to bring us closer to the economies of third-world countries? That's what would happen...we'd basically keep getting more immigrants until our economies were equal. I don't see the advantage...not to mention the issue mentioned elsewhere with allowing criminal elements/terrorists/etc. in.

QUOTE
Environment - The environment is one of the very rare issues where I don't believe that the free market will do the right thing. Profit is always going to come before conservation, at least to enough companies to cause serious problems.


Actually, I do think the free market would work here, although I'm not against governmental involvement. If counteracted properly, companies would be strongly incented to 'do the right thing' environmentally for fear of bad press/boycotts if they didn't. On the other hand, if their customers really didn't care, then there wouldn't be any consequences. So, we'd end up with exactly the amount of environmentalism the people wanted. The question would be whether or not the people would be concerned enough with long term consequences. I think a good compromise on the issue would be to let states decide, ala California's car emissions laws.

PS--I posted here because I consider myself a Libertarian in ideology. I would vote for them in a heartbeat if I felt they had a viable candidate and realistic solutions. Part of the problem the Libertarian party needs to overcome, IMHO, is deciding which battles to fight. You don't usually slay the dragon the first time you fight it....the party would be much better off picking just a couple of issues, and then putting forth their overall philosophy. Too many people currently see the party's stance on too many issues as extreme. You don't win any points in politics for moral victories...the party needs to get more pragmatic.


This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 19 2005, 05:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Izdaari
post Oct 19 2005, 06:52 AM
Post #9


*******
Winner: Member We'd Like to See Elected 2002-2003

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Member No.: 578
Joined: March-4-03

From: Pacific NW, USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 18 2005, 10:54 PM)
QUOTE
Environment - The environment is one of the very rare issues where I don't believe that the free market will do the right thing. Profit is always going to come before conservation, at least to enough companies to cause serious problems.


Actually, I do think the free market would work here, although I'm not against governmental involvement. If counteracted properly, companies would be strongly incented to 'do the right thing' environmentally for fear of bad press/boycotts if they didn't. On the other hand, if their customers really didn't care, then there wouldn't be any consequences. So, we'd end up with exactly the amount of environmentalism the people wanted. The question would be whether or not the people would be concerned enough with long term consequences. I think a good compromise on the issue would be to let states decide, ala California's car emissions laws.

Another angle to free market environmentalism, besides bad press and boycotts if a company is bad enough to deserve them, is property rights enforcement. If someone pollutes my air or my water, they're committing vandalism and maybe assault, and that should expose them to full legal liability for it. In many cases, tort law could be a viable alternative to regulation. Of course that isn't always a practical solution - for example, there appears to be no free market alternative to automotive emission controls. Prof. John Hospers covered that in his book, Libertarianism, and nothing new has developed, so I guess we're stuck with that.

QUOTE
PS--I posted here because I consider myself a Libertarian in ideology.  I would vote for them in a heartbeat if I felt they had a viable candidate and realistic solutions.  Part of the problem the Libertarian party needs to overcome, IMHO, is deciding which battles to fight.  You don't usually slay the dragon the first time you fight it....the party would be much better off picking just a couple of issues, and then putting forth their overall philosophy.  Too many people currently see the party's stance on too many issues as extreme.  You don't win any points in politics for moral victories...the party needs to get more pragmatic.
*

I understand. I bounce back and forth between Republican and Libertarian here myself, but that's not mere opportunism. It accurately reflects where I am in real life, since I do in fact work with both the GOP and the LP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Oct 19 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Hobbes, as you are not a declared Libertarian, please refrain from posting in this particular forum. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcarp
post Dec 22 2005, 08:31 AM
Post #11


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 5,741
Joined: December-22-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



alright, my first-ever post :-) I do consider myself a Libertarian since after studying parties throughout the years, this is the party I come closest too, but there are several critical areas I can never agree with most Libertarians on (hence probably not making me a full-fledged member). It's almost like I agree with them except for one glaring subviewpoint of a viewpoint. So kinda like what everyone else is doing here, here's my breakdown of each point from the LP website:

protect victims' rights: agree

end prohibition: agree. But I have to makes this point...the world isn't gonna change once drugs are legalized (yes, we'd save money from the miserable Drug War). Drugs ARE dangerous, but I know, so is alcohol. I've seen people under the influence and in a sense, I'm actually kinda glad drugs ARE illegal, but when it comes to bottom line, legalizing drugs is going to solve most issues in the long run. I wouldn't mind seeing marijuana legalized for medical purposes. The part I don't understand however, is I really don't know how Harry Browne, etc. think the "rebel" nature in the kids are gonna decrease if drugs are legalized. I'd go up to his face and say you're wrong. Just yesterday I had a 19 year old ask me to buy him alcohol. It happens all the time everywhere! *cough* underaged drinking *cough* - so legalizing it is gonna save funding, but it's not really gonna change crime rate, etc.

