I'm looking hard at Libertarianism..and here's why....

I understand that the general political philosophy has many enemies here, but I'm itemizing my greivances with both of the major political parties which hamper my ability to support them except in a "lesser of the two evils" situation.

A) The Republican Party

1) With each and every legislative act, the Republicans favor the interests of corporations over those of average Americans. While Americans are taxed at a rate of 30% or more on earned income, corporations and their lobbyists have purchased the ability to pay a third of this rate or less. Further, the Republicans favor allowing corporations to shirk all responsibility for any torts committed, great and small. Further, while decrying welfare, they readily embrace it for their corporate paymasters.

2) The Republican Party favors a theological nanny state. I don't need some corrupt legislator enacting statutes to protect me from marijuana, pornography, abortion, gun ownership, profanity on cable television, or other purely "moral" issues. I also don't want some fundamentalist placing a reminder in every public building across the nation of the Ten Commandments, nor do I wish my child to learn of "intelligent design" or any of the other pseudo-science they teach.

3) Republicans love illegal aliens because they lower the average wages in a given geographic area. Despite the hue and cry of traditional conservatives, the Repukes will not take any action to offend their corporate masters at Tyson, Wal Mart, and various restaurants, construction sites, landscaping companies, and janitorial services across the nation.

4) Republicans could care less about our air, water, soil, or if future generations inherit a toxic wasteland. They consciously ignore credible warnings on global warming and consistently dance to the oil industry's tune. They ridicule recycling programs and efforts to protect endangered species. I thought the root of "conservatism" was "conserve".

B) The Democratic Party

1) The Democrats seem to favor a more expansive network of social welfare which, by necessity,is funded through taxation of earnings. I'm sorry, income tax is simply legalized armed robbery. It angers me each year that I must devote my time to filling out papers to defend the manner in which a coercive government seized my money. Further, I believe that many social welfare programs remove even the faintest burden of personal responsibility from the recipient's life. I am not saying that those who are truly infirm do not deserve some manner of assistance, but I'm tired of seeing social welfare passed from generation to generation as a lifestyle. Any form of welfare, social or corporate, is the forcible redistribution of earnings from the productive to the nonproductive. I also don't believe in subsidizing a promiscuous lifestyle meaning, if a woman has a child out of wedlock and expects public assistance, she gets a mandatory ligation and the man gets an immediate summons for child support.

2) Democrats on the national level embrace gun control too much to my liking. I am a free taxpaying and law abiding citizen. I shouldn't have to prostrate myself before any bureaucrat to purchase, own, or carry arms on my person or in my means of conveyance. If you don't believe in guns, don't own them. It's the same argument I make to anti-choice people, so it should certainly be good enough to defend my civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

3) I still don't believe that the national Democratic Party has a clue. Period. They've been handed the lowest approval ratings of El Presidente ever, yet there's no effective leadership to exploit it. I fear that on the national level, the Democratic Party has become infected with Opposition Fever, the symptoms include ineffective leadership, easy compromises, and a disoriented posture that shows a lack of direction. It's midterm and the Dems will not pull a 1994 in this election without cogent leadership.

I'm to the point that I can't stomach either political party. Hillary "Wal Mart" Clinton, the savior of civil liberties and the proletariat revolution, is such a compromising hypocrite that she'd say or do anything for electoral support. Repukes? Who's going to run in '08? I can't think of a single possible candidate I could support.

Politically, I know I'm in an awkward position. I am sick and tired of the oppressive system of taxation in America. I pay 33% in federal, FICA, Medicare, state and county income tax, and then my purchases are taxed at 10%. Do you know what the rate of taxation was under Russian serfdom? 25%. We're slaves, not serfs, except we have more distractions to keep us from contemplating our sorry state. I'm to the point that I want the government out of my wallet, off my phones, out of my search engines, and out of my life period.

Well reasoned arguments. Something to consider, thank you.


:patriot:

school your own children.

Let me know how that works out for you.

People want the benefits of a civilized society, yet they want to pay nothing to achieve those benefits.

