Libertarians Are the Best

[1951Campbell]

Well, you knew it was coming, didn't you? :D

[fquaye14ten]

the only reason i don't like lib's is b/c of privatized fire dpt.

unfortunately there is simply no getting around that

[samram]

the only reason i don't like lib's is b/c of privatized fire dpt.

unfortunately there is simply no getting around that

I've never got the impression that many libertarians think the fire department should be privatized. Maybe some of the capital L-types. Certainly it's not at the top of the agenda.

[fquaye14ten]

no. it's all about the fire department.

i know all libertarians, and we've discussed this

[LuvSox]

no. it's all about the fire department.

i know all libertarians, and we've discussed this

Please explain.

[fquaye14ten]

it's all there in the post you quoted.

I know every libertarian. EVER.

They all told me fire dpt. is #1 priority

[samram]

Man, and here I thought I had told 1951 to keep that under wraps.

[LuvSox]

What is the Libertarian stance on public schools, and every other city service for that matter?

[fquaye14ten]

What is the Libertarian stance on public schools, and every other city service for that matter?

kill our children, grind them to feed and use them to de-hunger the homeless

[LuvSox]

kill our children, grind them to feed and use them to de-hunger the homeless

Hilarious.

[fquaye14ten]

Hilarious.

there is nothing funny about Libertarian's domestic policy.

there is nothing funny about progress luvsox:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[LuvSox]

there is nothing funny about Libertarian's domestic policy.

there is nothing funny about progress luvsox:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm not sure which side you're on. You like their ideas? You don't?

[fquaye14ten]

I'm not sure which side you're on. You like their ideas? You don't?

i don't know.

i try not to have opinions about anything unless it's really something that matters to the world, like music

[CaptainBallz]

i don't know.

i try not to have opinions about anything unless it's really something that matters to the world, like music

cop out.

[fquaye14ten]

you mean honestly?

I think the Libertarians generally have good ideas involving minimalized legislation, however I think that that's too all-encompassing and such blanket ideals overestimates the ability of the average person.

I prefer it to conservativism, ironically, but mostly because the modern conservative ideal is hyperlegislation to correct the perceived missteps of their liberal forebears.

I probably consider modern liberalism to libertarianism because i'm not overly concerned with my individual rights as long as my consitutional rights are protected. Meanwhile, I don't think it's important on a large scale to reduce legislation.

Of course these are just my views on that one aspect of libertarianism. I'ms ure there's more that I'm overlooking, but since I'm a generally apolitical person, I'm hardly going to go research them

[LuvSox]

i don't know.

i try not to have opinions about anything unless it's really something that matters to the world, like music

Thanks for your opinions on music. :whistle:

[samram]

What is the Libertarian stance on public schools, and every other city service for that matter?

Against public schools.

As for other city services, most libertarians feel they can be private, but it would be silly to say you don't need a police force or something like that.

What always worries libertarians is the slippery slope- if you let the government have power X, what's to stop them from claiming more? The Constitution was/is supposed to prevent that, but rubber stamp-style courts have kind of negated its ability.

[LuvSox]

Against public schools.

As for other city services, most libertarians feel they can be private, but it would be silly to say you don't need a police force or something like that.



My concern here is city services, not so much legislative issues. I'd hate to see anyone, any honest city employee lose their job to privitization. That tax money channeled to the FD, among others, is not wasted. It's an insurance policy. Sometimes you use it, sometimes you don't. But when you need it, rest assured that professionals will assist you in any way neccesary without consideration of race, religion, sexual orientation or wealth.

[samram]

My concern here is city services, not so much legislative issues. I'd hate to see anyone, any honest city employee lose their job to privitization. That tax money channeled to the FD, among others, is not wasted. It's an insurance policy. Sometimes you use it, sometimes you don't. But when you need it, rest assured that professionals will assist you in any way neccesary without consideration of race, religion, sexual orientation or wealth.

Ok, you're talking about the FD. How about the guy who administers city car stickers- what service is that guy providing that we need to fund his salary with tax dollars? I mean, isn't the money raised from issuing the stickers just going right into that guy's pocket? My issue is that government at all levels has created a lot of revenue positions under the guise they're providing services.

Plus, let's say you privatize some service- wouldn't the honest, good employees be kept anyway?

[LuvSox]

Plus, let's say you privatize some service- wouldn't the honest, good employees be kept anyway?


Not at all. That private service has their own hiring process. Would I want to earn less? No. Would I want to lose a pension? No.

Privates are for-profit. Corners get cut. The Bottom Line is precious, not the safety of the citizens.

