TweetDEM OR REP WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE

Tweetone thing, witch may seem small, is i'd want to cap what ALL parties were allowed to spend on compiegn's for any goverment office. let's level the playing field (seems to be a popular thing to do), give more average joe's a chance. then, i really do believe that we as a nation work to much just to make it by! i think i would want to push more time off for families. i joke about a 4 day work week, but i do believe something needs to be done. when i was growing up, my mom didnt HAVE to work, but there's no way poss. that we, as a family, could make it without 2 incomes. and, i do believe it hurts the family with the hours we have to work. i think we need to put our home soil first. i think we need to concentrate more on domestic affairs and not get involved as much with other countries. when we have our house clean, we can look at the rest of the neighborhood! i also would keep dog fighting illegal (sorry klash, cant do it!). there's so much shyt that needs working on, where do you start?...

Tweet....oh, and i'd re-introduce the $500.00 bill. we've had the 100bill as the big dog long enough. i'd just have to choose if i wanted me or some other great man on the bill (i'm leaning towards me)

TweetI would start with getting rid of income tax personal and corp. Or really fine tune for corp income. Put it this way, the business owner would love me.

Tweetgood question..get rid of IRS and most of the Board of's ______..no more income tax because the federal reserve would be out of private hands..raise minimum wage...change corporation laws, change lobbyist laws..obey the constitution, change our foreign policy to non interventionalist..secure boarders..stop the pan american union/Amero $..make drugs legal to negate national debt and also work towards a gold standard.

Tweeti'd want to cap what ALL parties were allowed to spend on compiegn's for any goverment office.

good one..it's rediculous how much $ alot of the candidates get from big corps and spend in their campaigns..BY the way Ron Paul just earned 5.3 mil last quater 90% from individuals like me and you..thats the way funding should be, that way a president doesnt owe anyone favors.

Tweet^i agree!! NO CORPERATE SPONCERS!!!! if they're gonna have corporate sponcers, they have to wear there name on their suit (think nascar) and even then, it's capped!!

TweetRound the clock audio and visual surveillance on all senior politicians and their aids. With power, accountability. If they don't want to be subject to that degree of surveillance, fine, don't take the job. - Now obviously this wouldn't be broadcast over the internet, that would be stupid, but it would be archived and subject to review. As to who should have access? That would take an explanation a lot longer than I feel like typing right now.

TweetI would introduce cage fighting as part of the voting. If you want to introduce a bill, you have to fight someone to get it approved. LOL

Ok, more seriously now, I would change so many things I don't know where to start, so, I'll make a list....

Welfare limitations: if you are able to work, then you only get welfare for so many months. If at that point, you refuse to be gainfully employeed, your kids go into the system. This way, the kids at least get to eat and don't have to go to bed hungry becaus mom and/or dad is a fukin deadbeat.

Lobbyist: Gone!!!!!

Campain spending: limited!!!!

Spending on defense: Reduced!

Spending on education: Increased!

Funding for under priveledged kids to go to college: Increased dramatically!

IRS: Gone!!!! It would be changed to a state tax sales tax. That way, fukers that get cahs under the table can pay their part.

Parities (Dem and Rep): Gone!!!! Everyone is an independant. This way, lazy ass Americans would have to actully take the voting more serious in stead of just voting for thier party guy.

Votes: All votes of all memebers of congress are public information. This way, you know if a guy voted the way he said he would. That'll keep some of the fukers more honest.

Prision: Build a multi national minimum security prison on Antarctica for all murders, rapists and child molestors. Then, designate satelites to maintain constant view of it. If any one tries to fly in, they get shot down. If they try to boat in, a (remember it's multt-national) would go sink the boat. Food is dropped in once a week and they are to fend for them selves. This should reduce prisons by 60%. That would save money. The new prison would have no guards so if these animals kill each other, oh well. That too will make them think twice before committing these types of crimes.

And the list goes on....

TweetSeriously, I think the only thing that needs to be done is to protect individual freedom and most the things listed above would be improved. IMO, this begins with a philosophical change of our country, that a president could help bring into the national debate.

If politicians couldn't use government legislation (force) to discriminate against one demographic in favor of another, lobbyist would lose incentive on putting a lot of money in Washington for favorable legislation.

If we got government out of the money making business, we wouldn't have to worry about inflation; if we weren't taxed so heavily, for social programs based on government discrimination, we wouldn't have to work so hard just to pay taxes.

If we made only acts that infringe individual rights illegal, we wouldn't need to keep increasing our prisons budgets because prison would be limited to people that have committed force ,fraud or theft against another human being.

Of course we would have to phase out from our nanny state to a free state but this is what needs to be started.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

Seriously, I think the only thing that needs to be done is to protect individual freedom and most the things listed above would be improved. IMO, this begins with a philosophical change of our country, that a president could help bring into the national debate.

If politicians couldn't use government legislation (force) to discriminate against one demographic in favor of another, lobbyist would lose incentive on putting a lot of money in Washington for favorable legislation.

If we got government out of the money making business, we wouldn't have to worry about inflation; if we weren't taxed so heavily, for social programs based on government discrimination, we wouldn't have to work so hard just to pay taxes.

If we made only acts that infringe individual rights illegal, we wouldn't need to keep increasing our prisons budgets because prison would be limited to people that have committed force ,fraud or theft against another human being.

Of course we would have to phase out from our nanny state to a free state but this is what needs to be started.

sounds good....but, still no dog fighting! all the personal freedoms you want, but not that one...