Essential infrastructure could likely be funded with a flat tax if we cut deductions. It kills me that people who pay no taxes and don't work can collect an earned income credit. Here's an example: I have a morbidly obese aunt who's never really worked in her life yet she collects disability. What the hell is she disabled FROM if she's never worked? I don't believe she should receive anything at all from the public coffers.

I won't point out the incongruity---

who's never worked would also not be eligible for diability.

What is there in the word disability that requires it to be employment related ?

implies that one had a profession prior to an infirmity. If someone's born with or acquires a disability prior to working, I suppose that would be an exception. However, I don't support the "dummy checks" that allow an able bodied person to flunk a cognitive test to obtain SSI payments.

and some forms of Diability INSURANCE for a definition of disability. The whole compound phrase doesn't define the component words.

How do you know that morbid obesity isn't a disability and what its roots are ?

because she sits on her butt, eats, and does little else. It's been this way all my life.

Worker's Comp is private insurance with premiums paid by employers. SSI is from Social Security.

she's done nothing for her own daughter and has leached off of relatives and the federal teat her entire life, so she's certainly no loss to society.

I'm sorry for the lack of your soul.

The federal government should be able to construct roads for interstate traffic, but let the construction of local roads fall to the state and local government level.

Its in the food industry's own interest to inspect their own food. The cost of a lawsuit would be exponentially more than inspecting their own food.

The public school system is a monumental failure. Even if you think that public education is a fundimentally good idea (and I do), ours should be deconstructed on performance alone. There are many private schools giving a better education at a lower cost than our public schools.

I could be a socialist if I knew that I was getting a 1:1 return on my money from the government. However, that isn't the case; our government is a collossal black hole of resources.

Now I've wised up and am working on Freedom issues from within the Democratic Party.

Btw, I haven't forgotten about making you a new banner. Actually, it has been a hard endeavor since I am so concerned about doing a good job. I have spent nights downloading photos of Sophie, collecting quotes, reading every possible link on whiterosesociety.org... I just don't feel any of my ideas thus far are worthy of Sophie or the others.

At least, it would seem so. I wouldn't think on a message board designed for dems to communicate without having to hear their party being attacked would be full of such garbage. Can't stomach em? Bye.

I'm damn fucking proud of them, and proud to be a liberal.

unfortunately, they've lost because rather than offer an alternative vision to that of El Presidente, the national leadership seems content to be a permanent opposition that never offers solutions.

You hate us democrats and our leadership that much? Then why the fuck are you here.

Seriously. Us real progressives have a hell of a battle ahead of us this year to fight and need to do whatever we can to achieve victory. You think threads like this help our cause? No. They don't. They hurt our cause. And if you are here to hurt our cause I would rather you find a message board that caters to a party that you don't fucking hate, ok?

Just my opinion, I have no authority to tell you to go anywhere. Just can't stand threads on democratic message boards that work to destroy or hurt the democratic party. Sorry bub.

which is a partisan symptom I despise in Republicans equally. Let me ask you this question: if your party was in power and had committed as many malfeasances as El Presidente, would you support your president? Be honest with yourself and don't say "my party wouldn't do that" because all politicians are equally capable of conscious or unintended evil.

It's why I'm a democrat.

And I'm not sensitive to criticism bub. But you bet your ass I'm gonna defend against enemies to our cause and those that hurt our agenda. Your thread does nothing to help anybody. It is intended with the sole consequence of attacking the entire democratic party while swearing your allegiance to another. Well again, wrong message board pal. Did you just need some attention? Do you feel you are that important that we all were just dying to hear your opinion on the state of the democratic party? That we look to you as some leader and now that you hate our party and are going elsewhere will say "hey, thanks so much for posting oh great one, we're gonna join you and leave the party too!"

No. I think not. This post serves no purpose, helps no democratic cause and is only intended to attack our party. Wrong message board, bub.

what's your cause? Absolving everyone of any responsibility in their lives by enabling a nanny state to fix their boo-boos? Please elaborate, because my question to you is this: at what point are individuals to be forced to assume responsibility for their actions?