[LuvSox]

How about the guy who administers city car stickers- what service is that guy providing that we need to fund his salary with tax dollars?

Sure, there are some really stupid jobs in government, especially in bigger cities. No doubt about it.

[1951Campbell]

Not at all. That private service has their own hiring process. Would I want to earn less? No. Would I want to lose a pension? No.

This seems to be a tacit admission that your average government employee can't hack it in the private sector and is only out for cashing a check and drawing a pension.

The Bottom Line is precious, not the safety of the citizens.

And in much of government, the cushy 37.5 hour a week job needlessly pushing paper is precious. Providing any useful service or "safety" is a happy accident. Thinking the government gives any more of a shit about citizens than the private sector is hopelessly naive. At least a private company can get shit-canned. Try firing civil service types.

[LuvSox]

This seems to be a tacit admission that your average government employee can't hack it in the private sector and is only out for cashing a check and drawing a pension.



How in the world do you come to that conclusion? I have a family to provide for. Would I want to take a pay cut? Of course not. That's fucking stupid.

As a Govt. employee, I don't have a 401k, or whatever other people contribute to. If I choose to invest my own money after the bills are paid, so be it. I have a pension, nothing else. The full benefit of that pension is 72% of base salary after 32 years of service. Not that great. With that pension, I am not eligible for Social Security, yet I still pay into it. So, excuse the fuck out of me if I get upset when people generalize about how lazy Govt. employees are.


And in much of government, the cushy 37.5 hour a week job needlessly pushing paper is precious. Providing any useful service or "safety" is a happy accident. Thinking the government gives any more of a shit about citizens than the private sector is hopelessly naive. At least a private company can get shit-canned. Try firing civil service types.

I have plenty of experience in both areas. Yes, I believe city govt. cares a whole hell of alot more about the public than the private sector does. I guarantee it.

"Civil Service types" are under constant scrutiny of the public, supervisors, peers, everybody. It's not hard at all to dismiss a "Civil Service type".

[CaptainBallz]

And in much of government, the cushy 37.5 hour a week job needlessly pushing paper is precious. Providing any useful service or "safety" is a happy accident. Thinking the government gives any more of a shit about citizens than the private sector is hopelessly naive. At least a private company can get shit-canned. Try firing civil service types.

Providing services such as police, FD, streets and sanitation, schools, etc. come more out of general public necessity than any type of market-driven profit motive. "Government" does inherently give a shit, but only when the people who are supposed to be in charge of it take a vested interest in it. As for the workers, of course you'd be hard pressed to find that oh-so-passionate receptionist at the Dept of Public Aid, just as it would be at any private enterprise. And as far as those in charge of securing funds for those programs, I'm sure some definitely care more about the bottom line than the supposed function of the program.
But when all is said and done, government programs are accountable to the public that levies them. Whether or not the people performing the public services have their hearts and minds in the right place doesn't really matter much as long as the public that is reliant on the service owns the operation.

[samram]

But when all is said and done, government programs are accountable to the public that levies them. Whether or not the people performing the public services have their hearts and minds in the right place doesn't really matter much as long as the public that is reliant on the service owns the operation.

Really? The last ballot I looked at didn't give me a choice of firing government agencies that aren't cutting it. I think one of the biggest problems in government is lack of accountability at the bureaucrat level.

[CaptainBallz]

Really? The last ballot I looked at didn't give me a choice of firing government agencies that aren't cutting it. I think one of the biggest problems in government is lack of accountability at the bureaucrat level.

That's why there's a semi-functional representative system in place so that your opinion can hopefully translate into a policy that makes some form of sense. But in essence, you are given that choice by how you decide to cast your ballot and, more importantly, what's done when you're not casting a ballot.
As with anything government related, the accountibility only goes as far as people want it to go. Enough pressure basically gets anything done.

[Palehose13]

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? I have a family to provide for. Would I want to take a pay cut? Of course not. That's fucking stupid.

As a Govt. employee, I don't have a 401k, or whatever other people contribute to. If I choose to invest my own money after the bills are paid, so be it. I have a pension, nothing else. The full benefit of that pension is 72% of base salary after 32 years of service. Not that great. With that pension, I am not eligible for Social Security, yet I still pay into it. So, excuse the fuck out of me if I get upset when people generalize about how lazy Govt. employees are.




I have plenty of experience in both areas. Yes, I believe city govt. cares a whole hell of alot more about the public than the private sector does. I guarantee it.

"Civil Service types" are under constant scrutiny of the public, supervisors, peers, everybody. It's not hard at all to dismiss a "Civil Service type".

Thank you very much. I work my ass off and so do most of my colleagues. Of course there are some slackers, but there are slackers in all fields (public and private).

