Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[suzzer99]

Libertarians, 9/11 consipracy nuts and creationists--I have no clue where or how to even begin arguing with any of you. Maybe I'm missing something. Can someone please lay out the libertarian stance on government in like a paragraph or two?

Basically what services (police, trash, SEC, etc.) if any do you think people need to pay for, and how does that happen? Do hospitals still treat severely injured patients who have no money?

Also I know you all *have* to believe global warming is a complete crock. But let's say just for argument it comes out as completely proven and even the Fox pundits throw in the towel. How does that get dealt with?

Are monopolies a good thing? Was the AT&T breakup wrong? Any bets on whether we'd all still be renting dial phones from AT&T if that didn't happen?

So many questions.

We were totally wrong for getting into WWII right? Just purely for logistical reasons and misrepresentations about the German threat. Not because it's wrong to ever enter a foreign conflict. It just happens that that's always the case.

If Georgia wanted to re institute slavery, would that be ok? We're not going to fight to stop them right? Civil rights in the 60s? Wrong to bring in the natl guard right? People should just move or put up with it.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


In 1972, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional. In 1976, they looked at the same death penalty and decided that it was, in fact, constitutional.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not exactly accurate. The Court in 1972 did not hold that that the death penalty was unconstitutional; they held that several existing death penalty statutes contained unconstitutional elements, effectively placing a moratorium on the death penalty until the court managed to find a specific death penalty statute that was constitutional. In 1976 they found such a statute, and other most states modeled their new death penalty laws after this one to assure constitutionality.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Socialists, Al-Qaeda deniers and evolutionists--I have no clue where or how you got brainwashed on these topics.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Oh wait, Public Schools... I forgot...

Oh and mainstream media...

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
js,

what makes you think a universal healthcare system is anywhere close to feasible? as a country we cant afford to pay for it, especially because such a program will lack the economic incentives to be as efficient as possible which a free market system will have. and 80% of americans or whatever might support universal healthcare as an idea, but when it comes time to pay for it that will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can't afford it? National health care would almost certainly be much cheaper overall than the system we have now. How does every other industrialized country, most of which as poorer than the US, afford it? Most Americans would support national health care if they actually knew what it cost, because it would cost much less than they are paying now.

That doesn't mean it would be "as efficient as possible", but no health care system can possibly achieve anything close to maximum possible efficiency due to severe information assymetries inherent in the market.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Socialists, Al-Qaeda deniers and evolutionists--I have no clue where or how to even begin arguing with any of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe in evolution?

And just for the record I think our congress is ridiculously out of control spending wise and I have no idea how it's going to be fixed if ever. This recent *Republican* congress has seriously been the worst congress ever in terms of pork. You know when Rolling Stone and National Review are basically agreeing it has to be true. We need an ousider like Arnold to come in and kick ass, but I don't think that kind of mandate is possible on a US scale. The old guard is just too entrenched and too powerful.

I also think the war in Iraq has probably saved us from all kinds of attacks at home and I think we should tough it out. Although we probably won't and just cause more tragedy when we leave. I do think it was a gigantic, completely unjustified mistake to invade though. It's hard to imagine how anyone with any common sense could see it otherwise.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Socialists, Al-Qaeda deniers and evolutionists--I have no clue where or how to even begin arguing with any of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe in evolution?

And just for the record I think our congress is ridiculously out of control spending wise and I have no idea how it's going to be fixed if ever. This recent *Republican* congress has seriously been the worst congress ever in terms of pork. You know when Rolling Stone and National Review are basically agreeing it has to be true. We need an ousider like Arnold to come in and kick ass, but I don't think that kind of mandate is possible on a US scale. The old guard is just too entrenched and too powerful.

I also think the war in Iraq has probably saved us from all kinds of attacks at home and I think we should tough it out. Although we probably won't and just cause more tragedy when we leave. I do think it was a gigantic, completely unjustified mistake to invade though. It's hard to imagine how anyone with any common sense could see it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm aren't rolling Stone and national Review liberal? Just because they dont like republican pork doesn't mean they have gotten right all of a sudden

No I don't believe in Evolution, neither did Darwin, PM me for details.

I think the war in Iraq was expensive and unnecessary because people in this country can protect themselves, and should be given the opportunity. Arm passengers on planes like some SA countries, and you prevent 9/11's from happening.

I hate all the spending also. Arnold is way too liberal imo. We need someone who is ANTI government. Ron Paul, Ross Perot, someone who will cut whole departments, not just spending.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't afford it? National health care would almost certainly be much cheaper overall than the system we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
How does every other industrialized country, most of which as poorer than the US, afford it?

[/ QUOTE ]

for starters, they have much higher taxes than us. If our taxes were suddenly raised like that, people would be very pissed. they also have vastly different demographics, less obesity, just comparing the two like that is absurd. we would have to cover more than 200 million than germany does. And we have a much fatter and unhealthier population. Not incentivizing people to lose weight through higher premiums is economic suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Most Americans would support national health care if they actually knew what it cost, because it would cost much less than they are paying now.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously? I think you are just making this up, can you provide some sources for this?

[MikeyPatriot]

I'd like to reiterate that I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

But the pro-private health care folks making arguments like, "First public health care, NEXT NEW BENTLEY!!!" come off as douches at best and unable or unwilling to discuss the actual merits of the issue at worst.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to reiterate that I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

But the pro-private health care folks making arguments like, "First public health care, NEXT NEW BENTLEY!!!" come off as douches at best and unable or unwilling to discuss the actual merits of the issue at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If you look at things more closely you will also find that those people have a terrible understanding of libertarian economics and have never put a serious effort into understanding it, I hate being lumped in with those people.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm aren't rolling Stone and national Review liberal? Just because they dont like republican pork doesn't mean they have gotten right all of a sudden

[/ QUOTE ]

The National Review is a conservative magazine. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia, and see the longer article for more information.

From Wikipedia - National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine of political opinion, founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. While the print version of the magazine is available online to subscribers, the web site's free content is essentially a separate publication. Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events.