get tough on real crime: agree, but I really think death penalty should be allowed (I know most Libertarians are against capital punishment). I'm sorry, but there's so much rehab certain people can do. There comes at time violent criminals need to be eliminated - period.

protect the right to self-defense: agree to a point....the ONLY thing I'd like to see change about guns is at least have a license. I mean, I simply can't allow TOTAL 100% no gun restrictions. I mean, would it REALLY hurt to get a license? Think about it. It really wouldn't hurt. I still would be a little weary about a society with everyone carrying a gun. I don't know.......but I will say this, most restrictions should be eliminated. Criminals are not gonna go to Wal Mart to buy their guns, but rather the black market.

address the root causes of crime: agree

environment: agree. Although I think the government IS the biggest polluter, I don't think just simply voila privatizing it is gonna solve matters either, although I would rather do that than let the government handle, which is why I agree with this. All I'm saying is that this won't be an overnight rosey process. I mean, off-example, look at WorldCom. This is a states issue frankly

taxation: I get beef for this all the time, but I don't think eliminating taxes is gonna solve issues. We MUST have SOME form of taxation (how else is the government and military gonna get a guarantee pay?). I always find it grossly disproportional when Libertarians like to say life was awesome before taxation. Dude, it was the 1950s where technology was still dirt and you can get a job with an elementary education, two words: times change. And again, we would work harder today even IF there WAS NO taxation. It's called changing of the times. 10 years from now we're gonna work harder. It's just the way it is. But I WILL agree with this: taxes are way too high in every aspect.

foreign policy: agree, I think we act as the world police WAY too much. This...really...needs...to...decrease...now. We attack if and only if we have VIABLE evidence that we will be or were attacked. BUT, I will disagree with Libertarians that side with the isolationist point of view. Again: times change. Being isolationist is gonna get us killed in this day and age. It's way too late now to simply "back away" from the world and think rogue terrorists are simply gonna oblige. Anyways, I also support total free trade, privatization of military ventures (no not military, just their projects. Missile defense, if turned private, would be built in 3 years, rather than still being developed for over 2 decades. I mean, look at all the private space ventures popping up. They put NASA to shame as far as I'm concerned), NOT coddling to UN and all these other "world" organizations (yes, listen to them, but OUR fate relies on OUR decision), and again, not being the world's police. Human rights abuse are issues dealt privately, rather than having our government involved.

freedom of speech: agree.

gun laws: like I said above

Internet: agree, like freedom of speech

immigration: I would agree if they decided to be a little more secure and guard our borders instead of "let all the huddled mass in." This is another area I have a tough time swallowing Libertarians' belief. I'm sorry, I don't believe how Harry Browne, etc. think we should just keep the borders completely open. Good lord, you know what this'll cause? Terrorists for one example will just march on in and get their citizenship (they're not dumb). Legal immigration yes. Just simply open the merry borders and let em all in no.

poverty and welfare: agree, give this to charities, church, local orgs, etc. Evidence shows these entities are HELLUVA lot more efficient than the government. Government welfare has proven to promote a safety net abuse by most.

privacy: yes, I disagree with homosexuality, etc. but what goes on with your life, it's your life. So I agree

Social Security: agree, definitely privatize. I know Republicans/Democrats want the whole Social Security + private routes. Since Libertarians want to eliminate taxes, you know how much this is gonna freakin cost? I won't even go there. Just privatize. Period. I'd even go far as to privatize health care and education as well.

taxes: decrease drastically yes, eliminate no. Progressive, rather than flat tax. People, don't you get by now flat tax actually hurts the middle and lower class? Progressive: low income doesn't pay at all, middle and upper pay, but it shouldn't dent your income. Government DOES exist and they must be funded in SOME way ya know? Privatization is a good thing but it's fact: there are no guarantees with privatization

overall, I would say I'm a Libertarian, but there's just 5 areas I'm a little weary on: gun ownership (I agree, but all I ask for is licensing), taxation (yes I agree decrease, but not eliminate it), immigration (don't just simply let our guard down and borders be open), few aspects of crime (rehab is okay but some criminals need to be vanquished), and military (I agree with defense, but we live in a day and age where sitting down really isn't going to keep us safe. Yes, our country foolishly got us into a lot of this mess, but we must move forward, the past is the past). Everything else I fully agree.

