yeah, they typically are for greater personal liberties, for an actual free country. I don't see clinging to The Market as a problem for social ills. At least the government isn't forcing everybody to pay for problems that don't affect them that way.

First of all, the government isn't created just to take care of *you*, it's for the people. This means the government should be helping everyone, not the people who have shitloads of money, a job, healthcare, etc. Those people don't need help. Secondly, the more a society protects the people on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale, the better off the people on top will be. First of all, not having government programs do certain things raises crime rates. For example - you don't want free government drug programs? Ok, now you have druggies causing crime to get money and wham, youre taxes just went up because have millions of people in jail who shouldn't be.

So yes, in many cases I am for higher personal rights and, for example, I think the war on drugs is absurd. However, Libertarian solutions to education and so on are quite often rather absurd.

If you legalize drugs crime will decrease. Look at FBI records and it has shown that durring prohibition crime rate went up, then went back down to its lower level after the government got rid of it. When a black market exists for something in fairly high demand, prices shoot up and crime increases. Talk to anybody who is in a gang (the business side of it, not the retards that run around throwing up signs) and they can tell you this is true. When the drug prohibition started the crime rate went back up. Why would crack heads steal if they can buy crack for next to nothing if it was legalized? The main crimes commited due to the war on drugs are the possesion and selling of drugs. Legalize drugs and all these crimes dissapear. I don't think there will be any more crack heads out there if you legalize crack. Would you start doing crack if it was legal? Probably not, and neither will everyone else. We all know crack is bad. People that want the drug will get it either way, if it is legal or not, so why make it illegal?

Government may be for the people, but the national government is NOT meant to give handouts to the less fortunate. Local government is for this, which it does much better. Local government used to do this in the past. National government is there primarily to make sure the states don't get out of hand, to regulate state commerce and international commerce. I don't want the national government forcing me to give my money to people who may make less than me. If I want to help them, then I will on my own. If you think people who make less money than you should get some money, then you should give some of your own money to them...but would you do this since you think the less fortunate deserve better?

Oh and with the education...

Private education worked wonders years before the government ever got involved. Parents would teach their kids how to read and write, and the father would help giving the kid experience in the real world. Most attended private schools and some graduated high school. Many didn't go to college since this was and is not needed. Literacy rates were just as high or higher back then. Extended learning was done at libraries and things of the such and also through experience, apprenticeships. Some were sent to boarding schools.

College is not needed in most occupations today, but it is held in high regard because it is something that happens to be used as a benchmark. It seems weird that the more money the government pours into the schools...the worse they get. The schools teach you how wonderful government is and that the government has saved this country in the past, but who runs the schools? Ask how many people working at the mall have college degrees....a lot of them will, but do you need a college degree to sell shoes or jewelry? Many millionairs realized school was a waste of their time and they skipped it all and went on to make lots of money. Why should the government educate people when it already does a bad job at it. Why is education constantly an issue in politics? It is because the government gets more and more involved in it, screwing it up even more.

oh where is this politics site? i wanna join

yo forget what i said before.. I dont want Bush in office... I was messed up for thinking that... But these kids are too stupid to argue with us

Nobody who knows anything about politics wants Bush in office.

And Dren: Yes, I know crime will go down when the war on drugs is over, which is why I said it was absurd. It's one of the things I agree with Libertarians about, but that is only because they end up being pretty liberal about social issues, which I am as well. It's on economic issues that I think Libertarians are in error.

wrt to private education, the world is a different place than it was when home schooling was more popular. And frankly, I think you are viewing the past in too nice a light. Private education means that lower class people end up stuck in the lower class, because their parents lack the education to teach the younger generation. Now this isn't so much a problem if you are ok with having agrarian communities continue to be agrarian (although I don't think this is particularly fair...), but when you have inner city ghettos, or Native American reserves, which are probably even worse, it becomes more of an issue. People living in these areas generally lack access to education, and privatizing it would only make this worse.

Of course, the question comes down to what you really think the government should do. I personally feel everyone should have access to a few basic things in life, those being food, shelter, health and education. Privatizing any of these completely doesn't seem too conducive to acheiving this goal, so I oppose it.

(And the politics forum is at www.iidb.org)

yeah i would want to vote for john as long as we dont have bush anymore

thanks, and yea, bush is nasty, at least somebody on collin quinn last night said something reasonable...bush and kerry are the same and they both suck. i was kind of suprised, many don't think that or realize it. but thanks again for the site link.

Bush and Kerry aren't the same. Yes, they both have similiar problems, but then I think they both err to one side, and you might think they both err on the other. The point is that at least Kerry is not a fucking idiot, and at least he isn't trying to errode each and every liberty we currently have. Perhaps the most important thing is that the next president will most likely be replacing two of the more moderate/liberal supreme court judges, and if Bush has his choice with it, I see this country being fucked for a while. Oh, and Ashcroft has to go.

yo
 

fuck it, bush sucks, don't know shit bout the other guy, nader smokes trees, ima say da otha guy

kerry and bush are both politicians and both come from wealthy families. They both have very similiar views even though we all know what republicans and democrats are supposed to stand for. don't forget the democrats were for smaller government years ago and the republicans were for more governmen since they stemmed from the whig party.

kerry has changed his views on things several times, this cannot be good. he says we should leave iraq now, but when he gets into office he will change his mind and decide to stay there. kerry will more than likely pass the bills that bush has got started. kerry will increase federal health care spending like bush has. i honestly see little difference between the two.

I do not think that kerry or bush should win I think the rev. should win. Kerry is a retard and so is bush. I am all for this war in the middle east but,kerry is aginst weapons vital to the war and all types of body armor.

^ yes.. I heard Kerry recently voted against giving all the troops shiny metal armor. Boo-urns.

I mean fuckin bullietproof vest and shit.