Are you a Libertarian?

[Violet]

Thick Coin Syndrome is rather related to Black and White Disorder... It usually occurs in the stage following B&WD... but i've known it to occur in the reverse as well.

TCS is essentially similar to B&WD (In that it focuses on two extremes), but it is different in that it allows for somewhat of a grey area between the two. It's primary fault is that there is more than 2 sides that can be considered to extremes, and that it often is seen in greyscale, where the reality is a spectrum.

The only known remedy for B&WD and TCS is thinking, so start (or keep) thinking, A. Liberty

[Meatball]

The way I see Libertarianism and Healthcare overlapping is laws mandating that a doctor may not refuse neccessary treatment under reasonable circumstances. This preserves a person's right to life, without sacrificing freedom from government coercion via taxes.

In my mind, a true libertarian government passes laws, nothing more. I think that government-run healthcare, good or bad, is not a Libertarian principle. Government-mandated healthcare, however, falls within my definition.

[Tiberius]

Indeed, and this is one of the only places I disagree with Libertarian politics. I see healthcare as a social liberty (possibly because I live in a country with successful public healthcare) rather than an economic liberty. Government-mandated healthcare would be an acceptable middle ground that I would agree to.

[theVOID]

Indeed, and this is one of the only places I disagree with Libertarian politics. I see healthcare as a social liberty (possibly because I live in a country with successful public healthcare) rather than an economic liberty. Government-mandated healthcare would be an acceptable middle ground that I would agree to.

Health, Education, Law and Order and basic infrastructure should be all the government has anything to do with.

[Minimalist]

Nope.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(Australia)

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please give me their names and addresses..


Where doesn't National Health Care " work properly?(if you mean "universal') Compered with what standard,and what countries which don't have such a scheme? My position is that the effectiveness is THE goal.Efficiency is also an aim,but less important.

I'm Anti -libertarian,which I see as being bases on the principles of unregulated Laissez Faire Captalism,which I oppose.

My view of a democratic society emphasises notions of equality,social justice and social responsibilty.

I want full employmenty

High wages

High taxes,personal and indirect.




Keynes argued the above conditons are essential for a just and prosperous society.

I would ad islolationist in terms of armed conflict. In my opinion,America's jingoism is its fatal flaw. If you think I exaggerate, have look at a list of US armed conflicts since WW2.

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".[1] In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safe guard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

[Violet]

... Bush was more than just a religious zealot then? He was a Jingoist

[dry land fish]

Indeed, and this is one of the only places I disagree with Libertarian politics. I see healthcare as a social liberty (possibly because I live in a country with successful public healthcare) rather than an economic liberty. Government-mandated healthcare would be an acceptable middle ground that I would agree to.

You know I disagree on that one. I seem to always follow the Libertarian party and not because I'm doing what the party wants either. I didn't become a Libertarian until after I figured out that my views didn't really fit the views of the other three parties. Finding the Libertarian party and viewing their platform was like finding my sould mate!

Padraic the Libertarian party promotes social justice,equality, and personal responsibility. That's why we are against most social programs that help people who are low income. We feel it's their personal responsibility to see to it that they are able to sustain themselves without the help of the government for basic needs. We do take into consideration certain circumstances like job losses or other unforseen problems. We are one of the most open parties when it comes to equality and other social issues besides the re distribution of wealth. We are pro gay marriage, pro legalized marijuana use, pro legalized prostitution, pro choice. Not many parties will say that they support all of those social issues.

[LukeMC]

Economic, social... Two sides of the same coin. Liberty is liberty

Do you know the Austrian School of Economics? Most probably not...

Yes, I know of the the Austrian School. I hope the hint of superiority I sensed was purely my own bad judgement of your tone.

While liberty is certainly liberty, I'd support a system in which the government gives aid to those who can't help themselves over a completely anarcho-capitalist free-for-all as supported by DLF (I may be wrong?). Also, I'm under the impression that large corporations in environmentally hazardous industries would be reluctant to sacrifice a little profit in favour of preserving the environment were it not for government incentives to do so (or just plain coercive law). To be honest, there are quite a lot of areas in which I have a distrust for such a free and unhindered capitalism. I'm still waiting for Adrian to convince me otherwise

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Padraic the Libertarian party promotes social justice,equality, and personal responsibility. That's why we are against most social programs that help people who are low income. We feel it's their personal responsibility to see to it that they are able to sustain themselves without the help of the government for basic needs.

I'm aware,and disagree.

My perception is; That is NOT social justice. It is a smug and callous value judgment based on the notion of the deserving poor. That in turn is based on [ or at least justified by] Calvinist predestination. Such a view also contains the self serving view that poverty is to a large degree under the control of the poor.It either does not consider or dismisses the reality that wealth has never and does not now exist without its antithesis,poverty.


NEED is the only moral criterium for welfare. Once you begin making other conditions, moral judgments are inevitable.

In most countries (certainly in mine and in the US) rules governing welfare are based on petty bourgeois moral values,such as the work ethic.



I concede my perception may be due in large part to having spent a decade at university studying a couple of social Sciences (sociology and social Anthropology) and spending over 25 years working in the Australian Federal Welfare system ( with the unemployed, homeless youth,single parents,refugees from many countries.single parents,the sick,the insane and criminals)

I am not claiming that "I'm right and you're wrong" in any absolute sens.Only that I will continue to consider Libertarianism a smug, bourgeois, and callous ideology..


I think party loyalties are for many naive, romantic nonsense, and can be changed without too much difficulty.However, sincere ideological views are based on emotion, life experience,education (in the broadest sense) and reason.Very hard to change--and that's assuming one has that agenda,which I do not.

We've both expressed our sincere views. I agree to differ. Of course,comes the revolution,I WILL shoot you in the head without compunction.

Thought for today "The rich have created the poor to scare the fuck out of the middle classes and keep them in line" (Padriac Q Shagnasty)