• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian policies

Which libertarian stances do you hold?

  • deregulation

    Votes: 11 25.0%

  • low taxes

    Votes: 16 36.4%

  • social freedom

    Votes: 38 86.4%

  • open borders

    Votes: 15 34.1%

  • right to privacy

    Votes: 34 77.3%

  • I don't hold any libertarian stances

    Votes: 4 9.1%
  • Total voters
    44
OlNate said:
And.... you got dusted by dragging out the California example, which always tends to frustrate more than validate libertarians. It might sound like a ****hole to you, and perhaps me as well in certain respects, but at this point, given the facts, it seems you are blaming regulation on companies failing that couldn't survive in the biggest American market, while being blessed with three major ports on the Pacific....lol... Sometimes businesses fail because they suck.

If you can't survive in an regulated environment, while other businesses can, it's not the regulation, it's you.
Click to expand...

California has a whole lot going for it. Great weather (save for fire season and mudslides). A effing awesome coastline. Mountains aplenty. Big trees... I could go on forever... (hyperbole)

It is also over regulated, over taxed, double taxed in some cases, high cost, billions on a train to nowhere, freeing felons left and right, etc.

So ****hole it ain't. But there are ****ty aspects.

California rates at the bottom for being Business friendly.

I am on a cell so I can't link to all the articles stating this.

And the "sucking" businesses include Toyota, Peterbilt, Chevron, Albertsons, etc.
 
Harshaw said:
You make it sound like there are never regulations designed to favor X company over Y, or to protect entrenched interests against competition.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough...what I meant was if, for example, Plastics Company A survives and remains profitable under environmental regulations, but Plastics Company B does not, then that's Company B's fault, not the regulation.

If the government is using regulations to discourage certain types of business from operating in California, I guess that's their prerogative...given their GDP, I'd say their strategy is working more than it isn't.
 
Fledermaus said:
California has a whole lot going for it. Great weather (save for fire season and mudslides). A effing awesome coastline. Mountains aplenty. Big trees... I could go on forever... (hyperbole)

It is also over regulated, over taxed, double taxed in some cases, high cost, billions on a train to nowhere, freeing felons left and right, etc.

So ****hole it ain't. But there are ****ty aspects.

California rates at the bottom for being Business friendly.

I am on a cell so I can't link to all the articles stating this.

And the "sucking" businesses include Toyota, Peterbilt, Chevron, Albertsons, etc.
Click to expand...

I think you're making my point for me. :)

Putting aside social initiatives for a moment, and looking at environmental regulations that would cause problems for business, as you talk about the great weather, the gorgeous coastline, I can only say "Well, then, ya, of course they want to protect that". As Americans you all should, it's one of your best places, and you should protect those places. If big car manufacturers or oil companies, or whoever, can't survive there while respecting that priority, then yes, they do suck, and should go somewhere else.

Social initiatives are another thing, and while I don't agree with all of them, it makes sense that in a place where they prioritize their environment, they would the types to engage in progressive social experiments to find better ways there. In that regard mistakes may be made, but mistakes don't invalidate the need to keep trying.

I don't know, man... everywhere has ****ty aspects, but Cali seems to be the poster child for conservative / right wing hate, and I don't think it's deserved.
 
OlNate said:
I think you're making my point for me. :)

Putting aside social initiatives for a moment, and looking at environmental regulations that would cause problems for business, as you talk about the great weather, the gorgeous coastline, I can only say "Well, then, ya, of course they want to protect that". As Americans you all should, it's one of your best places, and you should protect those places. If big car manufacturers or oil companies, or whoever, can't survive there while respecting that priority, then yes, they do suck, and should go somewhere else.

Social initiatives are another thing, and while I don't agree with all of them, it makes sense that in a place where they prioritize their environment, they would the types to engage in progressive social experiments to find better ways there. In that regard mistakes may be made, but mistakes don't invalidate the need to keep trying.

I don't know, man... everywhere has ****ty aspects, but Cali seems to be the poster child for conservative / right wing hate, and I don't think it's deserved.
Click to expand...

