universal healthcare?

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

Factless and uneducated rants

Let's hear more from the grad school folks, people that actually care to think a little more deeper on these subjects. PrincessPratt???

Sorry Im not as educated as you...

Sticks his finger back in his nose for boogies

Certianly they wont have to raise taxes , man am I Stoopid

Wish I was as smartest as you

[Disclaimer]

And I'm sorry that these health care issues can't be simplified down to your level of "Welp, it'll jus cost us mooooore munney and the dang ol' gubermint will be moar in arr bizniss"

This isn't a black-and-white issue, theres a lot of gray. I never denied that it'll cost money, but when you have this current joke of a President in office that would rather spend over $200M A DAY on a fruitless war, it really makes you wonder what $200M a DAY would buy if you spent it on healthcare. Granted, You can't count that entire $200M since some monies would be required to keep US Defense at-the-ready (just not actively engaged), but even if you use 25% of that money. $50M a day could pay for a lot of doctor bills.

Your taxes weren't raised to start a war, so why do you all of a sudden bitch about increased taxes to pay for healthcare? Ohh, it's because that's the fiscally responsible thing. Funny how people realize that money doesn't grow on trees to pay for healthcare, but they just assume a war will miraculously fund itself. It pisses me off that my tax dollars are being "invested" in the middle east rather than taking care of our own, inside the US first. I must be the only one...?

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

A skunk cant hide its stink

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

And I'm sorry that these health care issues can't be simplified down to your level of "Welp, it'll jus cost us mooooore munney and the dang ol' gubermint will be moar in arr bizniss"

This isn't a black-and-white issue, theres a lot of gray. I never denied that it'll cost money, but when you have this current joke of a President in office that would rather spend over $200M A DAY on a fruitless war, it really makes you wonder what $200M a DAY would buy if you spent it on healthcare. Granted, You can't count that entire $200M since some monies would be required to keep US Defense at-the-ready (just not actively engaged), but even if you use 25% of that money. $50M a day could pay for a lot of doctor bills.

Your taxes weren't raised to start a war, so why do you all of a sudden bitch about increased taxes to pay for healthcare? Ohh, it's because that's the fiscally responsible thing. Funny how people realize that money doesn't grow on trees to pay for healthcare, but they just assume a war will miraculously fund itself. It pisses me off that my tax dollars are being "invested" in the middle east rather than taking care of our own, inside the US first. I must be the only one...?

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh you sort of made my point, Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh YEA, im against raising taxes..

And a war and health care dont exactly have anythig to do with each other ( Scrathes his head )

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

And I'm sorry that these health care issues can't be simplified down to your level of "Welp, it'll jus cost us mooooore munney and the dang ol' gubermint will be moar in arr bizniss"

This isn't a black-and-white issue, theres a lot of gray. I never denied that it'll cost money, but when you have this current joke of a President in office that would rather spend over $200M A DAY on a fruitless war, it really makes you wonder what $200M a DAY would buy if you spent it on healthcare. Granted, You can't count that entire $200M since some monies would be required to keep US Defense at-the-ready (just not actively engaged), but even if you use 25% of that money. $50M a day could pay for a lot of doctor bills.

Your taxes weren't raised to start a war, so why do you all of a sudden bitch about increased taxes to pay for healthcare? Ohh, it's because that's the fiscally responsible thing. Funny how people realize that money doesn't grow on trees to pay for healthcare, but they just assume a war will miraculously fund itself. It pisses me off that my tax dollars are being "invested" in the middle east rather than taking care of our own, inside the US first. I must be the only one...?

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh you sort of made my point, Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh YEA, im against raising taxes..

And a war and health care dont exactly have anything to do with each other ( Scrathes his head )

[Disclaimer]

The war and healthcare are connected for the simple fact that the government makes decisions on both of them, and it's tax dollars at work -- since that's seemingly the ONLY thing you're concerned about is increased taxes.

I don't know anyone that is FOR raising taxes, but shit's gotta get paid for. I'm against gas costing $3/gallon, but I don't QUIT filling my truck with gas. I'm against milk costing $4/gallon, but I don't QUIT having cereal for breakfast. I don't think my property taxes should be used to fund local schools, but I still have a home and pay them.

Since it's all about money with you, hypothetically - what if I told you that I could save you $50/month in insurance premiums, but $40 of that would be taken out in taxes. Net gain for you is $10/mo - would you still be opposed? And why or why not?

