libertatians and the rest of the anti tax and wasteful spending on bullets and bombs

[2Design]

I read this other forum that gets to me sometimes when they go on and on about socialism and other BS - they are rich and don't want to be taxed or whatever their problem is -

This is my response to them today

take away health care from all government employees especially congress - make everyone pay into social security - take away all social programs like roads, libraries, neighborhood and city decorations, anything that is paid for from everyone so we can satisfy those who want everyone to have nothing but what they earned at a job they got lucky enough to get based on talents given to them by their creator - those not given talents should just die - take away fire stations and their trucks, take away any thing that will help the poor, continue to pay very low wages to keep people poor and just hope they die quickly -

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. some people do not believe in a creator

just sayin'

[Lost-in-FL]

2. especially hard core libertarians. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. and some hard core DUers --

just sayin'

[Lost-in-FL]

3. The only points I see that would call your attention is Fire stations, roads and libraries

The only purpose of government according to Adam Smith (peace be upon the prophet of capitalism and reaganites of course) was to provide protection to private industry (police, fire stations, etc.), create the conditions that would improve trade (by buiding roads, canals, public works, etc.) and to provide education (to create an educated working class, not for the sake of education). Your post will stand out big time.

Hardcore libertarians/neo-liberals are anti-war not due to moral reason but becuase war would bring excessive expenditures. Militias are ok, as a way to protect their own interests.

Anyone is free to correct me.

[C_Lawyer09]

9. I read "Revolution" by Ron Paul

He makes moral as well as financial arguments against imperialistic overstretch(phrase borrowed from Chalmers Johnson). To some degree I also agree with entitlement to the fruits of ones labor doctrine, of course this is on a personal level, as my contributions to charity of various types, drop substantially with any personal income reduction. The other part of this argument that makes sense to me, is with the complexity of the tax code, poor guys and gals have no control over what their tax dollars support, whereas, rich people, and corporations can easily get out of paying taxes. In 2002 we were missing 70b of corporate tax revenue, I don't know what the figure is now. This was a stated priority of the Obama administration, but in case I'm missing something, I think other more pressing issues, put the aformentioned on the back burner. Audit the fed made sense. One thing that didnt resonate with me, is his health care argument. Seemed to simple, and that it would leave a lot of disenfranchised in the dust. That said, many of our problems today, in my estimation stem from the lack of current anti-trust reform. Bill Moyers did a spectacular special on it, but I can't recall the title. I'm going to ask my dad for a reminder. So, in a nutshell, I'm for more opportunity for those whom have little, but we really need to find a way for govt. programs to be administered more efficiently. Cash for clunkers cost was 22-24k per vehicle, in my mind unneccessary. So, I'd say streamline govt. but not to the point where their only role is enforcement of private property based law.

[kctim]

5. You should speak with them

and try to understand, rather than letting it get to you.

1. Most are NOT rich.
2. They would have no problem with govt employees paying for their own healthcare.
3. Everyone already is forced to into social security, so they are against that.
4. They would have no problem with the FEDERAL govt NOT paying for roads, libraries, fire, police and city decorations. People are free to choose to not pay for those if they choose not to live there. They do not have that option with the federal govt.
5. Charity would take care of those who need it and without being forced to hand over their money to the govt, more people would give more to charity.
6. They do not hate anything that helps the poor. They just believe that the people can help each other better than the govt. can, especially if govt is forcing people. They believe that if the people who "say" they care, would actually do something instead of waiting for others to do it for them, then more good would get done.

Instead of getting mad at them for daring to believe differently than you, you should work with them on the things you agree with.

[2Design]

6. ah yes your points about others will give more to charities if they are not taxed

that was a favorite of reagan - and guess what - no surprise - it did not work - the very rich republicans don't give to charity as charity - they give to religious groups disguised as charities that just try to ram more of their warped beliefs down others throats - not everyone is forced to pay into social security - not the congress, railroad and other government employees - anyone who thinks charity can take care of the poor has drank the kool aid - I don't agree with them on any of this - maybe you can work with their disguised helping in words but not in actions -

people do not help others as they like to believe

the liberals help the poor who the republicans make poor and then they are too stupid to realize it - take bobby jindal who was against the stimulus but went around with large cardboard checks as if he did something to get the money - these people are fooled by the scammers - sounds like you are too

[kctim]

7. Talk about warped beliefs

Democrats, liberals and Libertarians share many beliefs and to discount any simply because of a few they do not share, is ridiculous.

Tell me, have you ever actually been poor or do you know any poor people? Know any who refused help because the person offering said God bless? I don't.

Charity DOES help the poor, moreso than govt programs could do by themselves. One does not need to accept the excuse of drinking kool-aid to see that. I personally believe a mix of what liberals and libertarians believe, and think that the two working together are much more effective.

"the liberals help the poor who the republicans make poor and then they are too stupid to realize it"

Give me a break.
First, people are not stupid because they put their individual rights above what others believe to be fair. Millions of poor would gladly not take govt handouts if the govt would leave them alone. That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they believe differently than you and I.
Second, most liberals help the poor in ways that are effective and respect the fact that we are all free to believe as we wish. But some of you, "help" the poor with 'talk' about how OTHERS should be doing something, condemning those who dare believe differently. Take michael moore, somebody who believes we all should pay 70+ percent of our earnings to the govt in order to help our fellow citizens, but yet he himself is a multi millionaire. What is moore honest? Saying you don't care and doing nothing? or saying you do care and doing nothing?

The problem isn't that "people do not help others as they like to believe." No, it is that people do not help others as you believe. People worry more about what others are doing instead of worry about what they themselves are doing.

[guitar man]

8. You know

We should just let them have their goddamned "Galt's Gulch". Set aside a large tract of land and let anyone who hates the idea of democracy so badly go in there and just have at it. The only caveat would be that reporters from the US be allowed free access so everybody can see how it unfolds. Maybe that would put a stop to this nonsense of wanting to fashion a nation after a badly written hack novel.

If they are so gung ho to do it, I say we let them.