Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Elkvis]

Towards the end, Elkvis started to sound like Hegel because he believed that history would end triumphantly with the freest society.

I get a little carried away at times, but personal freedom and personal responsibility are things that are quite important to me.

Here in the USA, at least, we live in an era in which a kid's lemonade stand could get shut down by the cops for doing business without a license, where a kid can't take cupcakes to school to celebrate his/her birthday for fear that it might make the other kids fat, and where people in some areas can't even keep a handgun in their house for protection against home invaders. This is a time where law abiding citizens with no criminal record must get a license to purchase a handgun, but crackheads and heroin addicts can continue to pop out kids and collect a welfare check with no interference from the state. Police conduct drug raids on the wrong house and get a pass. Police kill unarmed citizens and get a pass. Police kill pets simply because they are there, even when they pose no threat to the officer, and get a pass. However, if a citizen shoots a police dog in self defense, now that person is guilty of assault on a police officer, and they go to prison for a very long time.

The double standards and injustice are reaching a point where citizens are starting to fight back, as in Ferguson, Missouri, where a cop killed an unarmed 17-year-old kid, who had his hands in the air to surrender, and the people are demanding accountability.

[Mario F.]

Here in the USA, at least, we live in an era in which a kid's lemonade stand could get shut down by the cops for doing business without a license

The romantic notion of a kid selling lemonade may strike you as innocent. To me it looks as a problem that compounded may forever drive away the small licensed business and make tax collecting impossible.

[Elkvis]

The romantic notion of a kid selling lemonade may strike you as innocent. To me it looks as a problem that compounded may forever drive away the small licensed business and make tax collecting impossible.

Therein lies the root of what I consider to be the problem. Why does the government need to be involved with financial transactions between individuals? The child's parents are probably already paying for the water, sugar, lemons, and all the other expenses, which are all likely taxed. The child is not making use of any government services, and if the lemonade stand is on private property, why should the child be required to pay tribute to the state? I don't believe in the concept of taxation in the traditional sense. Something about a large group of bullies coming to my house and pointing guns at me because I didn't give them money seems like a tactic that the mafia would use. Just because it's government, it doesn't make it moral or legitimate. I'm more inclined to support the payment for services rendered model. I'd be fine with paying tolls on roads, if I knew that the money would pay for the roads directly, as one example. I pay for an annual state park pass because the money pays for the upkeep of the parks. We could go on all day about the various government services that "need" to be funded. In reality, most, if not all, of those services could be privatized, and be handled more efficiently, and at lesser expense, with less opportunity for corruption.

[Mario F.]

So, as an example, you don't believe that public services should pay salaries and equipments? Because in most countries, sales taxes are used in the general funding of the state.

[Elkvis]

So, as an example, you don't believe that public services should pay salaries and equipments? Because in most countries, sales taxes are used in the general funding of the state.

In a very general sense, there should be minimal, if any public services. Obviously, anyone who does a job deserves to get paid, and have equipment appropriate for the job, but only if a citizen uses a particular service should they be required to pay for that service. Even essential services like fire departments and EMS could be privatized, and moved to a pay-for-service model. There's no legitimate need for the government to provide them.

[MutantJohn]

I get a little carried away at times, but personal freedom and personal responsibility are things that are quite important to me.

Here in the USA, at least, we live in an era in which a kid's lemonade stand could get shut down by the cops for doing business without a license, where a kid can't take cupcakes to school to celebrate his/her birthday for fear that it might make the other kids fat, and where people in some areas can't even keep a handgun in their house for protection against home invaders. This is a time where law abiding citizens with no criminal record must get a license to purchase a handgun, but crackheads and heroin addicts can continue to pop out kids and collect a welfare check with no interference from the state. Police conduct drug raids on the wrong house and get a pass. Police kill unarmed citizens and get a pass. Police kill pets simply because they are there, even when they pose no threat to the officer, and get a pass. However, if a citizen shoots a police dog in self defense, now that person is guilty of assault on a police officer, and they go to prison for a very long time.