But it all goes back to my previous post regarding the unknown future. Illness and accidents are unpredictable (except maybe obesity and smoking). You either pay now (in small chunks), or pay later (one large med bill that will probably bankrupt you).

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

The war and healthcare are connected for the simple fact that the government makes decisions on both of them, and it's tax dollars at work -- since that's seemingly the ONLY thing you're concerned about is increased taxes.

I don't know anyone that is FOR raising taxes, but shit's gotta get paid for. I'm against gas costing $3/gallon, but I don't QUIT filling my truck with gas. I'm against milk costing $4/gallon, but I don't QUIT having cereal for breakfast. I don't think my property taxes should be used to fund local schools, but I still have a home and pay them.

Since it's all about money with you, hypothetically - what if I told you that I could save you $50/month in insurance premiums, but $40 of that would be taken out in taxes. Net gain for you is $10/mo - would you still be opposed? And why or why not?

But it all goes back to my previous post regarding the unknown future. Illness and accidents are unpredictable (except maybe obesity and smoking). You either pay now (in small chunks), or pay later (one large med bill that will probably bankrupt you).

If ANYONE is for UNICARE you are for the following

1 Raising taxes

2 Paying for more healthcare for people that couldnt afford it before, and youll be paying for it in the future ( congrats )

3 EQUAL health care for all , rich poor, working class , etc etc.. WILL ALL get the same chitty health care options.

4 think Big oil makes alot of money now ? yeaghhhh great idea to make the gov pay for health insurance , not the greedy oil companies ( brilliant idea there folks )

5 LESS selections , LESS options , ONE plan = we all get dumbed down

6 Immigrants = Health insurance ?

THIS IS HOW ROME FELL PEOPLE, WAKE UP !!

Me personally I want as few people to have health insurance as humanly possible, if you want to work, to EARN health care , there are all kinds of things that motivate people to get what they need, just one more hand out just gives one less reason to do the right things in life and EARN what you are given.

Lets see

Free FOOD

Free Rent

Free Transportation

Free College

Free Air conditioners

Free baby sitting

Free School meals

Free Health care

EARNED income tax credit = FREE MONEY

BLAH BLAH BLAH on and on it goes

Is there anything else of the working man youd like to give away people ?

Wake up people, learn from history, this is exactly how Rome fell, when poor people realized they could ( try ) to tax wealth out of existence

[Disclaimer]

I still don't see where you're getting ANY of your information from. How ROME fell... please, educate me - I wanna see how socialism ruined ROME.

While I agree people need to earn things in life, health care should be a basic human right (with few exceptions). You state that you want a few people as possible to have health insurance - well, guess what a free-market will do with that? YOU won't be able to afford it. No demand; therefore, no supply -- you think doctors will go to school for 10 years to sit idle and wait for the very few RICH people that can afford them? No...

And I don't understand what you mean by EARN health care... you mean financially? I had an appendectomy while I was a poor college kid - luckily it fell under my parents insurance, but a lot of people aren't that fortunate (to have health care, OR parents to help them out). Anyone who's been to college knows it's a struggle for cash, and you want to pile health care premiums on top of it? And following along those lines, you think just because Paris Hilton makes 1000x more money than any of us, she DESERVES better health care? I guarantee you I've already contributed more to society that she ever will. Or, that you deserve better health care than I do, because you make more and can afford more? That's bullshit. That might fly for material things, but health care - no way. You are not BETTER or WORSE than me, no matter how much you want to think it.

Another assumption you make is ONE coverage for all - there are OTHER options, you know. There's tiered approaches and different types of coverage, not just EVERYONE under one singular umbrella. It's a SINGLE PAYER system, not necessary a single coverage type system. So, assuming there'll be LESS selection and LESS options is a myth.

And lastly, another tidbit for you to think about, since you're on this whole "EARN it" kick. I can tell you aren't happy with many of the social programs that give handouts to people (i.e. Welfare / food stamps / etc.) - You ever think what would these people do without these programs? "Be forced to get a job" - Ok, yea, that's an option, assuming there are jobs (The US has a rather high employment rate), but there's a lot of those people that I wouldn't trust even on a minimum wage job and would actually make the workforce LESS productive as a whole by working (i.e. being a hindrance to others). 2) They could beg -- I'm sure you'd really rather be accosted everyday on the street by bums, but eventually they'll get sick of panhandling, especially since there won't be enough to go around, and they'll resort to crime. So, option 3) Criminal activities - stealing food, burglarizing homes, etc. There's a proven link between welfare spending and crime (see links below). Given the overcrowding state of our prison system, we don't have anywhere to lock these people up anymore. Build more prisons? With what tax money - you don't want to pay more taxes... and they have operating costs. Also, where do you want these prisons? Not in your backyard I suppose. But, on a positive note, you'll create jobs and we'll end up with a society of inmate and guards. Of course the guards would be the only "productive members" and thus be the only ones to pay taxes, which in turn go back to fund the prisons and take care of the very people they're paid to guard.

