Libertarianism is stupid.

[xelabale]

I believe that Libertarians have much more of a "you keep what you kill" attitude. For instance, the government shouldn't be allowed to tax your income... that is your money, you made it & they didn't. They shouldn't give that money to a jobless mother of 4 for welfare or whatever, because she did not earn that money.
More along those ideas than "you keep everything."

Then don't use the roads, hospitals, schools, emergency services, libraries, public transport that were paid for from taxes. We are a society. If you have an accident god forbid and can't work what should we do? Should we as a society help you or leave you to die as you can no longer earn your keep? Who is going to keep you safe? The army. How is it paid for? Taxes. No tax = no society. You may choose to think that your money goes to a jobless mother of 4. What if that jobless mother of 4's children turn out to benefit society? Then is it the right decision to support her? And you could choose to believe that that money goes to building the school your children are going to. Actually, it goes to both. It's a perspective difference and you choose to see what you perceive as the negative side. Open your eyes, join us and help create a better society!!! Yes we can!!!

Sorry, got carried away there....

[captain.crazy]

I believe that Libertarians have much more of a "you keep what you kill" attitude. For instance, the government shouldn't be allowed to tax your income... that is your money, you made it & they didn't. They shouldn't give that money to a jobless mother of 4 for welfare or whatever, because she did not earn that money.
More along those ideas than "you keep everything."

Then don't use the roads, hospitals, schools, emergency services, libraries, public transport that were paid for from taxes. We are a society. If you have an accident god forbid and can't work what should we do? Should we as a society help you or leave you to die as you can no longer earn your keep? Who is going to keep you safe? The army. How is it paid for? Taxes. No tax = no society. You may choose to think that your money goes to a jobless mother of 4. What if that jobless mother of 4's children turn out to benefit society? Then is it the right decision to support her? And you could choose to believe that that money goes to building the school your children are going to. Actually, it goes to both. It's a perspective difference and you choose to see what you perceive as the negative side. Open your eyes, join us and help create a better society!!! Yes we can!!!

Sorry, got carried away there....

lottery money is supposed to pay for schools... and sales tax and the like. tax on gasoline is supposed to pay for roads. You should tax things and use that money to directly pay for things associated with that tax.

The biggest waste in government spending is all the entitlement spending. People are not entitled to anything.

[mpjh]

People are entitle to a lot. The power of government is inherent in the people and only ceded to the formal government with their permission. Fundamentally, they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people have enumerated a set of basic rights for themselves, and a set of tasks and obligations for government -- it is called the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Actually, people are entitle to just about everything.

[thegreekdog]

Thanks for starting the thread snorri. I didn't find much serious or realistic discussion so far, but I thought I'd add my two cents since I am a registered Libertarian (although, I don't agree with everything espoused by the party).

First, here's the website... has some good information on what, exactly, the US Libertarian Party is and believes

http://www.lp.org/

Second, I am not a Ron Paul fan, so please do not group Libertarians in with that crowd. Ron Paul is full of hatred, I'm not.

Libertarianism can generally be summed up by the following phrase - "Live and let live." Here are my somewhat Libertarian views on certain issues:

(1) Gun control - Should only be regulated to the extent it saves lives.
(2) Gay marriage - Let anyone who wants to get married get married.
(3) Immigration - Come one, come all
(4) Taxation - Taxes should be imposed, but only for certain community "needs" - roads, bridges, police, fire, military
(5) Free speech - Say what you want, when you want, all the time
(6) Drugs - Do what you want, when you want, as long as it doesn't hurt others

The trend here is personal responsibility; live and let live.

I've seen a couple of posts indicating that Libertarians are selfish by nature and they are against the concept of community. That's just not true. Libertarians are very much about community. Economically, we could not survive unless the guy that has a farm sells his food to the guy that doesn't have a farm. Additionally, the guy with the farm could give the guy without the farm his excess food. The point here is that Libertarians do not want the government telling us how much food we should give (or how much beer we should drink, or who we should bang, or what we are allowed or not allowed to say).