Tweetklash is just 100% libertarian so dogfighting would be legal along with many other things. klash is so smart and I say that with all seriousness, and I love the idea of libertarianism. I am all for the whole personal freedom thing but the thing is, everybody isn't like you klash..again seriously. If everyone had the values of the great members of this thread, it would work wonderfully, but ya have to protect a great number of the poplutaion from themselves.

I love the idea of libertarianism and it would be great to see the outcome, but I think the prisons would fill up faster. Think about most of the population. I don't know...I'd love to see it come into play. I'm definitely with it for my sake. I don't think it would affect me negatively at all but I think many would be violated by others indirectly..like I'll throw one out there..dogfighting for instance. You would see young children and anyone for that matter out in the sticks and ghettos eaten alive by pits and bull mastiffs. Not like a huge increase but attacks would spike. Then I think that people would be violated indirectly resulting from other freedoms that otherwise would be controled. Just like children don't have full rights, many, many adults can not have full rights.

I would love it for me though. Who knows...maybe it would work. We won't know until it's implemented.

KLASH FOR PRESIDENT

Tweet

Originally Posted by horsepwr

klash is just 100% libertarian so dogfighting would be legal along with many other things. klash is so smart and I say that with all seriousness, and I love the idea of libertarianism. I am all for the whole personal freedom thing but the thing is, everybody isn't like you klash..again seriously. If everyone had the values of the great members of this thread, it would work wonderfully, but ya have to protect a great number of the poplutaion from themselves.

You state "Klash is so smart" but imply "Klash is too naive" because society is too irrational to have a rational form of government. Do you think having irrational legislation promotes logical reactions in a society or do you think it is the other way around?

See Daved150 thinks he can support freedom until it comes to issues that he is passionately against and then he justifies those issues with practical explanations that ultimately undermines the freedom he values. Now multiply that mindset by 250 million and you have America today, each person having their own issues that they are equally passionate about, while justifying them pragmatically and in contradiction with their own value of freedom. Yet, they get pi$$ed and insulted when someone tries to infringe their freedom, which is what they attempt to do. Hypocritical?

If our governments role was to protect all individuals rights (only), would that force people to be rational or irrational with their lives. Would a female with no job, no skills and no financial support have 5 kids in that situation; no that would be irrational. Yet, in today's environment that is not uncommon.

Freedom and rational self interest are two sides of the same coin; with one, comes the other.

Originally Posted by horsepwr

I love the idea of libertarianism and it would be great to see the outcome, but I think the prisons would fill up faster. Think about most of the population. I don't know...I'd love to see it come into play. I'm definitely with it for my sake. I don't think it would affect me negatively at all but I think many would be violated by others indirectly..like I'll throw one out there..dogfighting for instance. You would see young children and anyone for that matter out in the sticks and ghettos eaten alive by pits and bull mastiffs. Not like a huge increase but attacks would spike. Then I think that people would be violated indirectly resulting from other freedoms that otherwise would be controled. Just like children don't have full rights, many, many adults can not have full rights.

I would love it for me though. Who knows...maybe it would work. We won't know until it's implemented.

KLASH FOR PRESIDENT

A country secured in liberty would not be a utopia, there would still be atrocities but no form of government would be able to prevent that but we could have a government that protected our rights equally.

Thanks for the compliment...

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

A country secured in liberty would not be a utopia, there would still be atrocities but no form of government would be able to prevent that but we could have a government that protected our rights equally.

Thanks for the compliment...

You have less crime in a country club than a ghetto. There is much more government in the country club...think home owners association. My point with that is what I've said before. I love the idea of all this personal freedom and complete liberty, but I believe that violence and crime would spike. We would definitely drift farther from eutopia. I just believe there is a right and wrong and that laws help teach the right way. Don't get me wrong, I feel the government needs to nose out of many issues... I'm libertarian for conduct control.

Just a note, I'm not for control such as home owner's ass. I can't stand that whiny bs but it works better for me than the ghetto.

Tweet

Originally Posted by horsepwr

You have less crime in a country club than a ghetto. There is much more government in the country club...think home owners association. My point with that is what I've said before. I love the idea of all this personal freedom and complete liberty, but I believe that violence and crime would spike. We would definitely drift farther from eutopia. I just believe there is a right and wrong and that laws help teach the right way. Don't get me wrong, I feel the government needs to nose out of many issues... I'm libertarian for conduct control.

Just a note, I'm not for control such as home owner's ass. I can't stand that whiny bs but it works better for me than the ghetto.

So your a libertarian on social issues but believe the government should delegate through force, coercion and discrimination who will be taxed what and who will receive the benefits of that tax.

Home owners associations are private contracts between subdividers, homebuilders and home buyers. I wouldn't call it a home owners association if government is mandating a particular ordinance, code or law.

Generally speaking, where do most "ghettos" exist? Or, better yet what is another name that, generally speaking, is synonymous with ghetto in our culture; "the projects". What are projects? Government assisted living? What is the criteria for these living arrangements? Income, # of adults, dependents, assets. The incentive to get free or discounted homes is to be irrational and the more irrational one is the more one is rewarded with government programs and priority. Does it make sense that herding people, that are rewarded for being irrational, together becomes a place where violence is more likely?

When people are free and responsible for their own lives, there is no incentive to act irrational and if we were not housing so many people, in prison, on prostitution and drugs we could maintain murderers, rapist and other violent criminals in prison indefinitely with more speedy trials. Also, people would not be ripped off on drug deals without having legal recourse, which would decrease violence more. Doctors would not offer you stimulants or psychedelics if you come in wanting marijuana to increase your appetite or dull your pain. Armed robbers would think twice if citizens routinely carried side arms. If you don't think so? Go to a gun show and attempt to pull off an armed robbery there.

Would there still be irrational human beings? Sure but it would not be common place.