Either way, you're going to get a pro-war, big government, big spending, liberty reducing president (unless Mccain wins and then dies which isn't likely).
Many of the third party candidates have signed the Campaign for Liberty pledge that calls for ending the wars, bringing troops home from places like Korea, Japan, the middle east, etc. It also calls for more protection of our privacy such as repealing the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA as well as restoring habeas corpus. It also calls for ending the increase in the national debt and is against the Federal Reserve and fiat currency. Nader, McKinney (Green), and Chuck Baldwin(Constitution) have all signed this pledge. (Sadly Bob Barr did not and has lost my vote).
Sorry, but like every other election year, this year I'm voting to protect my uterine rights.
I also have no problem with the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, big government and spending (for causes I support), and I fail to see how Obama is pro-war and how Palin would not be any of those things you list in your first sentence.
You should drop the third-party fanaticism and attack the two-party system from a local level, not federally, if you want to be effective. Take some notes from how Obama got people involved.
So you want to throw away several other rights for that one? Not to mention that some of the third parties would give back the rights that Obama, McCain, and Bush have taken as well as keeping abortion around (not that abortion laws would change much anyways since it's just a distraction issue). Also you have absolutely no say in what the government spends its money on. Would you be ok with the government suddenly taking 50% of your paycheck to then send police forces to arrest every doctor and every worker that has ever worked in an abortion clinic? What about the government spending that money on abstinence only education? You wouldn't like that and I wouldn't either. The solution is to remove the government's "charity" in favor of personal charity where you can pick and choose the cause that you want to give money to. If I had 20% more of my paycheck, I'd gladly donate money to help people in third world countries have food and clean water. I'd also donate to programs like the one laptop per child program to make sure that
( ... )
You are right, government is wasteful. However, ALL public service is wasteful on some level. Without government involvement, you have no way of knowing that the money you decide to give to specific charities are actually used for what you want it to. You have no way of knowing the accounting practices of said organizations. You even don't have the expertise and budgetary knowledge of what is a worthwhile charity to give to, that does good work and needs the money, as opposed to one that sits on their asses doing nothing. One other idea you might not have thought of. You don't know about most charity organizations. Important places where money is being spent by the government would then have to start advertising their existence and thus spending more money.
Finally, of course you have say over what the government does with your money. VOTE!
If I had 20% more of my paycheck, I'd gladly donate money to help people in third world countries have food and clean water.While I don't know you and cannot judge whether this is true for you specifically or not, I will bet you 20% of my monthly paycheck that it's not true for most people
( ... )
This is actually called Social Engineering. I'm against the government doing these kinds of things because the government gets it wrong. Right now, they try to give incentives to do things that are deemed morally right. The problem is, not everyone has the same sense of morals. For example, if a man and a woman, are married, they get a tax deduction. However, because it is deemed morally wrong by the federal government(which I disagree with btw), if two men or two women are married, they do not get this same incentive
( ... )
It's just that I'm over the whole GOVERNMENT ALWAYS BAD, PEOPLE ALWAYS GOOD argument. Because it's not, and they're not.
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
Many of the third party candidates have signed the Campaign for Liberty pledge that calls for ending the wars, bringing troops home from places like Korea, Japan, the middle east, etc. It also calls for more protection of our privacy such as repealing the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA as well as restoring habeas corpus. It also calls for ending the increase in the national debt and is against the Federal Reserve and fiat currency. Nader, McKinney (Green), and Chuck Baldwin(Constitution) have all signed this pledge. (Sadly Bob Barr did not and has lost my vote).
You should vote third party, reject the republicrats, and support liberty. Here is more details on the pledge: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=484
Reply
I also have no problem with the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, big government and spending (for causes I support), and I fail to see how Obama is pro-war and how Palin would not be any of those things you list in your first sentence.
You should drop the third-party fanaticism and attack the two-party system from a local level, not federally, if you want to be effective. Take some notes from how Obama got people involved.
Reply
Reply
Finally, of course you have say over what the government does with your money. VOTE!
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
Reply
Also I was just trying to say my thoughts on things and was not trying to sound harsh or anything. If it came across that way, then I apologize.
I'll end with that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment