http://www.lp.org/poll/which-libertarian-principle-most-helps-your-family:
Which Libertarian principle most helps your family?
-Making health care more affordable and accessible by repealing anti-competition regulations promoted by health care lobbyists
-Improving your child’s school by restoring local control, enacting school choice and getting bureaucrats out of education
-Creating good jobs for all Americans by giving employers tax and regulatory relief
-Cutting your taxes, while also reducing wasteful and unneeded spending so your children don’t end up paying higher taxes
-Protecting America through a well-funded, well-equipped military focused on defending our borders
Reposted to IPR by Paulie.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Rob Power // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Where were these options?
-Ending government discrimination against my family and me
-Stopping the government from making life-saving medicine illegal
-Making the entire country into a “free speech zone”
It’s like the left half of the Libertarian quadrant on the Nolan Chart doesn’t even exist for these guys.
2 Brittancus // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Health care insurance companies have had it their way for far too long. Prior to 13th century the Barons, freeman and fettered surfs of England genuflected to every whim of the King John of England. In 1215 Magna Carta changed all that, just as we have reached a precipitous point today with the health care. WE desperately need freedom from the businesses that prey on the the average American?. We need a Single payer system, just like most European developed nations our insurance entities have subjected people to deceiving paperwork that would null their agreement for any pre-existing conditions found. They would delve deeply into any scrap of information, to cut off a person potential surgery–specially those items costing $100.000 dollars.. Not satisfied with that, under the watchful eye of the stockholders “bean Counters”, would hit you with co-pays and premiums.
Governor Schwarzenegger should listen to the association of nurses and remove any insurance company from participating in the health care committee. Insurance companies are a cold dispassionate for-profit business that has no intentions of releasing their hold on a trillion dollar industry. Shortly we will be bombarded with gross lies, rhetoric and propaganda in every corner of the media. To even think of even enacting a single payer system is supposedly anti-American. In truth the estimates of Americans uninsured has reached a disastrous proportion. Then we have the shuffle of free health care for illegal foreign nationals that also have a massive financial impact on all taxpayers. Car makers would be in fair competition with foreign companies, who are usually subsidized by their countries. No business would be exempt from paying into the United States health care fund, and pharmaceutical companies would not have a monopoly any more.
One monolithic pool of people is far better than the chaos of health care system we have today. England, prior to the ingress of illegal and legal commonwealth immigrants, the island had a true excellent system of health care for everyone. Your job paid insurance stamps, same as the employee who gave you access to a doctor, a surgeon, eye or dentist practitioner. No money, no insurance card, no state picture ID changed hands. A small payment for medicine was all that was expected. The only difference was a short waiting time for specialists that the well-heeled are completely isolated from.
Indeed, I had 2 minor and one selective surgery that cost nothing out of pocket. Here Americans live in frightened anticipation of debt collectors and bankruptcy for bills unpaid. Health care drains the country each year of trillions of dollars– much going to insurance companies, archaic billing companies, and a whole cornucopia of middlemen. It will not be easy to change the broken system? Just like illegal immigration, the open-border proponents have everything to lose, that includes politicians who are major stockholders in hospitals for profit. Call the President, Senator or Representative and demand a—SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM: 202-224-3121
3 SSave our SStatism // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Brittanicus is one of my favorite commentators at IPR
SSave our SStatism
4 Nate // Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Libertarian principle?
“Protecting America through a well-funded, well-equipped military”
Libertarian principle? Really?? At least they added “focused on defending our borders,” rather than on nuking North Korea, carpet bombing Panama or some other nonsense. But seeing as how libertarians should want to slash military spending by as much as possible, it seems strange to claim a “well funded” military is a libertarian principle.
I’m not advocating taking away their guns and handing them Swiss army knives. Ok, actually that wouldn’t be such a bad idea. But this sounds like a core libertarian value is pumping tax payer money into the military, and I’m fairly sure the Republicans already hold down that position rather firmly, no need to move in that direction.
5 paulie // Apr 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Nate is correct.
6 paulie // Apr 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Health care insurance companies have had it their way for far too long. Prior to 13th century the Barons, freeman and fettered surfs of England genuflected to every whim of the King John of England. In 1215 Magna Carta changed all that
Ironic that Brittanicus would take the occasion of the British freeing themselves to some extent from an all-powerful government monopoly to call for a new one…
7 paulie // Apr 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm
That’s not exactly new, but the fact that they are at least trying to do some leftward outreach is somewhat encouraging.
8 libertariangirl // Apr 10, 2009 at 7:23 pm
ending the drug war so one of my children doesnt end up filling a cell for a youthful mistake
9 Michael Seebeck // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Eliminating the frickin’ IRS and the income tax.
10 George Phillies // Apr 11, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“-Improving your child’s school by restoring local control”
yet another Republican line, pure and simple. Now, if the Republicans in control at LNCHQ had talked about protecting private and home schopling, they might be going someplace.
11 Michael H. Wilson // Apr 12, 2009 at 12:49 am
Brittancus maybe you need to get a better handle on what we call healthcare here in the colonies. In Jolly Old England midwives deliver about 75% of babies. In the colonies they get to deliver about 8%. Big difference in costs and quality. And there are a lot of other differences to go with that one.
12 mdh // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:00 am
“Protecting America through a well-funded, well-equipped military focused on defending our borders”
Wait… what?
13 paulie // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:09 am
Current results (not final)
Making health care more affordable and accessible by repealing anti-competition regulations promoted by health care lobbyists
12% (32 votes)
Improving your child’s school by restoring local control, enacting school choice and getting bureaucrats out of education
9% (23 votes)
Creating good jobs for all Americans by giving employers tax and regulatory relief
13% (36 votes)
Cutting your taxes, while also reducing wasteful and unneeded spending so your children don’t end up paying higher taxes
54% (145 votes)
Protecting America through a well-funded, well-equipped military focused on defending our borders
12% (33 votes)
Total votes: 269
14 Thomas M. Sipos // Apr 12, 2009 at 9:46 am
Some people (most notably Bruce Cohen and Brian Holtz) complain that I have an ideological agenda, in that I’ve published too many antiwar pieces in California Freedom, the California LP’s state newspaper.
If so, then it shouldn’t be a problem, because someone must balance the ideologically conservative agenda coming out of the LNC.
15 libertariangirl // Apr 12, 2009 at 10:59 am
I don’t think it’s possible to be too anti-war or to speak or write about it too much.
16 Libertarian Joseph // Apr 12, 2009 at 12:29 pm
which princple helps? the no taxes one
17 Brian Holtz // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Thomas, I dare you to give us an integer counting how many pro-war statements “coming out of the LNC” that you think you are “balancing” with all of your antiwar articles in CF.
What a laughable rationalization.
18 mdh // Apr 12, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Brian,
I don’t think there’s any need for a pro-war balance amongst Libertarians. That’s kind of like saying we need a higher-tax balance to balance all of the lower or no-tax propaganda coming out of Libertarians in general.
19 paulie // Apr 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Some people (most notably Bruce Cohen and Brian Holtz) complain that I have an ideological agenda, in that I’ve published too many antiwar pieces in California Freedom, the California LP’s state newspaper.
If so, then it shouldn’t be a problem, because someone must balance the ideologically conservative agenda coming out of the LNC.
Notice Sipos said conservative agenda, not pro-war statements.
If anyone wants to continue the discussion about the antiwar articles in California Freedom, the comments are still open at
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/02/6618
20 Robert Capozzi // Apr 12, 2009 at 2:43 pm
In the age of Obama, it seems predictable that the LP would take on a more-right -sounding slant. I’d agree that the LNC and national sound more rightist in recent months. The issue of the day is bailouts and natioalizations, after all, as those are the notable deviations from the current trajectory.
Still, there are left-ish sounding issues that we should emphasize. Obama’s “moderation” on Iraq and drug raids come to mind.
See, to me, moderation ain’t always indicated, especially when the status quo is hardly moderate.
21 paulie // Apr 12, 2009 at 3:41 pm
In the age of Obama, it seems predictable that the LP would take on a more-right -sounding slant.
That explains why in the age of W the LP took on a left-sounding slant that it did, then? Oh, wait…
The issue of the day is bailouts and natioalizations, after all, as those are the notable deviations from the current trajectory.
If those are the only issues of the day, then it’s quite simple to believe that the solution is to support the Republicans (never mind their very recent bailouts and bloating of big government under W, they are joining and even leading the tea parties!)
Still, there are left-ish sounding issues that we should emphasize. Obama’s “moderation” on Iraq and drug raids come to mind.
Exactly! Let’s get out front on those and try to get more Democrats to cross over the way Mike Gravel did (maybe some who are younger and not fresh from being defeated in Democratic primaries). After all, with the Republicans out of power, the hypocrisy of Republicans in power on making government bigger is not hitting rank and file Republicans in the face as much; whereas Obama and his administration’s betrayal on peace and civil liberties issues is being served up with dqaily reminders. See:
Full Article with hyperlinks at Salon
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/08/criticism/
Excerpt:
Continue reading at
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/08/criticism/
22 libertariangirl // Apr 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm
P-DADDY__ (never mind their very recent bailouts and bloating of big government under W, they are joining and even leading the tea parties!)
yes they are trying to hijack what should be our fort’e but heres what we are doing to combat it in Nevada. we’re just going to hijack it back . we are bringing our bullhorns , our liturature , our great big signs on stands ,Wayne root as a speaker , and we , the Nevada Libs , intend to make folks know we are the party of lower taxes , not the GOP.
having said that Chuck Muth is in charge of the tea party here and I respect him ALOT! i look forward to working with him
23 paulie // Apr 12, 2009 at 4:45 pm
we’re just going to hijack it back . we are bringing our bullhorns , our liturature , our great big signs on stands
Right on! I hope that happens all over the country.
Ayn R. Key writes at NFV about a tea party that took places yesterday
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-antelope-valley-tea-party/
24 Brian Holtz // Apr 12, 2009 at 7:52 pm
MDH, I’ve never said that the LP needs to balance its anti-intervention statements with pro-intervention ones. What I’ve instead said is that the LP should not emphasize the issues — like abortion, immigration, and intervention — that spark the most internal dissent.
Paulie, Sipos’s statement makes as much sense as if a Bruce Cohen had said that CF needs to feature 2 or 3 liberventionist articles every issue to “balance” against the civil liberties emphasis of an allegedly-left-leaning LNC. That would be inane, Bruce would never do it, and you (and I) would criticize anyone who did.
25 mdh // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:44 am
I wasn’t aware that interventionism sparked a lot of internal dissent. In fact it seems like non-interventionism is a pretty universally libertarian principle (even Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, agreed).
If opponents of libertarian ideals come in and start dissenting on just about every issue until we have no good ones left for outreach, should we simply close up shop?
26 Brian Holtz // Apr 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A significant minority of Libertarians favored the overthrow of Saddam, and surely a majority agreed with this LNC resolution on Afghanistan: http://marketliberal.org/LP/LNC/2001-10-14%20Afghanistan.htm
We can hypothesize about internal dissent “on just about every issue”, but here in the Real World the big three Libertarian issue schisms will remain abortion, immigration, and libervention. Filling our duespayers’ newsletter with antiwar articles isn’t “outreach” — it’s infighting, as Sipos effectively admitted @14.
Leave a Comment