www.ditl.org

Indeed, I've been quite surprised about how non-suckish his governing of California has been. And how cool would it be to have Arnold as president?

Teaos wrote:He is also doing a good job at making California the next big thing in Green energy.

I would prefer that he push for nuke plants but California is filled with eco-nuts, NIMBY's and other nutcases, so he may as well eat a baby on TV. Hope they enjoy having no power when the oil runs out.

He knows nuclear isnt going to happen so he is pushing green since he knows there is huge money to be made in it.

Teaos wrote:He knows nuclear isnt going to happen so he is pushing green since he knows there is huge money to be made in it.

There is but unless they want to cover California from end to end with wind turbines and solar plants, they are going to be screwed eventually.

Teaos wrote: 1) There will be more rich and more middle class with fewer truely poor.

The only thing I think everyone agrees on under the libertarian model is that the very rich will be much richer.

Probably the regular rich will be richer along with the upper middle class. Once fewer people can afford college they should do better. Also nepotism should help.

However the middle class is unlikely to grow. Now I suppose that depends on the country a bit. A small country might be able to reap enough benifit as a tax shelter to maybe drive up wages on somewhat skilled workers.

The US however couldn't swing something like that.

More likely the monopsonies that come to make up the country will work to drive salaries down. And even the middle class tends to benifit under progressive taxation, so they'd have more relative burden.

2) You act like we're just waiting for the right to blow everyone up.
3) See above. They arent sitting waiting for the chance to knee cap anyone they like. And even if they did you avoid their private property your safe.

No no. I don't think (that many) Libertarians want to blow up people. You simply want them to quitely die in the street. The enforcers come into play when the impoverished decide they don't want to play by your rules.

No, rich people have lots of money and rich people spend lots of money. Thus under a fair tax system they would still be paying far more than the poor.

It depends on the final ration of right to poor. But they could well be paying more total. But they wouldn't be paying more percentage wise. Likely they would be paying less because you can bypass most "fair" taxes by reinvesting the money. Which the rich would do anyway in order to be richer. The poor however spend all their money, on stuff that would be hit.

Meaning that under a "fair" system the rich person might pay X% of their income in taxes while a poor person would be paying maybe X*1.5%

There are also ideas to only tax after a certain income braket so the truely poor pay nothing at all.

You'd get booed among "true" libertarians for that one. You see things like that promoted when a republican wants to push through a fair tax.

(on racists taking advantage of Libertarianism) God man leave the 60's and join us in the 21st century.

I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't that much of an issue in NZ. You guys might be pretty homogeonus race wise.

However in America there is still a whole lot of racists and homophobic bigots out there. LOTS.

It puts people in charge of their own lives

That's very much true now. Even in NZ I bet and you're pretty socialist right?

Actually that's less true under Libertarianism. Right now even the poorest in society can feed their kids and send them to a public school. And those kids could get government support to get through college.

And taxes on inheritence and laws against nepotism and varous hiring practices make people have to work to hold onto their riches for generations (a little).

Libertarianism is about creating nobles and serfs out of the haves and the have nots. The elite don't have to worry about having as much competition for what they have from up and coming people from lower classes.

gives more personal freedom to each and every individual.

Unless you rent. At which point your personal freedoms are something you negotiate with your (land) Lord.

Regarding Arnold:

As a staunch anti-Republican, I've been pleasantly surprised by the job he's been doing - although his laughable attempt at "public" health care was so implausible it was pathetic.

Here's my question - for a short time, there were calls from some sections of the GOP for Arnold for Pres. How can someone in politics NOT know that he is ineligible to for the presidency?

Mikey wrote:Regarding Arnold:

As a staunch anti-Republican, I've been pleasantly surprised by the job he's been doing - although his laughable attempt at "public" health care was so implausible it was pathetic.

Here's my question - for a short time, there were calls from some sections of the GOP for Arnold for Pres. How can someone in politics NOT know that he is ineligible to for the presidency?

The law can be changed, indeed it should. The man has been in the US so long he may as well have been native born anyways.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Mikey wrote:Regarding Arnold:

As a staunch anti-Republican, I've been pleasantly surprised by the job he's been doing - although his laughable attempt at "public" health care was so implausible it was pathetic.

Here's my question - for a short time, there were calls from some sections of the GOP for Arnold for Pres. How can someone in politics NOT know that he is ineligible to for the presidency?

The law can be changed, indeed it should. The man has been in the US so long he may as well have been native born anyways.

It's not a question of "should be changed" or "can be changed" - it's a question of "hasn't been changed."

Mikey wrote:
It's not a question of "should be changed" or "can be changed" - it's a question of "hasn't been changed."