Given the total costs involved (including opportunity costs), do you realize it's MUCH cheaper to give someone welfare and let them sit on their lazy ass all day than put them in the US prison system? So, in the long run, it's better off to offer these people FREE, unearned, things rather than to become a police state. I've included the links below so you can compare the costs for the Ohio Welfare system versus the Ohio prison system. To summarize, Ohio spends $199 per our 11.5M residents to operate prisons, versus about the same (a little higher at $2.7B compared to $2.3B) for traditional welfare programs (Food stamps, unemployment) that benefit A LOT more people than our prison population. Then, we spend an additional $14B for Medicaid (gasp! Free health care for poor Ohio residents)

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/welfare_spendin.html

http://jfs.ohio.gov/factsheets/ODJFS_Facts.pdf

http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/Publications/SOC%20Entire%20Book-1007.pdf (Pages 36 & 37)

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

I clearly wrote, ROME fell because POOR people THOUGHT they could TAX wealth out of existence..

YES Paris Hilton deserves finally EVERYTHNING better than me, Including better health care..

I dont resent wealth, in fact the owner of the company I work for I hope I can help make him the richest man on the planet.

I dont know how much anyone makes here, so I dont speak for others.

I didnt finish college, but I work less and make more than most people I know... My brain, and my back both... No one made a break for me, I NEVER took one dime from the government ( financial aid or anything in my entire life ) Im 41, so am old enough to see the changes slacker kids, hand me out attitude, what have you done for me lately ingrained from early years on.

My grandparents ( I assume ) some how managed to make it thru life without health insurance, OGHHHHHhhHhhh My how did they do it !

Just stand there with yer hand out, and youll have nothing left in your pocket to HAND OUT..

Im Smarter and a better provider for my family than the gov is, so i want to keep as much as my money as possible, If I had a choice Id say no thanks to S.S. either

But to each there own, much love to the other side of the isle.

[Disclaimer]

I clearly wrote, ROME fell because POOR people THOUGHT they could TAX wealth out of existence.

You have any links?? -- I'd like to research this... It's been awhile since I've had history class. I always thought Rome fell because it got too large. And according to when I type in "why did Rome fall?" into Google, I get tons of links having nothing to do with taxing wealth out of existence. More like they didn't collect ENOUGH taxes to sustain themselves. And since when did POOR people ever have control of ROME?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire (Particularly the Bryan-Ward Perkins theory)

YES Paris Hilton deserves finally EVERYTHNING better than me, Including better health care..

I hope you're being sarcastic...

I didnt finish college, but I work less and make more than most people I know... My brain, and my back both... No one made a break for me, I NEVER took one dime from the government ( financial aid or anything in my entire life ) Im 41, so am old enough to see the changes slacker kids, hand me out attitude, what have you done for me lately ingrained from early years on.

Sadly, there's a lot of people that don't have your work ethic, but people take different paths in life too. I preferred to take the college / grad school route and borrow GOVT money to pay for it, and I don't feel bad about it. I paid it back, but it helped me when I needed it - and I'm making my contributions to society everyday. Regardless of yours, or my personal lives - this goes back to my previous post regarding what we do with these slackers? It's better to give them welfare than put them in prison.

My grandparents ( I assume ) some how managed to make it thru life without health insurance, OGHHHHHhhHhhh My how did they do it !

And I'm sure they lived to a ripe old age too, but that's just one case. What does society benefit as a whole by not having health insurance? To simplify, your argument is that the world is a better place without health care (if you can't afford it). To me, that's very narrow-minded. Why don't we just round up all the American families that make less than $30k/yr and put them on an island somewhere to fend for themselves - since you're basically denying them health care since they can't afford it. Why should we penalize kids that come from poor homes? Neither of my parents went to college, and by no means do I feel like I was a deprived child, but there are times where I suffered through some minor illnesses without medicine because we couldn't afford to see a doctor that month (I wasn't an only child).