It fixes some of them, and wastes some money, and enables some people who shouldn't be. But it also saves lives and gives people a second chance, or a third, if they need it. I prefer the inefficiency of a social safety net to the slavery of the unfettered marketplace as my official government-approved way of dealing with people.

It's easy to speak of compassion when you're seizing the wealth of others to fund it.

But you're preaching right-wing talking points on a democratic board.

…that the current regime has been carrying out.

but Libertarian Party is not the answer. IMHO I can't support NO gun control,opening up our borders to anyone & FREE trade..that's just crazy

Women already have to agree to participate in child support enforcement.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, that little thing called Welfare Reform requires women work at least 30 hrs. a week to receive TANF and food stamps. Most of those are referred to places like McDonalds--some even are forced to pick up garbage on the side of county roads.

You want to complain about welfare--why not spend equal time bitching about corporate welfare, because that's where the bulk of your "welfare" taxes go.

in the same breath.

to pick up garbage on the side of county roads."

Are you saying that they shouldn't be forced to work to receive the benefits of public assistance?

:rofl:

The wealthy elites pay very little in taxes.

:hi:

Sorry, but your post demanded a monty python reference.

Good job

:rofl:

no deductions, no excuses, no hidy-holes for assets.

government then certainly you should not be a Democrat. Though you pay lip service to some sort of social welfare, but only in the most urgent circumstances, to me you sound more like a Republican.

What obligation do I have to willingly allow my earnings to be confiscated, through the threat of force, to support someone who's unwilling to work themselves?

You are making the assumption that those receiving welfare do not want to work and in your post you singled out women with children as though they had all made a choice of that "lifestyle". There are many single mothers who need assistance who DO work or want to work but cannot for many reasons. Not providing a safety net for them is certainly not progressive thinking.

I was talking more of the general obligation of government to make sure its citizens survive. If it means paying taxes so that single mothers can raise their children in a decent home and so that kids can get quality educations and the homeless (many of whom are veterans and mentally ill people released into the streets from institutions by Reagan)can have a decent place to sleep, if it means paying more taxes so that the less fortunate in our society can eat and have a roof over their heads, then I am willing to do that.

Instead, you focus on welfare for dependent children, as though that is the only reason you pay taxes. It is one reason, but a very small part of where your taxes go. If you want to rant and rail about paying taxes, try complaining about how your money is taken from you to support immoral and illegal wars. You could feed every hungry kid in America and send him/her to Harvard for what those wars cost.

If a citizen served in the armed forces, in war or peace, there's an inherent obligation on the part of the state to care for that individual if they are incapacitated due to the time of service. Period.

On the single mother issue: I am for prosecuting the deadbeat dads to the fullest extent of the law. They have no right to foist their paternal responsibility of support on the public. Now, correspondingly, if a single mom becomes pregnant and expects public support, there should be a norplant involved.

Here's where I agree with you: every dime wasted in Iraq should be used here. I'd rather see a few million deserving students go to university myself, it'd be a better investment than giving it to Halliburton.

Maybe I misread some of what you said. Of course none of us want our tax dollars going to real deadbeats, but I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water by cutting off those who really need to avoid paying those who don't deserve it. I think that is what you want as well, but your posts seem to be very angry and suggested to me that you really didn't want any of it.

NJ has a law to deal with single mothers who are receiving public assistance. If they have another baby they get no additional welfare. The number of single mothers with multiple dependent children has been reduced and I don't hear much of any complaint about it either.

I can see that as a reasonable compromise. I guess that I'm simply tired of seeing welfare abuse as a lifestyle.

No one forces you to take part in the prosperity of civilized countries.

Taxes are a bill for government services. If you don't like your bill, you're free to move. If you choose not to move, then you have chosen to use the public services of whatever nation you currently reside in. The only theft that occurs is if you live in that country, soak up the benefits of their services, but refuse to pay your bill after you've done so. That would make you the thief, not the government.

