Posted on 12/12/2006 7:37:39 AM PST by Small-L
The current LP platform is quite clear and supports global free trade. How is the following unclear: "Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable"?
As far as your other question, I don't think lack of taxes equates with anarchy. I don't claim to be speaking for the LP here, but I believe the vast majority of necessary government functions can be paid for by user fees--keeping in mind that this is a remarkably small number of legitimate functions. The rest can be funded one of two ways: either through ultra-low sales taxes or simply how any charitable institution obtains money: donations.
I think people would gladly contribute 5% of their salary for things like a judicial system, a national defense, etc. People will not voluntarily donate 50% of their salary to support a welfare state. Americans donate billions of dollars a year to institutions like the United Way or the Red Cross--is it so outrageous that they would not do the same to support certain functions of government?
re:127
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. I didn't say anything about Republicans.
jw
It your party. You define it.
You won't use the Republican Party platform to define republicanism, but you will use the Libertarian Party platform to define libertarianism.
Perhaps that's a good discussion point. Libertarians (Big-L and small-l) are constantly defending ourselves against others who attempt to define our beliefs using their metaphors and names. Would one of the staunch R-bots please define what republicanism is?
It seems appropriate under the circumstances.
"Judging by a lot of posts on this thread, it goes a lot farther than that, they're not just saying "it's your fault," they're saying "get lost and stay lost." Maybe they'll get their wish."
lol well they can kiss the rebels fanny goodbye. I know until the Repubs begin acting and voting and legislating like the conservatives they CLAIM to be, I'll find a real conservative to vote for. Even if it means writing in a conservative candidate to vote for.
Dim lite ain't in my voting future anymore, I'll be damned if I care what letter is beside their name.
"Exactly my point! Only by working within the party could my voice be heard on that by anyone that would care WHAT I thought."
Yes, some battles are fought and ssome are won-- the justices seem to be, however, the single exception to the rule regarding the overt neo-conservatism of this administration.
The runner-up might be the border fence, which Bush oh-so-reluctantly signed. But now that we don't control congress, you can kiss that one goodbye.
Bush is KILLING us. He is NOT conservative, and when he acts like one it is only under duress.
Yes, and I voted for Bush, too, even though I am a registered Libertarian because I see the imperitive. But I will not be silent about his HORRIBLE performance and the great need to reform the republican party in short order.
If we can expect nothing better than a succession of future Bushes, I will simply switch to voting straight Libertarian ticket and damn the torpedos-- and that's a fact.
"The only outcome was to make things worse."
And sometimes you REALLY do need to make things worse before you can expect them to get better.
The question is how much worse do we HAVE to make it before republicans get the message?
You got my vote in '04, but I may not feel like being suckered twice.
"And sometimes you REALLY do need to make things worse before you can expect them to get better."
Thats a simple concept. Make things really bad, then any improvement at all is better.
Thats kinda like jumping off the house to make things better.
You break both legs and its much worse, but if you heal enough to limp around, it got better!
Not getting any takers, I see.
"Do you really think that has any chance of furthering your views?"
Yes-- if enough people follow suit. And it has the added benefit of knowing you didn't vote for a son of a bitch.
The difference between you and I is that I do not fear being ruled by democrats all that much more than I fear being ruled by today's republicans.
I fear them both.
And I realize there is only ONE WAY to get what you want from government: you have to make them fear YOU.
Your only weapon is your vote. Remember that. Your ONLY WEAPON IS YOUR SINGLE SOLITARY VOTE.
Thought I might run into on this thread.
Regards
And, by the way, I think this is precisely what happened in November. A lot of sickened republicans and libertarians did not vote or voted libertarian or wrote in a candidate, and that led to the defeat we saw.
The pain is being felt-- yes. But this could be good pain, like when you know (or hope) the medicine is working.
In fact, I am a little grateful that we lost both houses for two years-- it gives us all a chance to ponder why, and prepare to get them back with a new true conservative presidential candidate.
Without losing the congress, it would be just more "Rove you magnificent bastard" bullshit from the Bushbots around here and you know it.
Nothing would be improved. Nothing achieved but more of this hideous neo-con pablum.
Not for me, my FRiend.
"The difference between you and I is that I do not fear being ruled by democrats all that much more than I fear being ruled by today's republicans."
At least you can admit you don't mind having RATS in control. You got your wish, Enjoy!
Would one of the staunch R-bots please define what republicanism is?
Not getting any takers, I see.
Perhaps they're waiting for limbaugh or hannity to issue a memo.........................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.