Im Smarter and a better provider for my family than the gov is, so i want to keep as much as my money as possible, If I had a choice Id say no thanks to S.S. either

If SS were changed into private savings - what would happen to all the people that "miscalculated" what they needed for their retirement (either they blew it all on vacations, or lived longer than they expected, or had an expensive medical bill to treat prostate cancer)? Then what? Do we tell them, sorry 'bout your luck - go off and die somewhere with the other poor homeless senior citizens? Thus the need for social programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid that will outlast your life.

But to each there own, much love to the other side of the isle.

Same here, brother.

[Disclaimer]

No one would FORCE you into a social medical program. Your paycheck will pay for it, but you don't HAVE to use it. Hell, with Obama's plan you can exchange out of it, if you want to carry your own PRIVATE health insurance. All the government would do is ensure local competitive markets and prevent monopolies. If the government offers a cheap health care plan, that would force the PRIVATE sector to provide a competitive matching program. So, they may only make 30% profit instead of 300%. Though, do not misconstrue any of that as an Obama endorsement (it just happens to be the first plan I Googled). I don't understand why people are so SCARED of this. It's NOT socialism -- everyone just throws those 'scary' words around to frighten people into thinking freedom is lost, when it's not.

You're associating FREEDOM with CASH - They are two totally different things. None of your FREEDOMS have been encroached upon. You don't want to pay taxes - fine, go be Amish, don't use our roads, don't use city water or sewer systems, don't use our hospitals (that are funded by government grants), don't buy, title, and register imported italian motorcycles, no matter how nice they are! (The BMV is a government institution after all). No one is forcing you to live by the rules. There's always options and a way to be truly free.

Additionally, why do you assume the government would MANAGE care? I think with most of the proposed plans - you still actively manage your care, the government just pays the bill and sets a competitive price floor.

----

And you're opening up a whole new can of worms with regards to the budget (Bush's fault), border security, and terrorism. If you want to debate that, we can start another thread.

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

Right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Except to pay for something I am not using. And just to clarify things I am not against paying taxes. I am against the Federal government telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on. I am not above paying sales tax' date=' city tax and even state taxes. [b']I am opposed to paying a tax that would give my money to someone else because they refuse to get a job. And the comment you made earlier to Sonny about 'what do we do with them? Put them in jail or give them welfare?' Simple. You don't do either. In my house if you don't work you don't eat. That's about as simple as it gets. My wife and I both have jobs. We make the money we spend. We also make the money a lot of Americans spend. I am not opposed to helping the poor. I give what I can and sometimes more than I can. I am opposed to being told, "You cannot be trusted to help the poor so we'll take your money and do it for you." This is unacceptable and I am not going to change the way I feel about this. You can throw all the google searches you want at me and defend socialism to the end and I will still say you are wrong. And saying it isn't socialism is idiotic at best. Of course it is socialism. What would you call it? Give me another term that best describes what you are endorsing here. And for the record I am not afraid of Socialism. I just don't want it in my country. I am not a Socialist. I am a Capitalist. I am against being forced to pay for someone else's way through life. And I don't associate freedom with cash. I associate freedom with my ability to do what I want with my cash. I don't work so you can buy groceries. I work so I can buy groceries. If you don't work you don't get to buy groceries this week. Maybe after a few days of being hungry you will get off your ass and find a job. Being told what you can do with the money you worked your ass of to earn is not Capitalism. It is Socialism. I am not throwing that word out to scare people. I am throwing that word out because that is what you call it.

Plainly, a welfare state is against the United States Constitution. It is a policy that is not supported in a free country nor is it supported in a Capitalist society. Taking the money people earn through their LABOR is unconstitutional and therefore technically illegal. Next thing you are going to tell me is that guns are bad and to make us all safe the government should take them from us. We are too stupid to take care of ourselves so let's let Papa Gov think for us. One more step closer to the slippery slope.

You know what, there are just some people who dont trust themselves enough to compete... Youve seen it, Ive seen it... Insecure , people who look to the gov first.. Im not going to live me life worrying about the IDIOT that falls thru the cracks, no matter how many times you patch that crack hell find another..

Whew how many times have you ran into people and said OMGAWD, how does that guy make it thru life.... Even the most simple of things, not complex issues... If I wanted a garage full of bikes, I had to figure a way to make it so... Dedicated my life to charity work , Day Trading, Rental Property, and really studying how our tax codes work.. Working my own way thru life. Not sucking off the gov's tit

Stay brave soldier , stay brave.

