Most Votes Badnarick Or Nader
Moderator: Super Moderators
- CaptainBeyond
- Pirate
- Posts: 749
- Joined: 08-01-2004 08:35 AM
That's always a bone of contention with Libertarians, who claim that Americans are the most generous people, and that when they get to keep what they earn, they'll be able to give more generously to support the poor through charity. Would they? I don't know. It seems to me there should be a safety net for the poor, yes. But I wouldn't say that Libertarians believe in screwing over the poor, no, because to say that is to not take the entire picture into consideration. Libertarians are just as human and caring as anyone else, of course. I know many, and I'm reasonably certain that if they had their system in place and the poor were falling through the cracks, they'd take action to save them.Faedrea wrote: Nader for sure. Libertarians pretty much screw the poor. In a country where there arent as many jobs as people, the poor would die and homelessness would increase.
It's hard for us to imagine, as we think of starting from where we are, but there would be a lot that would be different if we were under pure Libertarian rule -- which I doubt we ever will be. For instance, I have a friend who wanted to start a latte' stand, but gave up after running into too much bureaucratic red tape. Under a Libertarian system, she would have had her business. Also, under a Lib system, corporations wouldn't have all the advantages they do over the little guy. Also, things like food and medicine would be a lot cheaper. So the equation is much more complex than it appears when only looking at it on the surface.
Is pure a pure Lib system a good thing? I'm not convinced that it is, but it's a moot point since I can't imagine us having one. However, I personally feel we need more Libs in office to give the picture some balance. As the numbers of Libs in politically elected positions has increased in this country, they have saved the taxpayers, including the poor, billions of dollars. I'm not well versed enough to argue this situation, but if anyone is curious, there are Lib forums where they can pose the question.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin
The FACT that the Green Party is ALMOST Communist for sure lets me know were you standFaedrea wrote: Nader for sure. Libertarians pretty much screw the poor. In a country where there arent as many jobs as people, the poor would die and homelessness would increase. I care about that. Cobb before Nader, Nader before Badnarick, but Badnarick before Bush IMHO.
Iris, I agree with your points. A Libertarian system I think would be great....eventually. But to go from the mess we have now straight to pure libertarianism (Canada and USA), the poor would be screwed unless like you say they would be willing to fix things (livable wage jobs available for everyone, affordable healthcare for all) first, then develop into libertarianism I think that would be great.
as if the poor aren't getting it now---but it will take a decade to get to "pure" libertarian---till then it would have to be a split government---socialistic , possibly communistic for the poor, libertarian for those who can make a living wage-----sux, but would be a lot less sucking the govt t#t if they ever wanted out of the harvesting and heavy labor co-ops-----not that I like it, but I can see it going that way ----watch the signs.
- CaptainBeyond
- Pirate
- Posts: 749
- Joined: 08-01-2004 08:35 AM
Vote Libertarian?
Sure, weaken the govt down to nothing, thereby defacto giving all power to corporations and big$ (since nature abhors a vacuum!). Let the big$ push around and abuse the less big.... oh it sounds like so much fun. Unfetterd Social Darwinism mixed with a heavy dose of Charles Dickens.
Well, we've already seen Libertarian Rule.... it was called the 19th Century. And it wasn't pretty (unless your name was Frick, Mellon, Vanderbildt... )
Libertarianism is Socialism for the rich: "All rich and powerful people are equal." And they are equally able to do what the hell they please since the govt is impotent to stop them (while those in the majority without $ are "free" to do as they are told by their corporate masters or drop dead. )
Sure, weaken the govt down to nothing, thereby defacto giving all power to corporations and big$ (since nature abhors a vacuum!). Let the big$ push around and abuse the less big.... oh it sounds like so much fun. Unfetterd Social Darwinism mixed with a heavy dose of Charles Dickens.
Well, we've already seen Libertarian Rule.... it was called the 19th Century. And it wasn't pretty (unless your name was Frick, Mellon, Vanderbildt... )
Libertarianism is Socialism for the rich: "All rich and powerful people are equal." And they are equally able to do what the hell they please since the govt is impotent to stop them (while those in the majority without $ are "free" to do as they are told by their corporate masters or drop dead. )
Last edited by Mercury on 10-13-2004 08:15 AM, edited 1 time in total.
I could also say that Libertarian Unfettered Capitalism is a lottery for the rich/lazy... as long as you come out of the 'right' womb you are set for life whether you are successful and work or not! Look no further than the Bush family to see examples of that. Really, what work or talent is involved in inheriting great wealth?... 'Picking' the right parents?