American Select
 

Americans Elect 2012 | The first-ever open presidential nomination

If you support or are happy with the Democrats, Republicans or Tea Party, this may not be of interest to you. If you are not happy with the current political cuture, check it out.

This is really interesting. a precursor to the internet and social media being more involved in the voting process??

I think you should tell them how important government paid cell phones are for you and your family

I think you should tell them how to run the government since apparently you know best.

eat sh*t. thanks.

IN FACT maybe you should put yourself up for election!

i'm sure you'll get really far.

http://3432-philly.voxcdn.com/files/...ma-you-mad.jpg

Really cool. Granted, there are limits on how useful it is as a statistical sample, but clicking through the questions (and there are a lot of them), it seems that there is a massive disparity between policy in this country and majority opinion (assuming that majority opinions represent the most centrist positions).

I found the same thing to be true - enough to post it here. I was reallly intrigued by the potential of this process to identify where actual consensus exists outside of political party strictures.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: asking a Libertarrian's opinion on government is like asking a vegan how to cook steak.

You can keep saying it as often as you like. It only identifies you as one with no understanding of libertarianism.

What do you find so unreasonable about the wish to have government act in a limited realm of influence, namely, defense, a legal system and law enforcement?

Do you not acknowledge that government has grown to the point where it is involved an any pursuit you could name and legislates almost every human activity ever performed?

Libertarianism is not anarchy. And in my experience (real life discussion with intelligent people, not saturation of television news and media politics) most people who claim to support libertarian ideals are well versed in how our government works. A great many reasonable people are tired of interference, bureaucracy, waste and corruption. The solution they seek is to limit the authority of the bodies responsible.

But don't let this stop you from spewing your cute little catch-phrases.

Jason

Infrastructure? Emergency services? Park systems? Social support for the elderly, infirm and mentally handicapped? Who picks up these tabs? I'm all for govt reform, but how would the city of Philadelphia be run in a libertarian world?

That it is incompatible with what I consider to be modern civilization. There are reasons why we stopped using private fire companies, private roads, etc., and started regulating businesses. These ideas did not appear out of nothing.

No, that is complete hyperbole. That kind of rhetoric is exactly why libertarians have the bad rap that you're fighting against.

I'm not sure. I'm not a hardliner Libertarian. When I was quite a few years younger I may have believed that a completely ideological Libertarian approach would work, or at least like to argue the point. Now I'm a bit more of a pragmatist and have been unable to solve (or seen anyone else solve) some key problems.

I still thoroughly believe that government has massively exceeded reasonable boundaries of authority and scope and that we all suffer for it. As I have no confidence in authoritative bodies not succumbing to corruption and graft eventually, I think limiting the amount of money and power that crosses their path is our best protection. This sentiment is not synonymous with a "f_uck everybody else" attitude, leaving the old, infirm or disadvantaged to be left to die.

The point of my last post was to try to understand why so many people become enraged towards those who wish to shrink government significantly. Not all folks who espouse a Libertarian bent are nutcases looking for anarchy.

Jason

FWIW I personally think it's because rational, well-informed Libertarians often get lumped together with some fairly irrational, knee-jerk, self-described "Libertarians". As it stands right now we do not have a term to differentiate the two. The same thing occurs with liberals and conservatives insofar as neither group gets to decide who will go out there saying "I am X" without having a basic understanding of what "X" really is.

Fair enough. I personally wouldn't even have a problem with the size of the government currently if I thought it was delivering key services efficiently. Clearly (crumbling/shrinking infrastructure, esp) that is not the case. Anyhow, I personally don't think simple deprivation of monies is an actual solution.

Philadelphia is a great example. When funding gets yanked via the state, City Hall starves legitimate services to keep the gravy train rolling. Hence poor infrastructure. The firing of the effective and politically clean versus the ineffectual and connected. The public suffers while graft persists.

Reform should take precedence over simply starving the beast, even if it needs to go on a diet. People need to actually vote, and vote wisely.

I think Zep is probably answering your original question.

It appears we hold the exact same viewpoint in this area.

Jason