The double standards and injustice are reaching a point where citizens are starting to fight back, as in Ferguson, Missouri, where a cop killed an unarmed 17-year-old kid, who had his hands in the air to surrender, and the people are demanding accountability.

Um... Sorry but I think you have that typical conservative prejudice. I'm not aware of any state where you can't own a gun and keep it in your house so you'd have to explain that one. But Lord forbid the government has to make sure you are responsible enough for owning a gun despite the myriad mass shootings we've had. Even though I guess clearly those measures don't work. Idk, I think the 2nd Amendment is stupid. The Founding Father's can only have so much respect from modern day peoples considering they wrote "All men are created equal" while saying, "Get me some coffee, boy. You mouthin' off to me? Time to whip you into submission, you dirty ******."

Also, states have drug tested welfare recipients and get this, hardly any of them do drugs. You should google this yourself because there's a lot of articles about this. You're prejudice towards poor people is very caricaturized and has been shown to kind of fall flat on its face.

But I have just read the counter-argument to this is that, "Well, I had to get a drug test for my job" and to that I respond, I don't think we should be doing that anymore either. Why do we drug test people who are applying for a job? And what's worse is, the weakest drug (marijuana) stays in your body the longest. You could be literally tripping off of acid and it wouldn't show up on their basic screening tests.

[MutantJohn]

In a very general sense, there should be minimal, if any public services. Obviously, anyone who does a job deserves to get paid, and have equipment appropriate for the job, but only if a citizen uses a particular service should they be required to pay for that service. Even essential services like fire departments and EMS could be privatized, and moved to a pay-for-service model. There's no legitimate need for the government to provide them.

And lol.

And pay-for-service model with firemen and EMS? Seriously? Lol.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/d5a/ae1...1348533342.jpg

[Yarin]

I think the 2nd Amendment is stupid. The Founding Father's can only have so much respect from modern day peoples considering they wrote "All men are created equal" while saying, "Get me some coffee, boy. You mouthin' off to me? Time to whip you into submission, you dirty ******."

A fascist opinion, followed by an ad hominem argument. Fantastic

I think you have that typical conservative prejudice

You're prejudice towards poor people

What prejudice has he displayed?

And pay-for-service model with firemen and EMS? Seriously? Lol.

Why not? The Fire Department is as insurance, like any other. Where I live, we pay yearly for the FD, there's no problem with that.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/d5a/ae1...1348533342.jpg

Ironicly, it was Romneycare before it was Obamacare.

[Elkvis]

Um... Sorry but I think you have that typical conservative prejudice.

I side with liberals on some things, and with conservatives on others.

I'm not aware of any state where you can't own a gun and keep it in your house

I didn't say any gun. I said handgun, but I guess my understanding of the situation was a little outdated. Handgun bans have been ruled unconstitutional now. My bad.

I think the 2nd Amendment is stupid.

Everyone has a right to defend their own life, and the lives of others. If a criminal comes into my house with a gun, I would be stupid not to have one to protect myself. I'm not talking about carrying an AR-15 down the street like those idiots at Chipotle. Just simply keeping one handy to defend your life in your own home.

Also, states have drug tested welfare recipients and get this, hardly any of them do drugs. You should google this yourself because there's a lot of articles about this. You're prejudice towards poor people is very caricaturized and has been shown to kind of fall flat on its face.

I'm aware of the results of these programs. What I said was not intended to be a justification of these programs, but rather a description of the rather reasonable things for which people must get a license, and the irony of the ridiculous things people are allowed to do without one. I have no prejudice towards poor people. I used to be one. The fact is that only a small number of states have tried this, so it's very difficult to say that, across the board, in all states, very few welfare recipients do drugs. I would change the policy as follows: If you are convicted of a felony, you become permanently disqualified from public assistance. That would be my solution. I'm not against recreational use of drugs. I don't care if you smoke crack or cannabis or shoot heroin, but as long as the laws are on the books, they need to be enforced equally, and violators of those laws should not be rewarded with money from the government. Not just drug laws. Any serious crime, especially violent crime.

Why do we drug test people who are applying for a job? And what's worse is, the weakest drug (marijuana) stays in your body the longest. You could be literally tripping off of acid and it wouldn't show up on their basic screening tests.