If you're looking for a tax-free, government-free utopia to move to, I have one for you: It's a little country called Somalia. Somalia currently has no world recognized government, and no national legal system. There is no payroll tax, no income tax, no sales tax. Private militias provide security. Businesses print their own money. It is a libertarian paradise, the libertarian experiment in action.

Of course, there are all the predictable failures: widespread famine, disease, public life dominated by crime and terrorism, contaminated water, a despoiled environment, the list goes on.

But you have every opportunity to leave the United States. Yet you won't. In all likelihood, you'll continue telling everyone in earshot how the government is "stealing" your money and making you a "slave". You won't take personal responsibility for your life, or for the choices you make.

I wonder if you can see the fundamental irony of libertarians who complain that the free market -- in this case, the free market of nations they may move to -- isn't fair.

That the only way we can change things is by first getting the repubs power. While I respect the integrity of the third party vote, I feel that a vote for any non Democrat is a vote for the Republican party. And I simply cannot stand to see another conservative appointed to the Supreme Court. While I respect your view points, at this point in time I cannot vote for third party. At least not until we get the religious right off our backs.

I must say that where are major difference is comming from is the issue of disability insurance and not in gun control. Trust me as SSDI receptiant it doesn't provide room for any luxury or life style. Unless people think that 425 a month is luxurious. And please note that when I worked that money came out of my check as well.Anyhow that's just my point of view. Have fun, Danny.

yes, I don't believe our tax dollars should support the breeding habits of irresponsible people.

and I cringe for bringing it up - it's easy to see how Social Darwinism from the Turn of the 19-20th century eventually morphed into - or at least gave an intellectual patina to - the malignant philosophies under Nazism.

IMHO, you should take a long hard look where the philosophies you are flirting with take society.

why should the public fund a self-perpetuating permanent class that will always be dependent on state aid? Statistically, most don't break the cycle. When I worked in middle management for a large health insurer, we had several welfare-to-work cases through a temp service. One was a middle age woman whose nineteen year old daughter worked at the same site. This job was the mother's first experience in the workforce and she had difficulties adjusting to the routine of having to take directions, learn new tasks, etc. The daughter, who became pregnant within a month, resented having to work at all and I eventually fired her for taking extended lunches, leaving while on the clock, etc. My point is this: if someone's never been forced to work for anything, there's no incentive for them to do so if we as a society condone their behavior by offering them aid.

please stop using anecdotal evidence as proof. It makes you look MORE stupid.

My experience was with two generations: the mother was in her mid thirties and the daughter was nineteen. This is but a small segment of a phenomena that's occurring across the nation, so yes, it's valid as an example. In my example, there were two generations of welfare mothers with a third generation forthcoming.

a social phemonenon? This invalidates your argument in the abscence of greater evidence. Saying that it is "occurring across the nation" doesn't make it a phenomenon. I feel that you are using the few whom abuse that system to excuse your own greed.

I am sorry you have to pay taxes...I know you don't deserve to support those subhumans.{/sarcasm}

If this was still the America of Thomas Jefferson's time, the ideologies of the Libertarian Party would make a lot of sense, back when we were predominantly a nation of small farmers.

But as corporations became more powerful, more wealthy, more transnational and more wedded to the affairs of government, it became necessary for there to be a countervailing force. Only government can play that role, lest America then turn into a corporate dictatorship.

Take out all of that "expansive network of social welfare" and you've just cut your taxes out by about 20%. Thats it. Thats all. You think we wouldn't pay money to support those people if the federal govt didn't take the money out of our taxes??? Of course we would!! They would still go to the emergency rooms of america. the hospitals wouldn't be able to shift the cost to the govt, so they would simply force those costs onto private insurers. They would not be able to even THINK of ever sending their kids to college. There goes our skilled labor pool. Just think, we could even ACCELERATE our outsourcing of white collar jobs to India!!!