Really? The last ballot I looked at didn't give me a choice of firing government agencies that aren't cutting it. I think one of the biggest problems in government is lack of accountability at the bureaucrat level.

I agree that there needs to be more accountability and there has been changes in the teaching profession to make educators more accountable (but NCLB sucks ass and isn't right, something like PI 34 (http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/watsnew.html)is good). I don't think privatization of public services is the way to go. However, I do like most of the other stances of the libertarian party.

[Sir Realist]

Libertarians = Tree Hugging Republicans

[samram]

That's why there's a semi-functional representative system in place so that your opinion can hopefully translate into a policy that makes some form of sense. But in essence, you are given that choice by how you decide to cast your ballot and, more importantly, what's done when you're not casting a ballot.
As with anything government related, the accountibility only goes as far as people want it to go. Enough pressure basically gets anything done.

Ok, but, isn't the Constitution supposed to limit what the government can do, regardless of what the people want?

And remember that there are government unions which, IMO, severely restrict the amount of accountability the management of those agencies has to the public as opposed to the people working for said agencies. For instance, if you're a postal employee and you file an employment claim and you win at the administrative level, the PO can not appeal that to a court- however, if the reverse happens, the employee is allowed to appeal. In one recent case, an employee stole 10 dollars, was fired, sued for wrongful termination, and was given his job back by an admin judge because apparently stealing 10 dollars wasn't enough to warrant firing. This demonstrates accountability to public how exactly?

[samram]

I agree that there needs to be more accountability and there has been changes in the teaching profession to make educators more accountable (but NCLB sucks ass and isn't right, something like PI 34 (http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/watsnew.html)is good). I don't think privatization of public services is the way to go. However, I do like most of the other stances of the libertarian party.

NCLB is awful, no disagreement there.

My issue here isn't so much privatizing services, it's getting rid of "services" that are just revenue functions in disguise (especially car registration stuff like city stickers and license plate renewals).

[Palehose13]

NCLB is awful, no disagreement there.

My issue here isn't so much privatizing services, it's getting rid of "services" that are just revenue functions in disguise (especially car registration stuff like city stickers and license plate renewals).

Well that's fine and dandy with me. Ain't no point to that shit.

[CaptainBallz]

Ok, but, isn't the Constitution supposed to limit what the government can do, regardless of what the people want?

And remember that there are government unions which, IMO, severely restrict the amount of accountability the management of those agencies has to the public as opposed to the people working for said agencies. For instance, if you're a postal employee and you file an employment claim and you win at the administrative level, the PO can not appeal that to a court- however, if the reverse happens, the employee is allowed to appeal. In one recent case, an employee stole 10 dollars, was fired, sued for wrongful termination, and was given his job back by an admin judge because apparently stealing 10 dollars wasn't enough to warrant firing. This demonstrates accountability to public how exactly?

The Constitution never addressed the specific dimensions of how large or small government should be. It merely set up a system of government that stresses the checks and balances that would prevent any of the three arms from attaining too much power (how well that's worked can be debated).

I can't really speak for the PO case, since it seems as though that was the ruling of a particular judge based on what, I don't know... I'm not really talking about PO employees stealing ten dollars out of a register either. These agencies aren't for taxpayers to micromanage, but they are open for public scrutiny to ensure public interest is being maintained.
I don't think $10 is really going to cause the general outcry that one might expect, but you can bet that if there was someone in a management position charged with embezzling truckloads of funds or purposely mismanaging the agency, there is the same accountability that would be expected from anyone else.
I know it doesn't always work out that way and the crooks get away, but that's why there's people constantly fighting for more transparency and those who are fighting against it.

[samram]

I can't really speak for the PO case, since it seems as though that was the ruling of a particular judge based on what, I don't know... I'm not really talking about PO employees stealing ten dollars out of a register either. These agencies aren't for taxpayers to micromanage, but they are open for public scrutiny to ensure public interest is being maintained.
I don't think $10 is really going to cause the general outcry that one might expect, but you can bet that if there was someone in a management position charged with embezzling truckloads of funds or purposely mismanaging the agency, there is the same accountability that would be expected from anyone else.
I know it doesn't always work out that way and the crooks get away, but that's why there's people constantly fighting for more transparency and those who are fighting against it.

I guess my point with the PO case is that there's a general feeling in the public sector that once you have a job, it's your god-given right to have it forever, and the jurisprudence at the administrative level seems to confirm that notion. That leads to self-perpetuating government instead of problem-solving government. Wasn't it DHS which, a couple of years ago, threw a gigantic holiday party just to show Congress it had enough expenditures that it couldn't have its budget reduced?

[CaptainBallz]

I guess my point with the PO case is that there's a general feeling in the public sector that once you have a job, it's your god-given right to have it forever, and the jurisprudence at the administrative level seems to confirm that notion. That leads to self-perpetuating government instead of problem-solving government. Wasn't it DHS which, a couple of years ago, threw a gigantic holiday party just to show Congress it had enough expenditures that it couldn't have its budget reduced?

I'm not going to lie and say that isn't the case or that that type of malfeasance doesn't occur. But I'm not also going to say that every government agency is properly funded, either. My point is, when it comes to what are indeed "public services", I'd rather have them in the hands of government agencies that are actually part of that whole "we the people" thing, than some profit driven, self-interested entity that answers solely to investors and share holders and not to those who rely on the service(s). I believe it's in everyone's self interest to hold these agencies accountable, support watchdog groups, and ensure that those who they're financially supporting to provide civil services are doing just that in a ethical manner.

Doesn't leave much time for slacking off and not worrying too much about it, but that's how we got here in the first place.

We need more robots, I think.

[maurice]

Libertarians = :jagoff:
libertarians = :thumbsup:

Small "l" libertarians =/= GOP . . . at least not any more. The "neo-cons" running the federal government are in favor of huge government and don't give a crap about individual rights.

[1951Campbell]

As with anything government related, the accountibility only goes as far as people want it to go. Enough pressure basically gets anything done.

I know from my experience with defending the mentally ill and working with Children and Youth Services that pressure is only really exerted when white, upper-middle-class norms are violated. Woe to people who don't toe that line.

"Enough pressure bascially anything gets done"? Yeah, anything but making sure people can be the stewards of their own lives, and anything but making sure the Bills of Rights is enforced. Surely you know this.

[1951Campbell]

Ok, but, isn't the Constitution supposed to limit what the government can do, regardless of what the people want?




Exactly. There are these magical things called "enumerated powers" that no one seems to believe in anymore.

[1951Campbell]

Libertarians = :jagoff:
libertarians = :thumbsup:

Small "l" libertarians =/= GOP . . . at least not any more. The "neo-cons" running the federal government are in favor of huge government and don't give a crap about individual rights.

QFT.

[samram]

Exactly. There are these magical things called "enumerated powers" that no one seems to believe in anymore.

Yeah. It'd be nice if folks took at peek at the 10th Amendment too.

[Chips1]

Libertarians = :jagoff:
libertarians = :thumbsup:

Small "l" libertarians =/= GOP . . . at least not any more. The "neo-cons" running the federal government are in favor of huge government and don't give a crap about individual rights.

Exactly. There are these magical things called "enumerated powers" that no one seems to believe in anymore.

QFT.

Yeah. It'd be nice if folks took at peek at the 10th Amendment too.

You guys all rock. :thumbsup:

[CaptainBallz]

I know from my experience with defending the mentally ill and working with Children and Youth Services that pressure is only really exerted when white, upper-middle-class norms are violated. Woe to people who don't toe that line.

"Enough pressure bascially anything gets done"? Yeah, anything but making sure people can be the stewards of their own lives, and anything but making sure the Bills of Rights is enforced. Surely you know this.

It was all upper-class white people that marched on DC to listen to MLK's famous "I have a dream speech"? Really?
The labor movement? Upper class whites? Really?
i had no idea the American Indian Movement was so chock full of upper-class whites?
There's never been pressue by the population to ensure free speech? Freedom of religion? Of the press? Really?

Let's keep some perspective here.

[1951Campbell]

It was all upper-class white people that marched on DC to listen to MLK's famous "I have a dream speech"? Really?
The labor movement? Upper class whites? Really?
i had no idea the American Indian Movement was so chock full of upper-class whites?
There's never been pressue by the population to ensure free speech? Freedom of religion? Of the press? Really?

Let's keep some perspective here.

You are correct about your examples, but I was talking about mental health and Children & Youth Services. But yeah, I overreached a little.

[MeanFish]

I think that as with any ideal there are those who subscribe entirely to the ideal and those who simply endorse parts.

For instance, most people are centrist by nature. They are not full-out Republicans or Democrats. I personally prefer Libertarianism to either of the two major parties, but I still think that there should be public fire and police departments, among other things. I'm pretty heavy into defending people's rights, though I'm not necessarily as big into completely unchecked capitalism. Given that most of our bad situations in the private sector stem from government-endorsed monopolies and policies, it would seem that breaking some of that up by stopping government involvement would be a good thing while subscribing to a "privatize everything" method would be a bad thing. Adjustments should be made on a case-by-case basis.