From a simple workplace safety point of view, it's important that people aren't putting each other in unnecessary danger. If I'm driving a front-end loader, and I'm stoned off my ass, and kill someone, it's not an accident, and it's something that could likely have been prevented with routine drug screening.

[MutantJohn]

@Elkvis : http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/50600606.jpg

And I'd like to apologize for my ........y attitude towards you. Sorry, Sebastiani got me all riled up.

[Mario F.]

USA domestic policies and their social realities have no bearing in the discussion of capitalism over or above socialism. Just saying...

But that's alright. It's not that we don't have eurocentrism. It's the shabby accusing the ragged.

[Elkvis]

@Elkvis : http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/50600606.jpg

And I'd like to apologize for my ........y attitude towards you. Sorry, Sebastiani got me all riled up.

It's cool. I took no offense. As political discussions go, this one has been rather civil.

[Will1]

It's cool. I took no offense. As political discussions go, this one has been rather civil.

WOW! Turn off your computer for a couple of days and suddenly their is a big discussion on politics that you seem to have started. I don't know why we can't just refer to what and who has influenced our political views.

Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Norman Vincent Peale, James Madison and several more people have influenced my belief system. While I am a Libert(y)arian at heart, I belong to The Constitution Party because The Libertarian Party wants to open our borders and we'd be swamped if we did. Come to think about it, we're on a path to being swamped. I believe the 16th Amendment was never ratified and is the greatest fraud that our government has ever perpetrated against "We the People."

I have read through the posts on this thread and consider the people who are posting here well above average when it comes to intelligence. I believe that we are all conceived with genius IQ but the things our mothers do during our first 9 months of life greatly either inhance or deter our intelligence. Of course, there are exceptions like down's sysndrome but, by and large, we're all geniuses if we are raised to believe that we are.

Like Elkvis, I support some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas. I didn't vote for him, but Reagan made one true statement , "Government isn't the answer, it's the problem!" I coudn't vote in 1960 becuase I wasn't 21, which is the age you had to be to vote back then. In 1964 I voted for Barry Goldwater and the election of Lyndon Johnson was a disaster for this country. I voted for Richard Nixon in 1968 and, when he was elected, I thought it was good that a Republican was elected and he'd get the mess in Viet Nam over with. He just made it worse and we ended up slinking out of Viet Nam with our tails between our legs. I haven't voted for a major party candidate for president since. The 2 major partys have made a mess of this country where the only ones that are heard are those with money, especially the big corporations. Now we've got the internet and we can "hear" other voices than the Republicans and Democrats. The 2012 election was probably the greatest use of "Newspeak" that I've ever experienced. The established news media made sure that those of us who supported Ron Paul for president would be convinced that he couldn't win. If they had given him the kind of coverage that the other idiots got he'd be president now. There is a lot on the internet. I suggest that you Google "Ron Paul cheated" and you'll see how he should have been elected.

Will

[Alpo]

I am a libertarian as well. It actually seems to be the perfect political position to make people of every other philosophical bent go up in a ball of flame.

It's not that I believe all government is a bad thing, it's just that in my mind the rights of an individual need to be paramount to all other concerns. There's too much utilitarianism in both major parties (in the US) for me to be comfortable with them.

@Will1 - Were you a supporter of Ron Paul? Seeing that you are a libertarian too, I'm curious how you felt about Gary Johnson? He was another one who ran in the Republican primary, and he also wasn't covered very well (it might just have been a matter of him not being assertive enough though, unlike Ron Paul). His views were slightly more moderate than Ron Paul's, but I'm hoping he will run again.

Edit: Sorry if this post was a derailment, but my feeling about socialism were covered as well (indirectly). Socialism has it's heart in the right place, I also care a lot about people as a whole. It's just that I don't believe people should be treated as an aggregate, but as individuals with rights.

[Yarin]

we're all geniuses if we are raised to believe that we are.

I, uh, don't think that's how that works. >_<

I'm curious how you felt about Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson was/is a watered-down Ron Pual. There's no doubt, of course though, that he still would've have been a much better choice than the blue is, or red would have been.