Good luck on building and maintaining those roads that the govt built for you. And I guess the govt could always take back the rural electrification system, stop paying for all of those pesky water treatment facilities (whats a little more shigella spread around between friends!), and those vietnam veterans; come on guys, get out of your wheelchairs and get a job!! :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

http://www.lp.org/

Some of it I can agree with. But some of it is scary. BTW, Harry Browne died the other day. May he RIP.

and I agree--some good, some bad, not enough good for me to buy into it. They're like creepy cyborgs--half progressive liberal, half conservative whacko...

(I also signed up for Green Party and RNC mail. I haven't gotten one email from the RNC in the month or so that I have been signed up... maybe they didn't want me, lol.)

But you are brave to hand out your E-Mail address to the RNC, me, I would expect them to sell the list to their biggest donors, and I don't need that spam! :)

away from staying a Democrat.


Good luck with all those Ayn Rand rugged individualist types. I bet they still cash those Social Security checks, though.

Luckily, I pay for short and long term DI contracts. I work in the industry and appreciate the need.

I am a libertarian turned hard-leftist. I am still a libertarian at heart and the libertarian ideals are still my ideals.

The libertarian system has one MAJOR error. They locate the source of COERCION in the public state, and see the (so-called) Free Market as the paradise of freedom from coercion.

In reality, the source of coercion is PRIVATE WEALTH and POWER. The Public State is the means by which ordinary people may check the coercive, corrosive, blood-sucking designs of private power.

Consider that "oppressive system of taxation" as a form of union dues. The alternative is a "right to work" (read right to fire, right to cut pay, right to hire cheaper workers, right to outsource, right to ignore health and safety, right to eliminate competition, right to raise prices after competition is gone, etc.) system. Besides, the tax rate in the US is the lowest of all the industrialized countries.

It alarms me that so many people believe that an expansive federal state is the panacea of all society's ills. At what point is an individual responsible for their own actions? I used my aunt as an example: she's abused her body to the point that she's morbidly obese and yet, she draws a disability payment from the government along with Medicaid benefits. Why in the hell should the public bear the responsibility of her poor choices?

Collectively, Democrats are perceived as denying any individual culpability for their own situation and quickly focus blame on abstract and outside factors. If you are poor, black, and have multiple children out of wedlock; racism is to blame, not your own poor choices. Human beings possess free will and cognition. Any young woman of any race shouldn't bear multiple children with multiple fathers, that is certain recipe for perpetuating poverty. Neither the federal nor local government should bear the responsibility of her actions, only the fathers. I am sick of the culture of victimhood that's perpetuated in this country and I really believe that Democrats of this ilk are merely saying what these same people wish to hear: you have no responsibility for your life and everything that's wrong is the fault of another.

You know you can always report disability fraud to the social security administration. www.socialsecurity.gov Just so you know.

"If you are poor, black, and have multiple children out of wedlock; racism is to blame, not your own poor choices. "

You do realize don't you that "poor" people aren't given many opportunities to make anything BUT poor choices.

You're trying to turn class-ism into "personal responsibility."
Pffft.

You need a beer.
:beer:

No wait. They tax that.

"You do realize don't you that "poor" people aren't given many opportunities to make anything BUT poor choices."

How does one have an opportunity to make only poor choices? Does one's social status convey a lack of responsibility for actions and consequences?

But you already know that.

Uh...did you, like, have a bad day at work or something?

:beer:
You can't have one.
It's "taxed."

No, sexual intercourse does, and I can't determine why I should be forced to pay for someone else's children if they are irresponsible.

I give up.

You're quite obviously intelligent enough to know the answers to all your questions.

I'm sorry if you had a bad day.

But hey, it's the weekend.
:beer:

A young couple, newlyweds, so to speak, just got married, have a kid, hell, let's say they are REALLY lucky and only one, either one, is the breadwinner, and supports the rest of the family. OK, now, a terrible auto accident occurs, killing one of the parents, doesn't really matter which one. OK, so now the remaining SINGLE parent has a choice, with a baby at home, that needs constant care, and now a parent that will have to work to support that child, but at the same time, can't afford day care. What should they do, let the kid starve, or should therr be public programs in place to allow them the opportunity to actually get out of this economic crisis. Whether its through fully compensated day care, or subsidize the lost pay they would suffer from working less hours.