[NinjaNick]

Right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Except to pay for something I am not using. And just to clarify things I am not against paying taxes. I am against the Federal government telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on. I am not above paying sales tax' date=' city tax and even state taxes. I am opposed to paying a tax that would give my money to someone else because they refuse to get a job. And the comment you made earlier to Sonny about 'what do we do with them? Put them in jail or give them welfare?' Simple. You don't do either. In my house if you don't work you don't eat. That's about as simple as it gets. My wife and I both have jobs. We make the money we spend. We also make the money a lot of Americans spend. I am not opposed to helping the poor. I give what I can and sometimes more than I can. I am opposed to being told, "You cannot be trusted to help the poor so we'll take your money and do it for you." This is unacceptable and I am not going to change the way I feel about this. You can throw all the google searches you want at me and defend socialism to the end and I will still say you are wrong. And saying it isn't socialism is idiotic at best. Of course it is socialism. What would you call it? Give me another term that best describes what you are endorsing here. And for the record I am not afraid of Socialism. I just don't want it in my country. I am not a Socialist. I am a Capitalist. I am against being forced to pay for someone else's way through life. And I don't associate freedom with cash. I associate freedom with my ability to do what I want with my cash. I don't work so you can buy groceries. I work so I can buy groceries. If you don't work you don't get to buy groceries this week. Maybe after a few days of being hungry you will get off your ass and find a job. Being told what you can do with the money you worked your ass of to earn is not Capitalism. It is Socialism. I am not throwing that word out to scare people. I am throwing that word out because that is what you call it.

Plainly, a welfare state is against the United States Constitution. It is a policy that is not supported in a free country nor is it supported in a Capitalist society. Taking the money people earn through their LABOR is unconstitutional and therefore technically illegal. Next thing you are going to tell me is that guns are bad and to make us all safe the government should take them from us. We are too stupid to take care of ourselves so let's let Papa Gov think for us. One more step closer to the slippery slope.[/quote']

+1 AMEN! I am far from any libertarian views of living!

[Disclaimer]

Right. No one is forcing me to do anything. Except to pay for something I am not using.

Why do you pay car insurance then' date=' or life insurance, or home insurance... you rarely if ever use ANY of these services, yet you still pay for them.

And just to clarify things I am not against paying taxes. I am against the Federal government telling me what I can and cannot spend my money on. I am not above paying sales tax, city tax and even state taxes. I am opposed to paying a tax that would give my money to someone else because they refuse to get a job.

Yea, because REFUSING to get a job is the ONLY reason that people don't have jobs. C'mon Papa - that's not the ONLY reason people use welfare.

And the comment you made earlier to Sonny about 'what do we do with them? Put them in jail or give them welfare?' Simple. You don't do either. In my house if you don't work you don't eat. That's about as simple as it gets.

God forbid you ever fall on hard times' date=' or go on disability -- because you'll be AWFUL hungry, or maybe you'll decide that food takes priority over your mortgage/rent payment? You can always live in a tent, right?

You can throw all the google searches you want at me and defend socialism to the end and I will still say you are wrong. And saying it isn't socialism is idiotic at best. Of course it is socialism. What would you call it? Give me another term that best describes what you are endorsing here. And for the record I am not afraid of Socialism. I just don't want it in my country. I am not a Socialist. I am a Capitalist. I am against being forced to pay for someone else's way through life.

If you think I'm defending socialism, I'm not. I feel just as strongly as you that I've busted my ass through engineering and graduate school - I deserve every penny I earn, there are certain types of "social programs" that make sense to NOT be in a free capitalist market. At the very minimum, the gov't should step in and create an artificial market by giving people cost-effective options that the private sector will have to compete with. And btw, what's the difference between having some gov't official 1000 miles away filling out your paperwork, and some desk jockey at a private firm, DOING THE SAME THING, 1000 miles away?? The guy in the private sector has a profit motive to deny your coverage, that's the only difference.

And I don't associate freedom with cash. I associate freedom with my ability to do what I want with my cash. I don't work so you can buy groceries. I work so I can buy groceries. If you don't work you don't get to buy groceries this week. Maybe after a few days of being hungry you will get off your ass and find a job. Being told what you can do with the money you worked your ass of to earn is not Capitalism. It is Socialism. I am not throwing that word out to scare people. I am throwing that word out because that is what you call it.

You're reiterating my point about cash = freedom. True freedom is not something that can be exchanged in a capitalist market (bought with money) -- it's a concept' date=' not an economic transaction. And again with the point that LAZINESS is NOT the ONLY excuse for not holding a job. Just because you don't personally know someone who can't work for some other justifiable reason, you want to lump all the people that depend on social programs together as lazy assholes -- WRONG and NAIVE.