Edited to conform to the Rules. -Amlord

This post has been edited by Amlord: Dec 22 2005, 03:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skeeterses
post Dec 23 2005, 08:59 AM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 794
Member No.: 5,233
Joined: July-7-05

From: Maryland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Crime & Violence
Completely agree.

Environment
The key of the ownership thing is to place the environment in control of responsible owners. The Federal Government of course is the Fox guarding the Henhouse. But we shouldn't trust ExxonMobile to safeguard the environment either.

Family Budgets
Completely agree.

Foreign Policy
Completely agree.

Freedom Of Speech
Mostly agree. Local communities should have the freedom to censor anything that is too filthy like violent pornography.

Gun Laws
I mostly agree with the LP on this thing. If individuals are allowed to carry small arms for protection, that would help deter crime. I do think there should be some reasonable limits. For example, anybody stockpiling weapons are most likely up to some trouble. And firearm companies should not be allowed to sell weapons to any country outside the NATO alliance. For example, no selling weapons to Saddam Hussein.

Internet
Agree.

Immigration
QUOTE
Indeed, most studies show that immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. Immigrants produce jobs in several ways: 1) They expand the demand for goods and services through their own consumption; 2) They bring savings with them that contribute to overall investment and productivity; 3) They are more highly entrepreneurial than native-born Americans and create jobs through the businesses they start; 4) They fill gaps in the low and high ends of the labor markets, producing subsidiary jobs for American workers; 5) Low-wage immigrants may enable threatened American businesses to survive competition from low-wage businesses abroad; and 6) They contribute to increased economic efficiencies through economies of scale.

Their position on immigration is pretty convincing. There are a few problems though. For example, the idea that they are more entrepreneurial than native born Americans. With the astronomical cost of starting a small business in America and the dirt poor educational systems in the poor countries, where do the immigrants come up with the money and know-how to start a business?

Another thing about the low-wage immigrants filling in labor gaps. Even though Americans don't want the low-paying jobs, there are Americans who need those jobs. If American teenagers and college students are having trouble finding those low-paying jobs early on, they're going to have much more trouble finding a good job later on.

I think that America should be selective about which immigrants come in and build a stronger wall on the Mexican border to keep the illegal immigrants out.

Poverty & Welfare
Completely agree.
Welfare should be cut on all levels. The foodstamp welfare items have already been cut and take up a very tiny chunk of the federal budget. As the other posters pointed out, we have to concentrate on cutting the Corporate Welfare, which is going to be much more difficult to do because unlike the Welfare moms, the Corporate Welfare junkies have far more influence.

Privacy
Completely agree.

Social Security
Completely agree.
Another program that must be cut. As offensive as this sounds, Social Security is RobinHood in reverse. Back in the states when I was making $7/hr, I felt a little angry about part of my paycheck going to a group of people who already have houses and cars.

Taxes
Absolutely. But unfortunately, Government has to be cut before taxes do. Otherwise, Government simply borrows the money or plays shell games by raising taxes elsewhere. And Ronald Reagan proved that cutting taxes does not necessarily mean smaller government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mindmesh
post Aug 31 2006, 05:54 PM
Post #13


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 41
Member No.: 1,077
Joined: August-28-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Libertarian



I disagree on:

Environment --> In a free market businesses will always follow the cheapest route to the end result, and protecting the environment isn't the cheapest of tasks.

Immigration --> Open borders sounds good, but over population does not. Also, Illegal immigration, as of now, is absolutely not a good idea. We are to socialist at this point to allow illegals in. It's to politically incorrect to tell them no you can't have this.

I don't know if this is on their official platform, but I've noticed that most Liberatarians want to shrink the miliatry. I disagree with this course of action. I think we should maintain a powerful military, but each state should control their own militias with the fed monitoring a multi state supervised group to oversee that our weapons are taken care of, but not able to be used by states with a majority vote in congress. We need to be able to defend against any threat and Once Bush is out we most likely won't have to worry about pre-emptive wars.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Aug 31 2006, 06:14 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



This is a really old thread and we should have closed it sooner. Sorry about that. Please feel free to start something fresh. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 18th, 2018 - 12:58 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.