And I’m the exception to this rule. I am equally against both practices, without exception. I see no justification for taking the life of an unborn child. I see an equal lack of justification for taking the life of a murderer.
So I wonder which way that makes me lean…
Not necessarily. I feel the same way, and I’m a Green at heart. (I’m still a registered Democrat, because otherwise I can’t vote in the primary here.) Does anyone still actually like the Dems or the GOP?
My takes:
affirmative action? I think that anti-discrimination legislation probably does the job just as well these days.
nafta/gatt? Strongly against.
social security? Keep it as it is, with whatever alterations are necessary to keep it alive. I don’t support privatizing it at all.
abortion? It should be legal, and devoid of the bullshit tactics used to make a hard choice even harder.
gun control? I would like to see them all blip out of existence. Short of that, however, I don’t have a good answer, so I don’t pretend like I do.
national health insurance? I support the idea, but I’m not sure I trust our government, as is, to do it. Health care is another issue like gun control where a compromise is usually much worse than either extreme. I do support heavy regulation of the health insurance industry. (As a doctor-to-be, the HMO is my natural enemy.)
environmental issues? Absolutely. I’m probably willing to go a lot further than most on this one.
Dr. J
Hey smartass! Quit handing out libertarian tracts and bring your own thoughts to the discussion. How do you think libertarianism can address environmental issues. (Hint: It can’t.)
spoke-:
How 'bout reading the tracts? They are the answer to your question. My own thoughts are that I agree with what is in the posted articles, having read them and considered the implications. Do I have to develop every libertarian theory on my own for it to count, or for it to be intellectually honest for me to agree? Would you like to have that rule applied to yourself, and whatever it is that you believe? Or have you just nominated me to be the final arbiter of libertarian thinking? As I understood your post, you said libertarianism cannot address environmental issues. Did you mean to say Smartass can’t address environmental issues?
Why do you say libertarianism can’t address environmental issues? Those things like clean air and water and other open-access commons are things we all have equal rights to. Of course it can. The purpose of libertarian thinking is to protect individual rights. Or are you saying you disagree with the recommended approaches? In which case, you aren’t arguing can, you are arguing will.
It’s fine that you don’t agree with libertarianism, but it is disingenuous to be purposely obnoxious out of sheer lack of information, particularly when it is being offered in good faith.
-VM
Active Socialist here. Card-carrying member of the International Socialist Organization (website here for the curious and/or interested).
Herewith, my takes on labdude’s questions.
affirmative action? Didn’t go anywhere near far enough. Johnson’s Great Society program was a much-needed start coming off of the civil rights movements of the time, but the concerns in Vietnam and the beginnings of the war on drugs sidetracked it. Anyone who thinks that minorities are getting a free ride off this has completely forgotten that Blacks weren’t even allowed to vote in parts of this country until 30 or so years ago. Government involvement isn’t the answer, especially when it’s timid about commitment to such initiatives in the first place, but eliminating affirmative action is turning back the clock.
NAFTA/GATT? Basically a crowbar to open up foreign markets to U.S. corporations. Corporations need profits, and if they can’t easily get into where they want to go they’ll use whatever strongarm tactics they need to. Which includes government intervention. Much as you libertarians hate the idea of the government involving itself in the regulation of business, corporations and companies need the state to back them up when things get rough.
social security? Keep Wall Street the hell away from it. We’d have more than enough money for it if the defense budget were cut down to size and taxes for the rich went back up to parity levels with most of us working stiffs. (I lose 30% of my paycheck to taxes, and I make less than $40K a year. Anyone who makes $100K a year or more should pay as much as I do, if not a hell of a lot more.)
abortion? On demand, no questions asked. Federal funding or subsidies if requested. Period.
gun control? It’s like the war on drugs - laws against them are going to target minorities and the poor. Crackpots like Charlton Heston can squeal all they want about their second amendment rights but they’ll be able to afford armaments even if they have to smuggle them.
national health insurance? Definitely. Seeing as how HMOs are actively interfering with doctors’ decisions on treatment and care, putting the bottom line in front of patients’ needs, a national program would be a vast improvement.
environmental issues? When you’re after profits, you’re going to look for the cheapest way to make things, not the cleanest or the most renewable. So of course the environment’s going to take a serious hit. But forcing companies to clean up their act in one arena doesn’t make them better overall. Environmental concerns are important and should be addressed, but I’m more concerned right now with the fate of working people around the world than habitats for animals. Let me say, though, that if production was geared towards human need rather than profits, we could successfull prioritize the use of cleaner methods and emphasize renewable resources.
Smartass- The purpose of this board is not to pass tracts back and forth. It is to debate. In an earlier post, I gave my own reasons (not taken from any tract) for believing that a libertarian approach to pollution control will not effectively address the problem.
