Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wanted: New Political Party

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sven, Jan 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sven

    Sven Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,808
    Location:
    Los Gatos, CA
    Wanted: New political party.

    Desired attributes / positions:

    -firm on 2nd amendment / RKBA
    -less money spent on the war on drugs
    -less money spent (OUTSIDE US) on the war on terrorism
    -less money spent on social programs not making a measureable difference

    Call me a dreamer.
     
  2. David Roberson

    David Roberson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Iron Station, NC
    I'd call you a libertarian. The LP already espouses all of these.
     
  3. shu

    shu Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    tip of texas
    Sven -

    You describe the Libertarian platform.
     
  4. GinSlinger

    GinSlinger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Hill Country, Texas
  5. Sven

    Sven Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,808
    Location:
    Los Gatos, CA
    Let me add one additional parameter:

    -pro-public schools

    My understanding is that the libertarian platform is against public schools. Help me here.
     
  6. shu

    shu Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    tip of texas
    Public Schools?
    Have not researched the official LP position on 'Government Schools'. Suspect they are largely reconciled to the concept of some public support (funding) of education but would posit that:
    a) it aint the business of the feral gummit; b) control should be more at the local or individual level; c) free enterprise (voucher) system would produce more value for the dollar spent.
     
  7. David Roberson

    David Roberson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Iron Station, NC
    Sven, here's what the Libertarian Party has to say about public schools:

    Public schools are supposed to provide a good education for our children. More often than not, they don't. Each year public schools graduate more and more students who are unable to read, write, or do basic arithmetic. Our children's talents are wasted because we continue to trust politicians to do this important job. Politicians have had decades to fix these problems, and they haven't been able to do so.

    In recent years, government involvement in education has grown rapidly. At the same time, the quality of the education offered to most public school students has gone down. We are finding, as with so many other government efforts, that throwing more money or more regulations at this problem does not fix it. The best way to end the crisis in education is to deal with the main cause -- government involvement.

    The politicians who run the public schools have created new regulations and mandated new programs. These are imposed on local schools. We have more bureaucracy and less innovation. We have more red tape and less creativity. More resources are spent on these matters. The cost of education goes up. The quality of education goes down.

    Many public schools have become dangerous places for our children. The news is filled with reports of drug use, rapes, assaults, and murders in our schools. It's difficult to expect a child to learn in a place where the child does not feel safe. Yet most families have no choice but to send their children to the local public school, no matter how dangerous.

    It's no surprise that poor children suffer the most under the current system. Wealthy parents can afford to send their children to better or safer schools. Poor parents have no choice. Their children generally end up in the schools with the worst problems. These children end up at a public school, which is obligated to accept every local student, even those who are not interested in learning or who have a reputation for being disruptive or dangerous. The current system traps poor children in poor schools. This is just one reason that many parents have given up hope that their children will escape the poverty they have known.

    To solve a crisis, you must recognize and eliminate its cause. The crisis in education is no different. The most important step is to end government control of education. We must move toward a system where parents have good, safe, affordable choices for educating their children.

    To transfer control of education from bureaucrats to parents and teachers and encourage alternatives to the public school monopoly, the Libertarian Party would:

    Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another.

    Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools.

    Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children.

    Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.
     
  8. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    NO political parties are needed, AFAIC. Can't we just get rid of them all? :D

    Just think, CongressCritters would have to run on what THEY believe and vote for what THEY support, and WE would get to know them and might even be able to trust them as individuals.... :rolleyes:
     
  9. coati

    coati Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Your new party has many trappings of Jeffersonian democracy, Jefferson being an advocate of public education.

    I mean trappings in the good sense. Jefferson was considered quite liberal in his day, before liberalism took on many aspects of socialism.
     
  10. GinSlinger

    GinSlinger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Hill Country, Texas
    Ahhh, Blackhawk, a true George Washington!

    Seriously, that WOULD be ideal. Espicially since it would definitely put the brakes on Congress.

    GinSlinger
     
  11. AZTOY

    AZTOY Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,078
    Location:
    Fort Wainwright Alaska
    I would LOVE a RKBA Party .

    All members must be gun owers and be firm on our 2nd amendment rights.:D
     
  12. dev_null

    dev_null Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,338
    Location:
    Austin TX
    If we must have political parties -- and I consider myself a Jefferson/Madison/Mason type -- then I want one that's like the Libertarians *minus* the free rein for Big Business. A more balanced approach, somewhere in between laissez faire and the excesses of JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie on the one hand, and the government interference and socialist agenda of, say, the PRK.

    -0-
     
  13. BigJake_old

    BigJake_old member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    i agree dev_null.

    Another Dreamer.... Parameters i would add

    Flat 15 % Income tax, seems like it should work, but then all the exemtion BS and whatever falls in and you still have the middle class supporting the country while the rich and the lazy get off easy. I wish there was a way that could work, there would have to be SOOO much reform though.

    Another thing i consider worth pursuing is a MUCH stiffer legal system. Deplorable prison conditions like china would make the place less apealing, therefore making people a little more lawfull? I think consequences should be much stiffer too, you have convicted murders in jail for 5-10 because we don't have the room to house them. IMO, you muder or rape a person, once you're convicted, they hang ya from the nearest tree, no reason for us to pay to keep that kind of person alive. problem with that being its still not foolproof and inocent people are going to get shafted too.