It can be introduced at any time, he doesn't have to run immediately. I'd like it just so Demolition Man would turn out to be right.

You'd get booed among "true" libertarians for that one. You see things like that promoted when a republican wants to push through a fair tax.

True but I unlike many realise the need for compromise. I would like the original model but realisee it is not likely to happen so I compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't that much of an issue in NZ. You guys might be pretty homogeonus race wise.

However in America there is still a whole lot of racists and homophobic bigots out there. LOTS.

*shrug* I really can't comment about that but I would hope its not true.

Actually that's less true under Libertarianism.

How does that make any sense? under Libertarianism you get to make your own person decisions. There are no laws governing how you spend your life and your money (with in reason obviously, its not anarchy). Sure people with less money may not be able to send their children to the best schools but that true now.

But the cool thing is that there are these things called scholarships where the smart kids who really deserve to get into the good colleges can for very little money.

There are also these things called banks that can offer loans.

Don't pretend there is no way up. It just takes work which despite what the Democrates tell you is not a bad thing.

Teaos wrote:Don't pretend there is no way up. It just takes work which despite what the Democrates tell you is not a bad thing.

Of course not. It would just be less offensive if super-rich kids also had to work for what they get.

Teaos wrote: True but I unlike many realise the need for compromise. I would like the original model but realisee it is not likely to happen so I compromise.

Oh plenty agree on the need for compromise. Since in many countries true libertarainism makes things worse for most of the population it could never come to be in a democracy.

In many ways compromise is that the official Libertarian Party exists for.

Mostly I just want you to acknowledge that the system results in an effective downshift of the tax burden, is extremely prone to monopolies, and probably a fair bit of crushing of the lower middle class and certainly the lower and poor classes.

But the cool thing is that there are these things called scholarships where the smart kids who really deserve to get into the good colleges can for very little money.

There are also these things called banks that can offer loans.

Don't pretend there is no way up. It just takes work which despite what the Democrates tell you is not a bad thing.

Ah but those bank loans and many of the scholarships are subsidized by the hated government.

The loans and scholarships that would be left we be those that the instituations in question deem profitable. The scholoarships would tend to go to those from the best private schools or those who are already wealthy as they'd be the most likely to be able to give back, and the loans would go to those with decent co-signers.

And this presumes the kids poor parents got a loan to send them to K-12 in the first place.


And really when you get down to it what do you gain in a Libertarians system? Ok you're in a more socialistic country, so lets talk more about a less socialistic one like America.

Now there is the thing where you can smoke your pot and still keep your guns. Fair enough, but that might well come about through the back and forth of Democrats and Republicans, and really only requires a majority of the population backing it. Privatize a few things if it might save money. Again, doable, sometimes the Republicans push that.

But the big picture model? What can you really do under it that you cannot do now? It's really just about giving more money and power to the haves while stripping the have-nots of money,rights, and opportunity, and doing so to such a degree that even many Neo-Cons find it appalling.

Mostly I just want you to acknowledge that the system results in an effective downshift of the tax burden, is extremely prone to monopolies, and probably a fair bit of crushing of the lower middle class and certainly the lower and poor classes.

I agree it had a downshift in tax burden but I dont agree thats a bad thing.

It is more prone to monopolys but not extreamly so. But even under the current system we get them and they are not the total evil most people try to make them out to be.

I don't agree with the crushing of the poor though.

Ah but those bank loans and many of the scholarships are subsidized by the hated government.

They dont have to be.

And really when you get down to it what do you gain in a Libertarians system?

I get the right to not live in a damn nanny state.

I get the right to not wear a seat belt, to smoke and do what ever I like to my own body with out it either being illegal to taxed to hell. I want the right to defend my property with out worrying about the guy robbing me sueing me. I want to be able to spank my kids when they are naughty. I want to be able to write an editorial about how the govenrnment is shit with out breaking the law. I dont want free specch zones. I dont want wire taps and unwarrent search for my own good. I dont want to register my car since it serves no fucking point. I want to be able to hire a white guy who is qualified for the job with out worrying the maori guy I didnt is gonna call racist. I want the right to call my kid Captain Pugwash with out being told I cant. I want gay people to be able to marry and I want religions to stop getting a free ride.

I dont want people to tell me how to live my own fucking life when its none of their business.

sunnyside wrote:...Now there is the thing where you can smoke your pot and still keep your guns...

Sounds good to me.

Rochey wrote:Indeed, I've been quite surprised about how non-suckish his governing of California has been. And how cool would it be to have Arnold as president?

In fairness he only calmed down and became "moderate" after we (the California voters) absolutely thrashed him in his special initiative election and basically overwhelmingly said no on everything he was banking we all "really wanted."