What are the biggest deficiencies of your own political ideology?

[ttwtt78640]

disagree
the biggest failure of libertarianism is that it fails to provide for the least among us, assuming all can provide for themselves and no one is in need because of circumstances beyond their own control

Those closest to the need (problem?) should be the first to deal with it, e.g. family, friends, local charities, larger charities and local/state gov't. To insist that all problems must have a gov't solution, much less at the federal level, is simply not true.

 

[YoungConserv]

It is if you spend all your time there to the detriment of the economy.

But those events are not in the bedroom but the public square so you can't really say that by getting involved in them I'm going into your bedroom

 

[CanadaJohn]

But those events are not in the bedroom but the public square so you can't really say that by getting involved in them I'm going into your bedroom

As I said in response to another poster, my comment about staying out of the bedroom is related to not spending time legislating against human nature. If it is to correct actions of previous governments that infringed, I have no problem with that, but spending time dreaming up new legislation to restrict free human behaviour I oppose.

 

[YoungConserv]

but what we do not see is any of them filling the void, assisting those in need thru no fault of their own

I don't know about you but my church is on a bad side of town and we decided to take a ten by ten block area and do everything we can to transform it, we are by no means a rich church but that wasn't a problem as we primarily gave our time in forms like baby sitting, toutoring, counseling and job training. This had a measurable effect it pushed that neighborhood from one of the worst areas of the city for schools,crime and debt to one of the best in all those categories. This is the power of the church.

 

[YoungConserv]

As I said in response to another poster, my comment about staying out of the bedroom is related to not spending time legislating against human nature. If it is to correct actions of previous governments that infringed, I have no problem with that, but spending time dreaming up new legislation to restrict free human behaviour I oppose.

I would agree except in two areas marriage and abortion. Both are state issues and should stay that way. 2 on marriage I don't thing government should use it as a metric for anything it should be a social tool not a governmental one 3 abortion I view differ fly as I believe there is a third party that has rights that factor into that decision.

 

[Neomalthusian]

not any more and for that reason

but what we do not see is any of them filling the void, assisting those in need thru no fault of their own

Ok you've stated your opinion about others' political leans (uninvited as it was). The OP question is still open for you.

This threads about acknowledging our own weaknesses, not criticizing opponents (we have plenty of that at all times).

 

[justabubba]

I don't know about you but my church is on a bad side of town and we decided to take a ten by ten block area and do everything we can to transform it, we are by no means a rich church but that wasn't a problem as we primarily gave our time in forms like baby sitting, toutoring, counseling and job training. This had a measurable effect it pushed that neighborhood from one of the worst areas of the city for schools,crime and debt to one of the best in all those categories. This is the power of the church.

and i will warrant that there are many whose needs remain unmet despite that those needs were thru no fault of their own
i am not demeaning the charitable acts of your church; in fact i applaud the effort to assist the least among us
but to leave the needs of a huge segment of society for charity to tend to is absolutely terrible public policy
and that is my biggest objection to libertarian thought/ideology

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why the **** can people/government just not respect civil liberties?

it's not very hard..

NOOOOOOO everyone needs a ****ing totalitarian opinion like they're Stalin that's why these Stalin ****s claim the Bill of Rights is a "living document." They only rule and say that because it justifies their opinions.

 

[YoungConserv]

and i will warrant that there are many whose needs remain unmet despite that those needs were thru no fault of their own
i am not demeaning the charitable acts of your church; in fact i applaud the effort to assist the least among us
but to leave the needs of a huge segment of society for charity to tend to is absolutely terrible public policy
and that is my biggest objection to libertarian thought/ideology

But then how much of what isn't covered is self inflicted I don't think any program that gives money away can ever solve these people's problems as they are cultural and systemic.

 

[Juiposa]

Call it exercise in self-awareness vs. denial and security in your own beliefs. Are you able to critically examine your own **** and find out if there are way that it does, in fact, stink?

I can start. My ideological lean is essentially libertarian but its greatest deficiencies are general failure to weigh environmentalism against individual rights and that it doesn't acknowledge how protectionistic its economic theoretical underpinnings are, and what the real world implications of that would really be.

Your turns.

My largest deficiency is economics. I hate economics and any discussing of the fiscal situation or how to solve the economy, I can't deal with. It is something I've never really been able to wrap my head around.

 

[justabubba]

But then how much of what isn't covered is self inflicted I don't think any program that gives money away can ever solve these people's problems as they are cultural and systemic.

and that's how we can see and evaluate the character of a nation and its citizens
would the USA refuse to help those who cannot help themselves thru no fault of their own
my hope is we are better than that

 

[Neomalthusian]

and that's how we can see and evaluate the character of a nation and its citizens would the USA refuse to help those who cannot help themselves thru no fault of their own my hope is we are better than that

And does it require federal legislation to show "we're better than that?"

I certainly admit that those who truly cannot help themselves through no fault of their own (your words) should be under the guardianship of others (in some cases, the state). If a person demonstrates incapacity to be his or her own guardian, there should be intervention and assignment of guardianship.

And this is coming from a libertarian. So it cannot be said that libertarians would advise doing nothing in response to those who have no capacity to help themselves.