Before you start in on the stupid shit I know you will spew, a couple of facts, thanks to Johnson's fully funded Welfare program, the poverty level in this country, by 1980, was lowered to 11% from almost 20% before the War on Poverty was declared. It wasn't till Reagan came in with the myth of "Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs" which was both racist and wrong, and started slashing the program that the poverty rate started increasing again. Fact number two for you smarty pants, before Clinton's Welfare Reform, most people who accepted Welfare, or AFDC(Aid to Families with Dependent Children) as it is actually known as were on it for less than 3 years, by then they actually regained self sufficiency.

"I used my aunt as an example: she's abused her body to the point that she's morbidly obese and yet, she draws a disability payment from the government along with Medicaid benefits. Why in the hell should the public bear the responsibility of her poor choices?"

Yet, you are allowing your Aunt on disability payments and Medicaid knowing she is frauding the government. Why? Is she really frauding the government? Or are you just making this shit up? I don't get people like you... Bitch, bitch, bitch and don't do shit about it.

she went through the legitimate application process, but it outrages me that someone like her receives any assistance at all.

Or another medical condition that causes the obesity? Just so you know, not all obesity is simply from overeating, some have valid medical explanations that only the intervention of professionals can help, and even then, they may at most be able to treat it, not cure it. Ever considered that, do you have her medical records at hand, I doubt, so who are you to judge?

You've been brainwashed. Plain and simple. Half your 33% goes to a military to defend trade and sea routes and nations for corporations to flourish. Half of the other half goes to subsidies for corporations and the rest goes to subsidizing their workers so they won't have to pay them a fair wage.

Unregulated business is the problem. Always has been, always will be.

shouldn't our commercial interests be defended? Without trade and commerce, we have nothing.

You want a publicly funded military to defend YOUR commercial interest with your precious tax dollars while you let your fellow citizens die??? You are a gem!!!

And the advocating of a flat tax is just silly, thanks for the laugh. But seriously, you actually believe this bullshit? I have to ask, because, looking at what you say, you should buy a clue. OK, first things first, you claim taxation is robbery, its only robbery if you get NOTHING for it, understood? OK, so you use public roads and/or transportation, I assume? In addition to fire, police, ambulance services, USDA approved beef, public schools, publicly funded medicine, publicly funded research in other things, borders defended by border patrol, coast guard, army, navy, marines, air force, etc. OK, how about safety regulations at work, 40 hour workweek, or medical leave? How about Social Security, you going to refuse to accept the checks when they come in on principle? As far as I can tell, you are as much a burden on the system as someone who is on Welfare, except they are probably cheaper, not able to afford cars to tear up the PUBLICALLY funded roads, or not being able to get good educations to begin with, so forget them ever getting PUBLICALLY funded education loans that many others take advantage of as you probably did yourself, you tell me.

So far, you come off as someone who is either really young or really niave, I don't know which, but knowing this let's put this up to a practical matter that I'm sure you will hate but let's have at it. OK, Single Payer Health Care, a system where you pay TAXES for all necessary medical care. OK, let's see, you say you pay 33% in taxes, and are pissed about it, for some selfish reason. OK, now, a question, I don't know what you pay for private medical insurance, but from current estimates, some people pay almost 25% of thier checks on that alone, sometimes more. You with me so far? OK, so, if you had an opportunity to SAVE that money, by paying it in taxes instead, would you do it? Think about it this way, insurance is only affordable depending on how large a pool the company spreads the cost out to as many customers as possible. Now, no private company is capable of spreading the cost to ALL citizens of the nation that are capable of working, but the Federal Government can. Add to that the savings in administrative costs, the current private system has an administative costs that are around 20-30%, Canada's Public system is around 5% and US's Medicare around 3%. If we were really smart, considering that all you need to qualify for a Universal system is citizenship or legal residency, then that could probably be cut by another percentage point or two. Given that, I could easily guess that you would save well over one hundred dollars a month under such a system alone, in TOTAL costs, even if it is the "Robbery" of taxation, rather than premiums to a private company.