Take it any way you want...

Companies big and small have abandoned California in droves.... And they have taken middle class employees with them.

The question is not just what is the GDP now, but how would the GDP be had they stayed.

Oh, and there is the whole underfunded pension thing going on.... California might be the next default state. We have already had cities default due to the pension issue.
 
Waddy said:
Look, I can't help it if you're frustrated with your minimum wage job. Get yourself skilled-up and you, too, could be a plumber or a carpenter. Well, maybe not, you do need minimum smarts. You obviously have no idea how economic markets work. You keep demanding a raise in the minimum wage, while I say minimum wage should never be a career goal; get trained in a skill that is in DEMAND. You just can't get around that point. Frustrating, I know. For you socialists, government is the answer to everything. Big government, the bigger the better. Keep 'em on the liberal plantation.
Click to expand...

You are a joke. You have no idea who i am but lacking the wit, intelligence and education to argue economics beyond your childish understanding at a 101 level you choose instead too attack the player instead of the argument.

Need i remind you of your cherry picking hypocrisy of demanding the government interfere in labour while pretending your fantasy market will cure all ills. It would seem the best you have is to make **** up about me instead of dealing with your own failure to understand economics.
 
soylentgreen said:
You are a joke. You have no idea who i am but lacking the wit, intelligence and education to argue economics beyond your childish understanding at a 101 level you choose instead too attack the player instead of the argument.

Need i remind you of your cherry picking hypocrisy of demanding the government interfere in labour while pretending your fantasy market will cure all ills. It would seem the best you have is to make **** up about me instead of dealing with your own failure to understand economics.
Click to expand...

The joke is your belief that government can solve all problems. Typical of liberals you try to shout down the voice of reason and demean anyone who opposes your idiotic ideas. Once again, back to the original question; if you want to rise above your minimum wage job get yourself trained in a skill that is in demand. I can make some recommendations if you can't decide where to go. I'm good at telling liberals where to go.
 
MTAtech said:
If one believes that doctors should be licensed; buildings should meet fire codes; banks insured by the FDIC shouldn't make risky investments; and commercial aircraft should have mechanical parts replaced on a schedule, you believe in government regulations.

I haven't seen any real evidence that government wastes any more money than large private businesses.
Click to expand...

Yes. This was a hilarious little spoof of the libertarian worldview:
L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department
 
Masterhawk said:
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.

4. open borders

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted
Click to expand...

I picked social freedom and right to privacy. I lean toward deregulation, but not wholesale. I also want low(er) taxes, but do not believe it is wise to eliminate taxes altogether. I did not vote for the last two.

I absolutely do not want open borders.
 
Masterhawk said:
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.

4. open borders

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted
Click to expand...

All of them, but I understand that some are impractical in the current political landscape. For instance, open borders with a large social welfare state is unsustainable.
 
Masterhawk said:
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.

4. open borders

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted
Click to expand...


You ommitted the libertarian foreign policy.
 
Masterhawk said:
Which libertarian policies do you hold? If there's one you don't hold, please comment below as to why.

1. deregulation means removing any government regulations
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of removing all regulations. But I would like to see a lot of them rolled back. But a lot of these regulations strangle innovation, restrict consumer's choices, and help big business avoid competition. Businesses used to oppose regulations, but a lot them have learned if they can buy enough legislators (on the local, state, or federal level) they can often enact "regulations" that help no one but themselves.

2. reducing government spending means cutting spending in social programs, subsidies, and in military to reduce taxes
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes please.

3. social freedom means that you believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. In other words, government intervention in recreational drug use, gambling, and people's sex lives is minimal if at all present.
Click to expand...

Yes!

4. open borders
Click to expand...

Here is one where I break with libertarian orthodoxy. I would like to see it become far, far easier to enter this country legally as an immigrant, but I do think any sovereign nation has the right and responsibility to police who enters their country. To do otherwise strikes me as irresponsible and dangerous.

5. right to privacy not only means that the authorities should not search property without probable cause but also that surveillance should be restricted
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom