How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[mmmtodd]

I would describe them as 'correct.'

[huskertim]

I would describe them as 'correct.'

 

 

Dude, you are a genius.

[huskertim]

If I had to pickk from the above, I would go with center right conservative.

 

Truth be told, I'm a classic federalist.

 

Really, I'm very much into decentralization. I firmly believe that the closer power is to the people, the more accountable those in power must be.

IE, I can walk down the street and knock on the door of my city councilman or even state senators house. Try that with your congressman. It's a whole lot harder to dodge your constituants when you eat at the same restaurants, your kids attend the same schools, and you live on the same block.

Therefore, I assert that to solve a great many problems with government we simply need to make more decisions at the local level rather than at the federal level. (Gosh, if only the founding fathers had thought of this).

[SOCALHUSKER]

An anarchist is another term for a libertarian, in the purest sense of the word.

[SOCALHUSKER]

An anarchist is another term for a libertarian, in the purest sense of the word.

 

Also, I prefer the term radical to extremist. It makes more sense.

[74Hunter]

I would like for my government to do just a few things for me: 1) give us the strongest military we possibly can, 2) protect our borders and our citizens, 3) quit spending so damn much of MY money, and 4) stay out of my life!!

 

I guess that would likely be considered libertarian or even anarchist, but I don't believe in total non-government. To vote in primaries, I have to pretty much be either a registered Repuke or Demon, so I choose the lesser of the two evils and register Repuke. It's pretty funny, even right-wing talk show host consider the left-wing to be "good intentioned" and "well-meaning" and I used to believe that. But the past 10 years have shown that the left-wing in this country is more concerned about power, and less concerned about the average American citizen.

[jnkyrdoff6]

An anarchist is another term for a libertarian, in the purest sense of the word.

That's how I look at it too, but I have yet to meet an anarchist who feels the same.

[knapplc]

I would like for my government to do just a few things for me: 1) give us the strongest military we possibly can, 2) protect our borders and our citizens, 3) quit spending so damn much of MY money, and 4) stay out of my life!!

 

I guess that would likely be considered libertarian or even anarchist, but I don't believe in total non-government. To vote in primaries, I have to pretty much be either a registered Repuke or Demon, so I choose the lesser of the two evils and register Repuke. It's pretty funny, even right-wing talk show host consider the left-wing to be "good intentioned" and "well-meaning" and I used to believe that. But the past 10 years have shown that the left-wing in this country is more concerned about power, and less concerned about the average American citizen.

 

I'm a registered Independent and I vote in the primaries. There's not a lot of difference between voting as a Republican/Democrat or Independent. If you're a Democrat you can vote on everything except the Republican candidate in the primaries. If you're a Republican, you can vote on everything except the Democratic candidate. If you're Independent, you don't get to vote on either until the General Election, but really, it's a small price to pay to send the message to both parties that, "You don't represent what I want my country to be."

[SOCALHUSKER]

An anarchist is another term for a libertarian, in the purest sense of the word.

That's how I look at it too, but I have yet to meet an anarchist who feels the same.

Really?? I know a lot of them that do. Though a few tend to discard the name anarchist and instead use voluntaryist, right/left-libertarian or agorist due to the widely abused and misused definition of the term. In all actuality, anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchos, which means "no rulers." It does not mean chaos, violence or any other word one would use to describe disaster. An anarchist is one who simply believes that he owns himself and that he has the right to do with himself and his property whatever he would like as long he refrains from infringing upon other individual's property rights and their ability to do the same. This means adhering to the non-aggression principle and employing the free market to trade, contract and employ others in a voluntary and mutually consenting manner. For more info check out Voluntaryism

[EZ-E]

Work for what you get, get what you earn and keep the government out of the things that the government shouldnt be involved in.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Work for what you get, get what you earn and keep the government out of the things that the government shouldnt be involved in.

 

You got it all correct except that the government shouldn't be involved in anything!! And if defense, protection, roads or education are truly a concern, you'd be better off voluntarily giving your money to any business providing the same service but competing for customers in a free market. Currently, all those services are provided, more like shoved down your throat with money stolen from you, by the coercive monopoly known as government. And this only guarantees one thing, that you will get the worst possible service for the highest possible price.

[EZ-E]

Work for what you get, get what you earn and keep the government out of the things that the government shouldnt be involved in.

 

You got it all correct except that the government shouldn't be involved in anything!! And if defense, protection, roads or education are truly a concern, you'd be better off voluntarily giving your money to any business providing the same service but competing for customers in a free market. Currently, all those services are provided, more like shoved down your throat with money stolen from you, by the coercive monopoly known as government. And this only guarantees one thing, that you will get the worst possible service for the highest possible price.

 

I agree with most of what you said. Except I do believe in the system we currently have in place. It has in the past few years fallen because of corruption. Now is the time to crack down on voter fraud, bribing the senators and the representatives because I dont think there is a group of people out there that wouldnt agree that this Heath Care Bill wasnt done in a very corrupt way.

 

I would like to live in an America where the constitution is valued again; where the people on capital hill have the interest of the people at hand and not their own; and I would love for this republic with a socialistic twist on it to end for good.

 

If this were my economy here is what I would do:

 

1. Crack down on illegal immigration

2. Start drilling off-shore for oil

3. Tort Reform

4. Make it legal for people to buy insurance policies across state lines

 

1 & 2 would both create jobs and 2 would also lessen our dependency on foriegn oil.

 

3 would lower the cost of Health Care because you wouldnt be able to sue a doctor for cutting a toe nail wrong, etc. So malpractice insurance premiums would fall drastically; thus lowering the cost of Health Care.

 

4 would open up the competition and make the best insurance packages available come out.

 

The above probably wouldnt cost as much as we are currently spending.

[carlfense]

***snip***

 

3. Tort Reform

 

***snip***

 

3 would lower the cost of Health Care because you wouldnt be able to sue a doctor for cutting a toe nail wrong, etc. So malpractice insurance premiums would fall drastically; thus lowering the cost of Health Care.

 

***snip****

 

I don't even know where to begin with this post. Let's just begin by saying the so called problem of medical malpractice lawsuits necessitating tort reform is a myth. Absolute, 100%, fantasy.

 

First, the problem isn't that there are too many people suing for malpractice . . . the problem is that there is too much malpractice. Check it out:

"What the medical societies did not tell my father, or almost anyone else, was that their own research showed that the real problem was too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. In the mid-1970s the California Hospital and Medical Associations sponsored a study on medical malpractice that they expected would support their tort reform efforts. But, to their surprise and dismay, the study showed that medical malpractice injured tens of thousands of people every year—more than automobile and workplace accidents. The study also showed that, despite the rhetoric, most of the victims did not sue. But almost nobody heard about the study because the associations decided that these facts conflicted with their tort reform message."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

 

Second, if doctors were immune from suits (and thereby denying the patient the right to a remedy when a doctor amputates the wrong leg . . . don't laugh . . . it happens) the cost of medical care would decline a whopping 1.5%. You heard that correctly. Malpractice insurance costs doctors roughly 1.5% of the total costs of health care in the United States. Remember . . . most patients with valid claims (i.e. the doctor acted negligently) "do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html

 

Anyways, I strongly encourage everyone with even a slight interest in this subject to read the provided link from the University of Chicago. It contains a fascinating excerpt from the book "The Medical Malpractice Myth." The book discusses the way the AMA and health care lobby have desperately tried to blame spiraling cost increases on litigious patients . . . despite the minor problem that the facts do not support their conclusions.

[EZ-E]

if doctors were immune from suits

 

I never once eluded to this at all Carlfense. Your links do sound interesting and thank you. I will read them when I get the time as I am in class right now. I have a huge work study block tonight that I should be able to get to it.

[carlfense]

if doctors were immune from suits

 

I never once eluded to this at all Carlfense. Your links do sound interesting and thank you. I will read them when I get the time as I am in class right now. I have a huge work study block tonight that I should be able to get to it.

 

I know you didn't say that. I was trying to say if we took it to the most cost saving extreme, no suits at all, it would still only save 1.5% of medical costs overall. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that.