Now, onto flat tax, bad idea, for several reasons, one is that you would have problems with people that are much more well off than the rest of us. If you have a tax rate of let's say 20%, flat for all income levels, then you have a family paying 20% in taxes that can't afford it if they only make let's say 2 grand a month, that's 400 bucks a month they will have to pay, and with no exceptions, and no returns to think of, they will be penalized MORE than someone who makes 10 grand a month, they will pay 2 grand, that is true, but they will also have 8 grand left over whereas the other family only has 16 hundred dollars left over, not much when you consider increasingly expensive utilities, rent, food, medical care for kids, when needed, and private insurance. Hell, even cheap places, nowadays, go for at least 600 bucks(2br 1bth) or more in my area, and we don't even suffer a housing bubble here!

You know, private property isn't absolute, just so you know, would you really want your neighbor to have an absolute right to build a coal fired smelter in his own backyard? No, of course not, and for good reason, society's rights sometimes trumps the individual's rights when it is not too intrusive nor does it violate the Bill of Rights.

If I paid a flat rate of 20% with no additional FICA and Medicare, I'd do much better now. I think the point you're missing on the flat tax is that it'd apply to corporations as well, no more offshore dodges or "incentives" which amount to welfare. At present, most corps pay less than 10%. I have no doubt that the flat tax would continue funding for public infrastructure.

On a national healthcare system: I've recently had to purchase an automobile tag and a new driver's license. I have absolutely no desire to see idiots of this caliber in charge of administering my healthcare or my benefits.

Social security: I really believe it's going to be extinct by my retirement age, so I contribute to 401K and a stable private pension plan through work.

In my view, government's sole purpose of existence is to protect the rights of the individual against those of society at large. If society would benefit from seizing my private property for whatever reason, would you determine that I should forfeit my property to society?

instead you made it about yourself, surprise surprise. Also, hate to tell you this, but social security, unless Bush destroys it utterly, will be around when you retire, it was never in danger till Bush pushed for his "privatization" plan. Along with that, there are other things, for example, you say that corporations are to have NO exceptions in the flat tax, great, except the bureaucracy at the IRS wouldn't be decreased in the least because of a "simplified" flat tax. For example, how do you tax foreign earnings? How about Capital Gains, which is where most rich individuals make their money, BTW. What about estate taxes? Inheritance taxes? Going back to income taxes, specifically for corporations, how do you tax corporations that are incorporated in the Cayman Islands? Why, you would have to pass a law that, GASP! violates their "right" to the "free" market in order to do make sure they are taxed properly. As you can see, even a "simplified" tax system as you propose isn't nearly as simple as you think.

Also, I had no problems with buying my automobile tag and or renewing my driver's license, but your mileage may vary. Also, hate to tell you, but the purpose of government is to BALANCE the needs of the individual against the needs of society at large. Go too far one way or the other and you either have total anarchy or a totalitarian regime. If you prefer anarchy, there's a country for you, Somalia, perfect Libertarian Haven, practically no taxes, and almost no laws to speak of, actually, go move there. Also, as an answer to your question at the end, if it were for the public good, for example a light rail system, that would help decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore save American and foreigners lives, yes, without hesitation, I would run the backhoe myself. For other public works, a school, hell even a park, sure, why not? You are not a nation unto yourself, you are given the right to have exclusive rights to that property, through a CONTRACT with the government, called a Title, oddly enough, that says that you may have use it as you see fit, with exceptions given depending on the area you live in, like my example in the previous post, and also with the understanding that that right to exclusive use may be forfeit, with compensation, if the greater public good can be served.

All godlike freedom for you, all retribution for those you deem unworthy.

Sounds like you've got money and guns. Ever thought of starting a cult?

yep, I'd start a religion in a second. Ivan Stang beat me to my slogan, though, "Eternal Salvation Guaranteed or Triple Your Money Back!!"

"the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped" -Hubert Humphrey.

