It's only the mindset of the left that the people have the power to vote out politicians who implement policies we don't like? You'd think that would be at the core of the mindset of anyone living in a democratic system.
Also considering the Militia Act of 1792 mandated able bodied men to buy their own muskets and powder this isn't something new.
I'd rather vote for Libertarian candidates, but they have no chance of winning. So I generally vote Republican because social issues just aren't all that important to me because I'm not gay, I don't smoke weed, etc. I think gays should be allowed to marry and adults should be able to smoke if they want, but it's not my biggest concern. I care about the free market and reducing the size of the federal government. And many Republicans are big-government statists. I don't like those Republicans. There aren't even many Republican candidates that I feel are serious about reducing the size of the government. But some at least pay lip-service to it. There are zero Democrats that I know of who want to reduce the size of the government.
Except you can choose to not drive a car. And the insurance companies charge different rates for different drivers. There is an over-utilization of insurance in healthcare. Insurance is being used where people pay a $10 co-pay for something minor like a routine visit to the doctor. It's no wonder it's so expensive. Things like that should be payed out of pocket, if you want to drive costs down.
I'm sorry man, but that means you are part of the problem. You are voting for lip service -- you say so yourself. If the Republicans aren't in action any better than the Democrats please stop voting for them and defending them. They are a wretched statist party that uses the government for both economic and political repression. Whether you do so as the lesser of two evils or not, every time you vote for them you are voting for your own political enemies. And if everyone who is doing the same would stop and vote for 3rd parties, then those 3rd parties would cease to not have a chance.
They don't have a chance anyway in national elections. I vote for the best candidate possible who at least has a shot to win. Voting 3rd party is meaningless. I'd only vote 3rd party if the candidate had a lot of support even if he realistically couldn't win just to send a message. I'm not going to vote for somebody who is only going to get a few percent of the vote.
But if everyone who gave that exact argument not to vote 3rd party actually voted and supported 3rd party then they WOULD have a change. I don't mean to be rude -- but the reason they don't have a chance is because of people like you.
If they are polling well and have support, I'll support them. If I'm called and polled on who I'm voting for, I'll say the candidate I most want to win no matter what party they are in. So if the polling data is decent, I'll actually vote for them in an election. I voted for Ron Paul during the Republican primaries even though I knew he had no chance to win.
Are you for a system where people without insurance are denied medical treatment? Is that what you want? In a libertarian abstract-reality, I would be for that. If you want to take the chance of not being insured, fine, just don't expect to have any medical treatment should you get hit by a car or shot by a maniac. That would be how it was set up if medical care was actually a choice. It's not a choice though. Sick and injured people get medical treatment, period. If you choose not to drive, there is no chance that I am going to have to pay for an accident because of you. If you opt out of health insurance, I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR YOU SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN. This shouldn't be a hard concept to support. You can NEVER opt out of the chance of getting ill or injured (well...not until we have nano-machines surging through our veins acting like little surgeons/internists). Last time I checked, I couldn't decide whether or not or when I was going to get cancer. Should you be forced to pay for my medical bills because I opted out of insurance?
You can be prosecuted in some circumstances for not procuring medical treatment for your child. Your car must have certain repairs and equipment to pass inspection. You have to get firearms safety training?
By the way, I'm not staunchly Libertarian. Libertarianism makes a lot of sense when talking strictly about numbers on paper and statistics. But in the real world, those are real people and real families. It may be too harsh on those who cannot afford to pay.
I don't know -- I mean, that is better than nothing I guess. Polls are a tough way to determine whether to support them or not, because polls ask questions like "who are you likely to vote for" and people don't list the 3rd party candidate they most want, but the main party candidate who is more likely to win but who they also disagree with more than they agree with. Just...I mean, that is all fine I guess, but, don't defend the Republicans please. You hate them almost as much as I do it seems (at least you should considering what you claim your politics are). Blast the Democrats...but blast the Republicans too. Even if you don't vote your conscience, at least speak it -- and keep in mind how big government in actuality the Republicans are. Just as people who support the Democrats need to keep in mind how pro-big business they really are. Republicans pay lip service to small government and liberty and Democrats pay lip service to helping the poor -- but in actuality both parties just act in the service of the corporations that back them, not the people who listen to their rhetoric and vote them in to office.
I don't disagree. But I agree with Republicans in general way more than Democrats. There are some Republicans I like such as Rand Paul.
Thanks for the conversation -- it is always good to be able to see how much commonality right libertarians still have with leftist libertarians -- despite many in both camps who like to demonize the other. Just...and I'll have to tend to my chillun and the NCAA tournament full time after this comment... just, think about this -- what is more likely to happen -- the republicans actually become a good party that change the status quo in government OR that a 3rd party rises from obscurity? I mean, neither one is likely, but since there is zero chance of the Democrats or Republicans ever improving, I think the only way out is to go outside of the two party system -- whether that be through direct action or a 3rd party (I prefer the former).
I agree... Kind of like gays being allowed to marry and get benefits... Ohh wait. Well abortion.... Oh wait. Look lets not kid ourselves, both parties do it... They want people to do those things they agree with and not those things they dislike.
Remember when America's founding fathers forced people to buy health insurance? John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton all favored a govt. mandate forcing people to buy health insurance. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...on-also-supported-government-run-health-care/
Sure. I have an experiment for you. Go out and get laid. Have a kid. Exercise your right not to buy anything for them. See how it works out dude.
Much higher chance of Republicans becoming "good". Libertarians have already realized this. Their best chance to get elected is to infiltrate the Republican Party and change the ideas of the party from the inside. That's why Ron Paul ran as a Republican.