Plainly, a welfare state is against the United States Constitution. It is a policy that is not supported in a free country nor is it supported in a Capitalist society. Taking the money people earn through their LABOR is unconstitutional and therefore technically illegal. Next thing you are going to tell me is that guns are bad and to make us all safe the government should take them from us. We are too stupid to take care of ourselves so let's let Papa Gov think for us. One more step closer to the slippery slope.

I need to study up on the constitution then, because I can't find where it's pointed out -- honestly, would you be able to highlight that section for me? All I've ever asked for from anyone in this forum is for unbiased material to backup opinions. Do you mean technically illegal like collecting income taxes are "technically illegal"? I've heard people throw that argument around, which is another myth (A whole 70 page document from the IRS themselves regarding everyones frivolous tax arguments).

Regarding guns, another 'can o' worms'. Start a new thread.

[NinjaNick]

You guys must've done REALLY well in Political Science and Sociology classes in College huh? I HATED THEM! C's in those classes because I couldn't finish my readings because I was so bored with them.

You 2 seem really advance in this topic.

[NinjaNick]

I took Justin's test on his myspace and I test FAR from his libertarian side.

[NinjaNick]

You need to study the meaning of Libertarian before you assume I am not one.

Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies possessing the common themes of individual liberty and minarchism. Libertarianism's ideals' date=' although often varied in detail, typically center on policies in favor of extensive personal liberties, rejecting socialism and communism in favor of individual ownership and control, emphasizing equality before the law rather than equality of outcome, promoting personal responsibility and private charity and opposing welfare statism, and advocating either limiting or entirely eliminating the power and scope of the state in order to maximize individual liberty.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists.[1'] Rights theorists, which include noted deontologists, assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their own bodies or property, provided they do not infringe on the rights of another to engage in that same freedom. They maintain that the initiation of force, defined by physical violence against another or non-physical acts such as fraud or threat, is a violation of that central principle; however, they hold that protective violence, such as self defense, does not constitute an initiation of force, since they hold that such actions necessarily reflect an individual's reaction to a danger initially started by another individual. Many philosophers proclaiming this theory, such as Ayn Rand in her collection The Virtue of Selfishness, recognize the necessity of a limited role of government to protect individuals from any violation of their rights, and to prosecute those who initiate force against others. Some other rights theorists claim to oppose the existence of government altogether, perceiving taxation, among some other usual basic government actions, to be initiation of force (these include anarcho-capitalists).

Consequentialist libertarians, on the other hand, do not speak against "initiation of force," but instead highlight the notion of a society that allows individuals to enjoy political and economic liberty. They believe these cornerstones set the foundation for human happiness and prosperity. Therefore, instead of adhering to the Right Theorist viewpoint, Consequentialists rather focus primarily on the belief that limited government is conducive to good consequences rather than examining whether any particular governmental action they advocate involves initiation of force. This particular branch is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and James M. Buchanan.

Libertarians may differ over particular issues, such as abortion and the United States' ongoing presence in Iraq.[2] The fact that libertarians are often diametrically opposed on so many issues lead to frequent condemnation of the philosophy by many, including those who hold similar thoughts. [3]

In the United States, libertarianism is claimed to be the philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and several of the Founding Fathers.[4] Libertarianism is often being bundled with American conservatism, due to many conservatives wishing to retain the ideas of the Founders of the United States; however, many conservatives are uncomfortable with libertarianism.[5] However, a few conservative Republicans, such as United States congressman Ron Paul, maintain viewpoints sympathetic to libertarian philosophy, as did Ronald Reagan who said he believed that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."[6] The term "libertarian" is used to describe adherents to libertarian principles, and not necessarily to members of Libertarian political parties, who are distinguished with a capital "L" - not all libertarians agree with the platform of any given Libertarian party. Libertarians who support limited government use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism."[7]

Polls indicate that 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans have libertarian views, with "libertarian" being understood as agreeing with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom.[8][9]

Outside of the United States, where the term originated, however, libertarianism is often understood to refer to radical, leftist currents of anarchism. Thus, there arises a disparity between the usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere.[10]

The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of liberty, namely individual liberty. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property.[11] As such, rights-theory libertarians define liberty as being completely free in action, whilst not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty or property of another human being. Thomas Jefferson stated, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Jefferson also said "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." These concepts are otherwise known as the law of equal liberty or the non-aggression principle.[12][13]

Libertarians generally view constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property (if applicable), beyond the need to penalize infringement of one's rights by another, as a violation of liberty. Anarchist libertarians favor no statutory constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers are unnecessary because in the absence of political government individuals will naturally form self-governing social bonds, rules, customs, codes, and contracts. In contrast, minarchist libertarians consider government necessary for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. This includes protecting people and their property from the criminal acts of others, as well as providing for national defense.[14][15]

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do, which is termed positive liberty, a distinction first noted by John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller detail by Isaiah Berlin.[15]

Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and that compromising one necessarily endangers the rest. In democracies, they consider compromise of these individual rights by political action to be tyranny of the majority, a term first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville, and made famous by John Stuart Mill, which emphasizes the threat of the majority to impose majority norms on minorities, and violating their rights in the process. "...There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them..."[16]

But most libertarians would argue that democracy that has become controlled by a minority who benefits (not a racial minority, but a real minority, or a minority in numbers) offers a 'tyranny of the minority' against the real numerical majority. Libertarians are egalitarians and believe all people are created equal. People are seen by libertarians as individuals and not representatives of a race or racial 'minority'. After all what race is a minority depends on where you are, and where you draw the boundaries of where you are.

Having weak state executive control means libertarian societies are more dependent on the courts for conflict resolution. An impartial judiciary can thus be of paramount importance, for without it wealthy and collective interests might run roughshod over the private citizen.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian :bigfinger:

[NinjaNick]

Some libertarians favor Common Law, which they see as less arbitrary and more adaptable than statutory law. The relative benefits of common law evolving toward ever-finer definitions of property rights were articulated by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett. Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution can define away various "commons" such as pollution or other interactions viewed by some as externalities. "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility

Libertarians strongly oppose government infringement of civil liberties such as restrictions on free expression (e.g., speech, press, or religious belief or practice), prohibitions on voluntary association, or encroachments on persons or property. Some make an exception when the infringement is a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behaviour. As such, libertarians oppose any type of censorship (i.e., claims of offensive speech), or pre-trial forfeiture of property (as is commonly seen in drug crime and computer crime proceedings). Furthermore, most libertarians reject the distinction between political and commercial speech or association, a legal distinction often used to protect one type of activity and not the other from government intervention.[15]

Libertarians also oppose any laws restricting personal or consensual behaviour, as well as laws against victimless crimes. As such, they believe that individual choices for products or services should not be limited by government licensing requirements or state-granted monopolies, or in the form of trade barriers that restrict choices for products and services from other nations (see Free trade). They also tend to oppose legal prohibitions on recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution. They believe that citizens should be free to take risks, even to the point of actual harm to themselves. For example, while most libertarians may personally agree with the majority who favour the use of seatbelts, libertarians reject mandating their use as paternalistic. Similarly, many believe that the United States Food and Drug Administration (and other similar bodies in other countries like Health Canada in Canada) shouldn't ban unproven medical treatments, that any decisions on treatment be left to patient and doctor only, and that government should be limited to passing non-binding judgments about efficacy or safety, if it is allowed to do anything at all.[15]

Some libertarians believe such freedoms are a universal birthright, and they accept any material inequalities or wanton behaviour, as long as it harms no one else, likely to result from such a policy of governmental non-intervention. They see economic inequality as an outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable. However, many libertarians believe that extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands is a result of state intervention, and that liberty ultimately leads to a more diffuse distribution though not necessarily an equal one. A prime cause of extreme wealth disparity stems from government granting special privileges to some businesses at the expense of consumers and other businesses.[citation needed] Many libertarians, including Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard, consider that the most fundamental government grant of special privilege involves the legitimization and protection of fractional reserve banking through the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. They therefore call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

[Disclaimer]

You guys must've done REALLY well in Political Science and Sociology classes in College huh? I HATED THEM! C's in those classes because I couldn't finish my readings because I was so bored with them.

You 2 seem really advance in this topic.

Far from it, I had TWO free electives during my 4 years, and I spent them on Cost Accounting and Management... I just choose to research things before forming an opinion. I do like debates though... I end up learning a lot while researching rebuttals.

And Papa -- I will make an honest attempt to watch that video you linked me to, it'll just be tough in between 50+ hour work week and 8 hours of grad school courses.

[NinjaNick]

Ok Nick. Now answer this one honesty. Did you read all of that? You should. You may find you are a Libertarian after all.

I read it and there was some of me inside there I admit.

