well what do they stand for then? and how are they crack pots?

__________________
dren a.k.a. dren rapes u

bitch...i'm 18..so shut the fuck up u fuckin newb

i seriously dont give a flyin fuck who wins that shit!!! bush
kerrry

I really d0nt give a damn who wins dat shyt....bush is an ass and so is da utha dude[whateva his name is] i think we would be better off without a president..and if we do get a president....i think we should see how i woman would run dat shyt lmaooooo....nvm kuz women be tripN when dey get on dem damn "." so chea we dont need a president unless its ME....VoTe C_R_E_A_M for president!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________

lmaoooooooo Dats nuthin but the truth yo....FUCK DA GOVERNMENT..aNd BUSH and KerrY!

__________________

Liberatians generally stand for a minimal government, flatter (and lower) tax rates, privatizations of anything that can be privatized, etc .. those that are more hardcore Randians/Objectivists also stand by various less than good philosophies. The major problem is the blind adherence to The Market, which is supposed to take care of any and every social ill if only that damn pesky government would stop meddeling in it.

__________________

RIP SMOKAJOKA WE WILL MiSS YOU!!!!!!

Oh and I forgot the other part - greater social liberty. Except many are fairly conservative and thus pro-life.

__________________

RIP SMOKAJOKA WE WILL MiSS YOU!!!!!!

YoO GuYz r Soo EduCatted

__________________
Sigs are for narks.

Yes, I am. I moderate a Politics Forum on an actual board. These people.. less so. Yes.

__________________

RIP SMOKAJOKA WE WILL MiSS YOU!!!!!!

^lolz.tite

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.

__________________
dren a.k.a. dren rapes u

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.

__________________

RIP SMOKAJOKA WE WILL MiSS YOU!!!!!!

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?

__________________
dren a.k.a. dren rapes u

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.

__________________
dren a.k.a. dren rapes u