 

[SMTA]

My largest deficiency is economics. I hate economics and any discussing of the fiscal situation or how to solve the economy, I can't deal with. It is something I've never really been able to wrap my head around.

They beat economics into me in college

Your honesty is better than these Congressional clowns who know nothing, but make poor decisions listening to their manipulative cohorts.
I abhor folks who are not honest and just admit that they just don't know.

 

[Neomalthusian]

My largest deficiency is economics. I hate economics and any discussing of the fiscal situation or how to solve the economy, I can't deal with. It is something I've never really been able to wrap my head around.

I agree, the mainstream macroeconomic commentary nowadays is ridiculous and I honestly think most people that think they get it are really just throwing their faith at today's leaders who are doing things that really haven't been tried before under these conditions (because these conditions have never existed before). And those same people will mock and deride us for being too uneducated/uninformed to understand economics.

"Does Bernanke have a timeline to wind down the stimulus?" Today yes, tomorrow it's no, the next day it's maybe. And "the markets responded favorably to news that the most recent jobs report is better than previously anticipated." Oooh goodness me!

Bla bla bla, what a bunch of bull****.

 

[justabubba]

And does it require federal legislation to show "we're better than that?"

I certainly admit that those who truly cannot help themselves through no fault of their own (your words) should be under the guardianship of others (in some cases, the state). If a person demonstrates incapacity to be his or her own guardian, there should be intervention and assignment of guardianship.

And this is coming from a libertarian. So it cannot be said that libertarians would advise doing nothing in response to those who have no capacity to help themselves.

assigning guardianship to those who cannot help their circumstance is about as close to nothing, in the form of 'help', as one can get
you have obviously burnished your libertarian credentials

 

[YoungConserv]

and that's how we can see and evaluate the character of a nation and its citizens
would the USA refuse to help those who cannot help themselves thru no fault of their own
my hope is we are better than that

But giving money can not solve these problems.

 

[Neomalthusian]

assigning guardianship to those who cannot help their circumstance is about as close to nothing, in the form of 'help', as one can get you have obviously burnished your libertarian credentials

I knew you'd start teetering and dancing as soon as I brought up guardianship. You're describing people who you claim cannot possibly help themselves. This points to an incapacity to care for oneself. You want people to have complete freedom but no responsibility? With financial responsiblity comes control. If I have financial responsibility over you, I'm going to control you. If you have it over me, you're going to control me. If we have financial responsibility only for ourselves, neither controls the other.

Further, how is guardianship "close to nothing?" Thats asinine. Guardianship is close to EVERYthing. A guardian does damn near everything for the person and is liable for neglect if care is not taken. A person cannot help him- or herself so someone else is given that responsibility. With it obviously comes the ability to make the person's decisions, which makes complete sense. Whoever is responsible for the person's well being has the decision making ability. In the case of most adults that happens to be the self. But when people cannot help themselves or do things for themselves such that it becomes others responsibility to care for them, the caregivers get to make the decisions.

By the way, you're still avoiding the OP.

 

[iguanaman]

But giving money can not solve these problems.

Just like food doesn't feed the hungry? Your ideas are straight out of Orwell.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Just like food doesn't feed the hungry? Your ideas are straight out of Orwell.

Does putting someone up in a hotel room solve homelessness? Come on people, enough with the intentional stupidity.

 

[YoungConserv]

Just like food doesn't feed the hungry? Your ideas are straight out of Orwell.

We have been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and spent billions and nothings really changed!

 

[iguanaman]

We have been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and spent billions and nothings really changed!

People in need received help for those 50 years where before there was none. Do you believe there will be a time when there are no people in need? Or do you just want to deny them help? Is a starving man truly free?

 

[justabubba]

But giving money can not solve these problems.

you expose a limited understanding of social and economic issues
of course giving money is not the solution to assisting those in need, whose circumstance is due to no fault of their own

 

[justabubba]

I knew you'd start teetering and dancing as soon as I brought up guardianship. You're describing people who you claim cannot possibly help themselves. This points to an incapacity to care for oneself. You want people to have complete freedom but no responsibility? With financial responsiblity comes control. If I have financial responsibility over you, I'm going to control you. If you have it over me, you're going to control me. If we have financial responsibility only for ourselves, neither controls the other.

Further, how is guardianship "close to nothing?" Thats asinine. Guardianship is close to EVERYthing. A guardian does damn near everything for the person and is liable for neglect if care is not taken. A person cannot help him- or herself so someone else is given that responsibility. With it obviously comes the ability to make the person's decisions, which makes complete sense. Whoever is responsible for the person's well being has the decision making ability. In the case of most adults that happens to be the self. But when people cannot help themselves or do things for themselves such that it becomes others responsibility to care for them, the caregivers get to make the decisions.

By the way, you're still avoiding the OP.

your libertarian form of guardianship is a sham
you yield control of one's circumstances to another but refuse to provide the means to care for the ward
which, again, is the fatal flaw of libertarianism

 

[YoungConserv]

you expose a limited understanding of social and economic issues
of course giving money is not the solution to assisting those in need, whose circumstance is due to no fault of their own

Then why do it?

 

[YoungConserv]

People in need received help for those 50 years where before there was none. Do you believe there will be a time when there are no people in need? Or do you just want to deny them help? Is a starving man truly free?

is the man on food stamps free?