[Disclaimer]

Easy answer. I am a law abiding citizen. Home owners insurance is law unless you can prove 'financial responsibility.' I cannot for my house so I carry insurance....If someone is going to pay me a death benefit and I don't have to contribute I am all for it. Here is the kicker... AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COME AT THE EXPENSE OF MY FELLOW TAXPAYER!!!

I think using the examples I did' date=' they were bad examples. But lets take FEMA for example -- is it fair to spend our tax dollars rebuilding New Orleans? What do we do with the displaced people, ones without insurance? I just want your take on that.

I know it isn't the only reason people are unemployed. One main reason is lack of education. But I feel a big reason is the welfare system is just enabling people to sit on their asses.

I think these are the two points we both AGREE upon. Education is the way out, and welfare is an enabler -- but even so, it still serves a very valuable purpose in society. The system DOES help, more than just the lazy ones.

And I have fallen on hard times. I have been laid off on occasion. That is why I have a savings account. I hold nobody responsible for my misfortune. I also don't live outside my means. Plainly put' date=' I own 90% of the stuff in and around my home. I have excellent credit and still have a very low debt to income ratio. I refuse to put myself in a situation that would put me at the mercy of the bank. [/quote'] I also do not live beyond my means, but many people don't have that luxury, nor do they have the self-discipline or willpower to be like that. These people will never change, welfare or not. But, providing these people with a minimum standard of living benefits society as a whole and prevents rampant crime. I just take solace in the fact that I do live a better lifestyle than most through my hard work. I'm not rich, but I live a lot better than those on welfare.

It is the fact that I am being FORCED to pay for something I refuse to use. I don't need or want government assistance.

But' date=' you aren't (if you read the link to Obama's example plan) -- it's like your car/cycle insurance, you just have to prove your somehow financially responsible for your own health care. You dont' HAVE to pay the gov't for it.

Then explain to me your definition of freedom. Apparently doing what you want with what is yours isn't the right one. So, enlighten me.

My point was merely that your scope of 'freedom' is way too narrow than making choices with your dollars - voting with your dollars = capitalism (and economic system). Freedom is MUCH broader than just money, its a concept, its an ideology. Having the gov't grab a few bills really doesn't impact your freedoms (in general) in a drastic way. Yea, you resent the government for it, but it's a necessary evil to have some of the things we as Americans enjoy.

Who's naive now?

Referring to my IRS link' date=' if you dove into the PDF -- you would see that there have been MANY judgments against people claiming the income tax is illegal. So, unless your video sets some compelling precedent where it proves people can no longer be prosecuted for not paying income tax, there's probably numerous holes and exceptions in the video. Just my guess, I haven't seen it yet, but I've been down the road with these arguments before. People are still going to JAIL and being FINED for income tax evasion. If it's illegal or unconstitutional, why hasn't the supreme court struck it down? And, it's not SLAVE labor, the income tax provides one of the most basic services we have in this country -- military defense (defense meaning PROTECTION, not invasion -- this is key)

No, I think only one of us did well in Political Science and Sociology. The other one of us was always in trouble for telling his professors they were idiots.

You'd be surprised, we're probably in the same boat. I never took either class.

[Disclaimer]

Isaac -- I began watching the video and I could barely stomach the slanted, nonfactual information in the first FIVE minutes. You don't watch films like that and accept it as gospel do you? Hell, I like Micheal Moore films, but even I know his facts are skewed and he has an agenda...but, at least they're FACTS. This film is blatantly misleading.

In the first five minutes of the video -- which, I'll go out on a limb here, is the setup and premise of the entire rest of the 1h 49min debacle -- the narrator says that the 16th Amendment was never ratified (but the public was lied to that it was) and therefore illegal. Utterly, and completely wrong! And this argument has been shot down in court over and over and over.

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

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

It also makes mention of the "EVIL" Federal Reserve Act. Do you REALLY feel we're worse off as a country for establishing and regulating currency? Honestly... Most people would tend to agree that they'd rather go to the store, or a motorcycle dealership, or bank and use currency, rather than trying to trade actual precious metal, heads of cattle, or bushels of grain -- please, you can't be serious.

I don't know how much more of this video I can suffer through -- it's just plain WRONG.

--------

You might want to check out these additional links for more information on Aaron Russo (the filmmaker) and a review of his film. Since he was on the hook for about $2M in IRS liens, it seems like this movie was an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophesy:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6099842-7.html (REVIEW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo (Read the section on his political career)