If anyone has any questions or points, I would be happy to answer them.

[The1exile]

Fortunately the Lancet's analysis has been commented on throughout the web, so even a cheapie goggle search will turn up tens of articles. It is laziness that you don't look, or political bias that doesn't even allow for the fact to be true?

Dude, I'm happy to take your point that there are that many deaths, but if you know a google search will turn up the results, then at least copy in the google search itself so people can see it easily. Antagonising people is not helping your case.

For example, googling "lancet iraq war deaths" comes up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... e_Iraq_War - which lists a figure not quite 1M deaths - but it does further link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... since_2003 which provides a sourced comparison of different surveys, including your 1M figure.

Incidentally, I'm not sure these casualties are only caused by Americans & co., though there's no doubt it's a significant figure nonetheless.

[captain.crazy]

Thanks for starting the thread snorri. I didn't find much serious or realistic discussion so far, but I thought I'd add my two cents since I am a registered Libertarian (although, I don't agree with everything espoused by the party).

First, here's the website... has some good information on what, exactly, the US Libertarian Party is and believes

http://www.lp.org/

Second, I am not a Ron Paul fan, so please do not group Libertarians in with that crowd. Ron Paul is full of hatred, I'm not.

Libertarianism can generally be summed up by the following phrase - "Live and let live." Here are my somewhat Libertarian views on certain issues:

(1) Gun control - Should only be regulated to the extent it saves lives.
(2) Gay marriage - Let anyone who wants to get married get married.
(3) Immigration - Come one, come all
(4) Taxation - Taxes should be imposed, but only for certain community "needs" - roads, bridges, police, fire, military
(5) Free speech - Say what you want, when you want, all the time
(6) Drugs - Do what you want, when you want, as long as it doesn't hurt others

The trend here is personal responsibility; live and let live.

I've seen a couple of posts indicating that Libertarians are selfish by nature and they are against the concept of community. That's just not true. Libertarians are very much about community. Economically, we could not survive unless the guy that has a farm sells his food to the guy that doesn't have a farm. Additionally, the guy with the farm could give the guy without the farm his excess food. The point here is that Libertarians do not want the government telling us how much food we should give (or how much beer we should drink, or who we should bang, or what we are allowed or not allowed to say).

If anyone has any questions or points, I would be happy to answer them.

Why do you think Ron Paul is full of hatred. He seems pretty nice to me.

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think Ron Paul is full of hatred. He seems pretty nice to me.

I used too strong a term (i.e. full of hatred). I was being dramatic. I don't agree with his immigration policy, among other things.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why do you think Ron Paul is full of hatred. He seems pretty nice to me.

I used too strong a term (i.e. full of hatred). I was being dramatic. I don't agree with his immigration policy, among other things.

Just because you disagree with a guy doesn't make him full of hatred. Ron Paul is one of the most honest politicians of our time.

[captain.crazy]

Why do you think Ron Paul is full of hatred. He seems pretty nice to me.

I used too strong a term (i.e. full of hatred). I was being dramatic. I don't agree with his immigration policy, among other things.

Oh, I do agree with his immigration policy. The constitution clearly says that the Federal Government is responsible to protect our borders, and open borders with Mexico is not safe for America.

[Snorri1234]

Why do you think Ron Paul is full of hatred. He seems pretty nice to me.

I used too strong a term (i.e. full of hatred). I was being dramatic. I don't agree with his immigration policy, among other things.

Just because you disagree with a guy doesn't make him full of hatred. Ron Paul is one of the most honest politicians of our time.

He's too much of a radical christian for me. Besides, his views on monetary policy are just plain weird. The gold-standard can not and will not be put back.

[mpjh]

I will agree he is honest, and I really respect his continued practice of medicine in his town.

But, he does have some wacko ideas like,

• Eliminate social security
  eliminate the FAA
  eliminate medicare
  eliminate the regulation of businesses like the nuclear industry
  
  to name a few

I do like his anti-war position

[Snorri1234]

Indeed. Simply because he stands behind his ideas and doesn't try to twist his words doesn't mean he isn't full of wacky ideas.