Yep: I'm a proud Hubert Humphrey/Scoop Jackson/Bobby Kennedy Democrat. A fair number of DU'ers openly despise or quietly disdain the former two, while thoroughly misunderstanding the political philosophy of the latter - which is one reason why I field so many innuendo laced accusations about being a resident of FResno.

So be it: but I stand with the Democratic philosophy those men embodied, and always have. But I reject economic libertarianism on those grounds.

Social libertarianism is an entirely different matter, of course, and you make some excellent points in your OP. And I am vehemently anti-gun control, and in total agreement with you on that issue.

... are merely Republicans who are too afraid to call themselves such.

unmitigated BULLSHIT.

Examples:

$40 Billion a year on a "drug war" aimed primarily at pot smokers, and that's not even counting the costs of being the highest per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the civilized world. You don't have to be a Libertarian (or even a libertarian) to know that's massively fucked up.

Legalize- and tax- marijuana. That's how you get rid of the deficit.

Then, you have something like a half a TRILLION a year (that we know about- who knows how much is "shhh. Secret") for a military industrial complex that is TEN times as well funded as the militaries of all the other countries on the planet -- COMBINED.

No, we need taxes, and we need a decent social safety net. Dare I say it, we not only need a SPHC system, we would SAVE MONEY in the long run if we adopted one. But if we stopped funding these ridiculous atrocities that eat most of our tax dollars, not only would taxes not need to be raised, they probably could be cut.

On social issues, I'm pretty small-l libertarian. But what we need to do is motivate OUR party to take BOLD stands on things like cutting the military, de-funding the drug war, and getting out of the bodies and personal decisions of consenting adults. I don't think the big-L Libertarian party is the answer.

If you like libertarianism, and want ultra low taxes, and virtually zero social programs to help your citizens. All you have to do is pack a bag and head a few miles south. Mexico has been a libertarian based government for close to thirty years now.

Thats why they have no middle class. Everyone is rich or poor. So, that sounds like exactly what your looking for. And yes, their taxes are much lower than ours. Income tax and otherwise. Zero social programs. Everything is dog eat dog.

Unfortunately, in this country there is a lack of education. And people dont realize how crappy life was in America in the late 1800's and early 1900's. For most of us, it was long hours, low pay, and high rate of disease, low life expectancy, etc, etc, etc.

Call me crazy, but I am happy to pay a little income tax and FICA so that life is pleasant both in my community, and in the rest of the country.

As a 30 year old, able bodied working man. It would be absolutely cowardly for me to tell my 80 year old grandma that she can no longer get social security and medicare, because I need to save a few bucks each week for some new DVD's! Why is it always the 20-40 year old white men that whine the most about donating a few bucks to help out the weaker segment of our population. Why don't YOU get off your ass and work a little harder, and stop laying it off on old people or disabled people, or poor children.

It's all about the Self. How are you actually harmed by those who, in comparison to you, have nothing--who rely on government to survive when they may well die without such assistance? You specifically suggest that you'd be just as happy to see a relative die than have her continue receiving assistance. You suggest that you have the right to decide who should live and who should die based upon your prejudices as to what does and what does not constitute a worthy citizen.

The person who does not work, who cannot work, is a relatively minor drain on the system in comparison to someone who makes a decision to lay off thousands of workers while themselves collecting an annual salary 400 times that of their lowest paid worker. In other words, they justify putting thousands of people out of work when their own salary could pay to retain 400 of those people.

I understand Libertarianism. My wife follows that philosophy to some extent. But I know exactly where it falters. It falters when it fails to acknowledge that all human endeavor has been accomplished by social contract and that civilized cultures protect and support their weakest and most vulnerable.

We have to decide whether we want to be a culture of callous savagery, or one of inclusion. Libertarians have the wrong idea. If everyone was devoted to looking out for themselves and their own to the exclusion of everyone else, we'd have less of a sense of community than we already do. I believe the final result of these sorts of policies would be to create clan like structures within our own communities and leave everyone who isn't tied into one of those clans out in the cold.

Bad juju.

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html