Login or register
Online User List [+] Online: (8): alimais, canyou, drastronomy, marinepenguin, olisaurus, unforgiventempsoul, whoozy, anonymous(4).
#1771 - largenintimidating
Reply +3
(06/20/2012) [-]

Let's see what FJ's political board's personal politics are like:

Economy: The role of government is to prevent the worst excesses and screwing's over of the consumer, and to help the free market back on its legs when it falls, then return to the aforementioned prevention.

War: If war is the lesser evil (e.g. a paranoid, possibly genocidal dictator who might invade neighboring nations is at large), for god's sakes, fucking declare it, and then prosecute it to the bitter end.

Human Rights: Unless it hurts other people, go ahead, be whatever the fuck you want to be. Freedom of Speech is slightly different, in that you should be allowed to say whatever the fuck you want, but excercise common sense and empathy when you do. Whether you failed to do so can be judged on a case by case basis.

Social Programs: The government should offer public health/education, and it should strive to do it as well as the best private institutions. The government should never cover more than 50% of your pension. People should put aside a pension fund instead of getting the younger generations to pay for their retirement. Unemployment payments should allow you to live just above the poverty line, but no higher. If you want a good life, keep working for it.

If you've got other categories, just add them to your post.
#1782 to #1771 - airguitar
Reply 0
(06/21/2012) [-]
I could address all your points, as I have many disagreements- but I will instead propose an idea of mine for the last, specifically unemployment benefits:

Alright, I am libertarian. This means I say there should be no unemployment benefits at all. Now, I agree with this, I think if you aren't producing any goods or services for other people- why should they give you money? So, in this free-market society, my first economic conclusion is that those who are unemployed and have potential to still find a good job and earn a strong wage could get money from certain institutions. Said institution would be similar to a company that gives out student loans. These companies would loan money to unemployed people with the hope that the person they are lending to find a job, repay them AND give them interest on the initial loan. I see no reason why this would not work, of course people who support government intervention will oppose it but I'd like to hear what you guys think?
#1784 to #1782 - Mentoman
Reply +2
(06/21/2012) [-]
Libertarianism is not a bad idea, but what about those who literally cannot work, due to physical inability (i.e. limb amputated due to injury, combat or not)?
#1797 to #1784 - airguitar
Reply 0
(06/21/2012) [-]
Sorry if this v sounds so bad, it sounds worse than it is. Take a perspective of the past before reading it.
#1796 to #1784 - airguitar
Reply 0
(06/21/2012) [-]
Look throughout history, what would have happened to people without limbs or with injury? They would have died, simple as that. Now I am not advocating for that, I am simply bringing it to the forefront of your mind because you cannot have discussions of this nature without looking how much better things are now than in the past, fate does not treat everyone fairly, bear that in mind.

What is capitalism. Capitalism is a system where you only are rewarded if you can produce something to your fellow humans which they want. Do those people who cannot walk or without limbs have nothing to offer? I think in modern times it is not an extreme setback. Assuming they still have arms they can type, they can still paint or draw or even build things with their hands. Most importantly, this person still has their mind. The mind is the most important part about being successful in today's society and I don't believe someone who is physically handicapped is left for dead.

I personally have been through 3 strokes before I was 13 years of age. I am missing a very large portion of my peripheral vision and most likely will never be able to drive/play sports. I don't consider this as a huge setback by any means, I just am using it as an example. Should I then receive money from others so that I can afford public transit to get to work? I don't think so, although this health issue is due to a gene, it is not the responsibility of others to let me lech off of them. Transportation and healthcare (I am not clean cut on my opinion of healthcare so don't ask me about public healthcare) are both services. What part about being a living being entitles me to get somebody else's services for free? If I was handicapped I would feel terrible if other people I don't know's money was going toward me without them even approving of it. Instead either I would pull my weight, my friends and family would, or I would perish. I personally would prefer death before being a leach.
#1798 to #1796 - airguitar
Reply 0
(06/21/2012) [-]
I am 20 by the way, so it's not like I don't know if I can drive- it's just I haven't cared to get a restricted license.