I ask again. What are your thoughts? How do you respond to the points I have raised? (Feel free to go back and read your tracts, if they will help you formulate your own thoughts on the matter.
Olentzero,
Let me test your ilberalism.
You state you are studying to be a doctor. Med school isn’t cheap, and your response shows no sign of a wealthy upbringing.
This suggests that grants and/or loans are paying for a medical school education (a common situation) that will put you into a position to make upwards of $200,000/year. Somewhat less if you work for someone else, considerably more with the right specialization.
How much of this salary (over and above prevailing tax rates) do you intent to give away to bring your net income down to the national average?
SouthernStyle
I lean to the Left.
Very much to the Left.
Hopefully hard enough to push it off the face of the earth.
Mjollnir, that’s rich! Can I have it for a sig?
Test all you want. I’m no liberal, I’m a radical.
**
Where? I was a Russian major at Georgetown; I have no interest in the medical sciences.
As for you actual question (how much of my salary would I give), I’d really like to build a society where paychecks are a moot point, and therefore income tax. An increased tax rate on the rich, while certainly an improvement, wouldn’t eliminate the fundamental inequality brought about by the private ownership of the means of production, i.e. capitalism.
I’m the one who’s studying to be a doctor. And I really don’t have any problems with capitalism, per se–I do think that people who do more or more valuable work should be paid more money. I do think that the market should be regulated, because it only works when there is competition and when the wealth isn’t incredibly concentrated. It’s a long way from there to socialism, though.
Oh, and there aren’t many doctors making “well over $200,000” these days. What’s more, I’m planning to do a double residency in the two least-paying fields, family practice and psychiatry.
Dr. J
What say we just confiscate all the wealth, and redistribute it evenly? Then, at the end of the year if some have more than others, just reconfiscate and redistribute? Would that satisfy you? Or do you think it might not work, that the economy would come to a screeching halt, and we would find ourselves living in 3rd world country?
Socialism is only an interim step to a Communist dictatorship. Communism has utterly failed everywhere it’s been tried.
Bring in the next contestant, please.
Ah, another dismissive pedant. One in every crowd.
What makes Communism, Sneevil? What made Russia and Eastern Europe Communist? That they said they were? You ought to be able to delineate what Communism is and why it fails, instead of dismissing it outright.
My own political leanings? Why I’m a neo-sorelian, with confilicting anarcho-syndicalist and leninist tendancies. How’s that for confused.
And stepping in with support for Olentzero. Good for you. The ISO could use more people. I disagree with them on some small/large issues, but for the most part I feel it’s the most usefull place a young activist can be. I was active in the IS in the Netherlands for a while.
In regards to Sneevil’s comment
That’s not what communism or socialism is about. It’s about communal ownership of the means of production. I’d suggest you read The Communist Manifesto before you engage in debates on the merits of communism.
I’m on the conservative wing of the extreme left.
I guess I should answer my own questions.
affirmative action? against. I would prefer the government find another way to help raise poor blacks (and whites) out of poverty
nafta/gatt?against
social security?support. keep wall street away.
abortion?against.
capital punishment?against.
gun control? card carrying member of the NRA
national health insurance? support. It works every where else.
environmental issues?support. Tax/spend/regulate more.
Question for you. If not affirmative action then what.
ROFLMAO!!
And the USSR, the primary experimental laboratory for this nonsense, is where today?
In the toilet - no - ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SEWERPIPE!
-------having devoured itself in just 70 years.
It would be almost funny if Stalin hadn’t murdered some 50 million to keep it going.
Olentzero- you say youre a radical? Define that. To me it means you are a Yippie!
Back again, some new stuff.
Capital Punishment: Where I live (MS) we have a Attorney General who doesn’t give a damn about it. We have exactly 2 laywers taking care of appeals for 60 people on death row. And Moore isn’t going to change that any time soon.
So why don’t we (here, at least) just ditch the damn thing, commute their sentences to life with no parole, and save at least some cash? Overall, it’s not doing anything to stem the tide of crime in society, so find something better.
Sex: I love it… wait, Oops. 
Um… I get embarrased whenever I see some poor schmuck actually arrested for doing some other poor schmuck of similar gender.
This is where I don’t like the idea that my state has to accept whatever strangeness your state finds normal. If Vermont wants to have Gay/Lesbian marrages, fine. If Upper Slovokia doesn’t, they shouldn’t be forced to accept it. It’s mainly a morals issue, and as My mom has always said “You can’t legislate Morality.” So why bother? Because if the government doesn’t do something, they would be a booming industry in snuff films, pedophila, and lord knows what else.
I hate trusting the Government to do something, but I can’t trust my fellow man to do it.