    BIGEST thing i would change though would be that god aweful NAFTA thing, that has to go. all these idiots wonder why the ecomomy is going to hell, look to slick willy and his crowd for taking the fence down between us, canada,mexico, and china. The canuks (no offence) come across the border and sell thier wheat for american dollars, brazil has free rien to import soy beans for next to nothing (on a railroad we built for them..) Being a farm kid coming of age, i see this now. the american family farms' days are numbered, and it sickens me. Cheap steal comes from japan and china with no tax. We help everyone else out by giving them a free hand in trade and what not, and then wonder why people in OUR country are all out of work. it must be nice to be so naive... I say screw the world, we have enough problems of our own.

    thats just what was on my mind. if any of it is completly wrong or incorrect, let me know.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2003
  14. coati

    coati Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    dev_null,

    Well said! Jefferson seemed to want to step away from the formality of the European elite and distrusted the influence that banks and traders had.
     
  15. Wiz

    Wiz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    North Texas
    I would add two more criteria:

    1) Maintain Roe v. Wade
    2) Get religion out of government

    As previous posters have said, all of these things are part of the Libertarian Party's agenda. I am not a registered Libertarian, but I like most of their platform.

    - Wiz
     
  16. wQuay

    wQuay Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    109
    Interesting. For the first, you advocate granting the judicial branch (and with it government in general) the privilege to create rights and laws, thereby nullifying the purpose of the legislature. The founding fathers called this "tyranny." The second, "Let's get religion out of government and use my anti-religion instead," is nothing new and requires no further comment.
     
  17. Wiz

    Wiz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    North Texas
    First of all, I am advocating a platform position of pro choice. On the contrary from your comments, I do not want the government to involve itself in legislating my personal/family's life.

    Secondly, I did not say anything about being anti-religion. I just think that religion has no place in government or business. If we are to live in a truly "free" society, then everyone should have a right to believe and think freely. We should not have one faith imposed upon us. That is why this country came to be in the first place. That is all I am saying.

    - Wiz
     
  18. David Roberson

    David Roberson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Iron Station, NC
    Wiz, you also are describing the Libertarian Party (unofficial motto: "Pro-choice on everything").
     
  19. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Re public schools. A little digging around reveals that there is a definite relationship between the amount of money spent on schools at the state level, and the student scores on standardized tests.

    Guess what? The more money they spend, the worse the students do.

    You could look it up.

    pax

    A lot of people can cover their mistakes, but not teachers. Their mistakes grow up to be school board members. -- John Leo
     
  20. Soap

    Soap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,735
    Ack! I'm about to have a coronary here!

    dev_null- What exactly is wrong with people becoming extremely wealthy through laissez-faire economics?

    Big Jake- Free trade is what makes the world go 'round. Protectionism only "helps" a specific demographic. Trade restrictions just make goods more expensive and more scarce in an economy. It is great that the Canadians can come here and sell wheat and that the Brazillians can import soy. This is economically efficient. The reason why the people in our country are out of work is because they are demanding too high of prices for a good with high substitutability. By trying to solve problems with protectionist economic policy, you will create an innumerable amount of greater problems.
     
  21. Oatka

    Oatka Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Nevada
    Another one:

    401Ks for all elected/appointed pols instead of taxpayer-funded pensions (later on the states). Once they leave office they get a lump-sum xfer to the mutual fund of their choice.

    Some retired pols are making more than their original wage, thanks to COLA.

    A side benefit would be that if their pensions were at risk to the economic health of this country, they wouldn't be voting for such self-destructive bills as NAFTA and H1Bs.
     
  22. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    I continue to be amazed at people who advocate maintaining our right to defend ourselves from violence with firearms who also in turn maintain that other lives aren't worth saving. Those positions are impossible to reconcile logically, IMO.

    Life is either worth defending, or it isn't.

    It sounds to me as if you're looking for the Libertarian Party, Sven. They've actually gotten better on the RKBA over the years, and they're for no drug war (want to treat drugs like alcohol and end Prohibition) or involvement overseas.

    You're not dreaming; these people actually exist.
     
  23. dev_null

    dev_null Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,338
    Location:
    Austin TX
    I'm not going to go into all this yet again, but the issue isn't whether someone gets rich, but whether we can trust people in positions of power to act ethically. I put it to you that the answer is all to often "not unless they are compelled to, usually through a desire on their part to avoid punishment for fsking people over."

    If the business practices of the 19th century and earlier don't ring a bell, then perhaps those of Nike and Enron will. Sorry, I don't see that it's any better for the foot in Orwell's famous boot to be Big Business any more than Big Brother.

    I'm not advocating Big Government or a Socialist "Worker's Paradise" as the alternative (I'll nip that particular strawman in the bud before it gets raised), I'm suggesting that just as we need an agreement on reasonable limits to individual behavior (murder, rape, theft, etc.), we need some on corporate behavior as well.

    -0-
     
  24. Oracle

    Oracle Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Austell, GA
    We've had those laws for a very long time, they're called anti-fraud laws. It doesn't matter whether someone is trying to defraud you of money given for the sale of a pig, or if a corporation is trying to defraud it's shareholders or customers, it's the same thing.

    Fraud has always been illegal, why do we need any laws on the matter other than a general explanation of what fraud is (such as: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain), and a statute that says that practice is illegal. Then apply it as need be.

    Law doesn't need to be complicated, it can be very simple, and should be. A government in which the law cannot be easily understood by the common man is a tyrannical government.
     
  25. shu

    shu Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    tip of texas
    Well said, Oracle
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page