[jonesthecurl]

The war is Iraq was not (is not) necessary, thus the civilian deaths were not necessary. It was murder, plain and simple.

Besides, what has happened to us. Since when did the civilian population become expendable?

Well, take a look at D-Day. A lot of French civilians were killed.

Or look at the bombing raids that were intended for Germany and bombed Switzerland instead,

Not to mention enemy civilians - Dresden, Hiroshima, etc etc

If the war was to happen, civilian deaths were inevitable.
IF the war was justified, the deaths are justifiable.

[mpjh]

Sorry, Jonsey, there is no justification for Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or any of the other mass bombings of cities, starting with Guernica. These were terror bombings, nothing more, nothing less.

[Nobunaga]

... Better a couple hundred thousand "Japs" die than as many if not more US soldiers, was the thinking.

... Is this thread still about stupid Libertarians?

...

[mpjh]

The Japanese had already offered to surrender on the terms we ultimately accepted. We wanted to drop the bomb as a message to the Soviet Union. We thought we would maintain a monopoly on nuclear weapons, but of course we didn't.

[Nobunaga]

The Japanese had already offered to surrender on the terms we ultimately accepted. We wanted to drop the bomb as a message to the Soviet Union. We thought we would maintain a monopoly on nuclear weapons, but of course we didn't.

... I did not know that. Got a link, or a topic I can use to check that?

... (not saying you're lying, honestly didn't know, and want to).

...

[mpjh]

goggle it, it is basic history, You can also learn about it in the PBS series "Oppenheimer"

[Juan_Bottom]

... I did not know that. Got a link, or a topic I can use to check that?

... (not saying you're lying, honestly didn't know, and want to).

...

Seconded.

[mpjh]

Geez, Juan, don't you listen to Scott Horton on Anti-War radio?

[Juan_Bottom]

Geez, Juan, don't you listen to Scott Horton on Anti-War radio?

Not for over a month... My job gives me crappy hours. 3AM to 12PM... and my dail up does not approve of listening to pre-recorded broadcasts. But I still never heard that though!

[mpjh]

Get the podcast, then you can listen whenever.

[muy_thaiguy]

The Japanese had already offered to surrender on the terms we ultimately accepted. We wanted to drop the bomb as a message to the Soviet Union. We thought we would maintain a monopoly on nuclear weapons, but of course we didn't.

Not quite. The Japanese were willing to take the fight home (theirs, in the end) rather then surrender. The alternative to dropping the a-bombs would have been a landing invasion that would have dwarfed the D-Day landings, with casualties among Americans estimated would have been absurdly high, with Japanese casualties even higher.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Japan

To note: wikipedia, as well as historians and people who lived at the time seem to disagree with your statement that the Japanese had surrendered before the dropping of the bombs.

[captain.crazy]

goggle it, it is basic history, You can also learn about it in the PBS series "Oppenheimer"

Post a link to your source or stuff it. This is not how I learned it. The Japanese were not willing to surrender even after the first bomb. It wasn't until the second bomb that they decided to surrender. If you have a direct source, and its credible, then maybe you can change minds, but no one is going to wade a round through the volumes of internet foo to hunt down your supposed truth.

[InkL0sed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_ ... #Surrender

August 8–9: Soviet invasion and Nagasaki

Detailed reports of the unprecedented scale of the destruction at Hiroshima were received in Tokyo, but two days passed before the government met to consider the changed situation. At 04:00 on August 9, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had broken the Neutrality Pact, declared war on Japan and launched an invasion of Manchuria.[71]
A-bombing of Nagasaki

These "twin shocks"—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet entry—had immediate profound effects on Prime Minister Suzuki and Foreign Minister Tōgō Shigenori, who concurred that the government must end the war at once.[72] However, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack. They did start preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.[73] Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."[74]

The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the Emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, but they needed a guarantee of the Emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances.

In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the Americans). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle her own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.