Black Wolf

Law enforcement is necessary because, in order for a government to demand laws be put into place, the government itself must provide the means to execute them.

I don't know about this one, really. What I would worry about is, instead of making the award extremely huge, make sure that the winner of the lawsuit actually gets to see most of the award. Granted, I'm all for making a negligent apathetic doctor pay up the ass for the rest of his life, but the award becomes only so effective. A doctor that can't pay is a doctor that can't pay.

I also would like to know more about the claim that malpractice reform is needed. Don't we already have 98% of malpractice patients being unlitigated?

Lol. I love that part of his post "Democrats don't want to do anything about spending because they'd be called weak" So? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose? Standing up to those evil, evil republicans is not weak. Refusing to do so because you're afraid of being CALLED weak is weak. Republicans call you weak. So what? Liberals have got big media and Jon Stewart. Republicans got AM Radio. The fuck are they going to do?

Again, he justifies the war on drugs, he thinks the universe will explode (I'm not exaggerating here) if gays can get married (this is not a libertarian view. a libertarian view on marriage is that the gov't should not define it, straight or gay), and he seems to be in it for the economic freedom and tax reform, whereas Bill Maher seems to be in it for the pot and gay marriage. And actually, as far as I know, libertarians are in favor of a national defense. But at the same time, we value self-defense before national defense. Isolationism is by no means a bad concept, if not done to an extreme. War does not generate wealth or economic return. As for Objectivism being the antithesis of libertarianism... ehehe. Still trying to figure that one out, for quite a while. =P

Glenn Beck is the antithesis of libertarianism. I'd like to point this out to anyone who thinks he's really such.

So, I have a question I'd like to ask to the OP of this thread. Let's ignore, for a second, the difference in levels at which police/fire/water/etc. Is there any other difference, specifically between police, fire, and water? Why is it okay for the government to get involved in these particular things, and not health care.

I gave the "mall-cop" suggestion for worst case scenario, really. And yes, while admittedly the theory that wars are started over is patently ridiculous, it's the only connection between free market capitalism and military use I can possibly think of. Really, if America wanted to acquire more product, they could reduce the amount of regulations and taxes they have, so that entrepeneurs in other countries could bring their products HERE.

Glenn Beck is a libertarian! Who thinks gay marriage will explode the universe, justifies the War on Drugs, is xenophobic, and thinks that our nation is reaching a new nadir "because we've become a godless country".

This is one motherfucker of a large post in regards to a debate I've had with someone on another forum. Basically, the point of this post is that our job market is highly dependent on the military. This is coming from a person who, essentially, doesn't agree with the concept of a military. According to him, the reason why Obama was reluctant to pull out of Iraq is because of the effect it may have on our economy. Soldiers coming home to do nothing, and the overall loss in jobs dependent on the industry complex. - For every job closing, military including, there is always a job opening. - Assuming that the soldiers pulled from Iraq will just be unemployed without any jobs, they can work as bodyguards. rent-a-cops. Several things that the many people looking for work ALREADY can't do. But one question I've always wanted to ask people is: how would our economy collapse, if the military, a public institution, were to be limited, as would our spending? How was our dependence on the military a result of free-market capitalism? I can't say I see the connection. Furthermore, what specific industries are dependent on the military?

- What if nobody decides to hire him because he either has to explain he was not recently employed, or he quit because the job was not paying him enough? - What if the job did not pay him enough so that he could acquire savings?

A fire department is dealt with at the local level, so I don't see a problem with it

As someone who plans to be an entrepenuer himself, I mean not to diminish the loss of an employee, especially if we are referring to mom and pop businesses. But an employer missing one out of X amount of employees, still has employees, understaffed as they may be. An employee has nothing once he's fired.

The loss of a job. Whereas an employer may have several employees still working for them if one quits, an employee does not have another employer to fall back on. The loss in the latter case, regardless of whether or not you think it is significantly greater, is greater nonetheless. It's also harder to tell another employer that you got fired for being too demanding. Hell, it's difficult to tell an interviewer that you got fired period

Well, there are only two ways a worker can really do that. Use threats of physical violence, or gather all of his co-workers to demand better wages. That is a union. What power does a single employee have over an employer? And I see no reason why, in a free economy, people can't be free to form unions against their workers. I do not agree with compulsory unions at all. Not to sound disrespectful, but any example of such phenomenon? The most I've seen unions do is take $7 out of your paycheck.

This was either a poor attempt at a slogan, or the person who made such a poster has a fettish for viral organisms and wants to anthromorphize them. Disgusting.

I've always had to wonder as to how Obama's stimulus plan would work. Bush tried a stimulus plan 3 times, and it didn't work at all the first two times. This was because people mostly bought cheap china, paid off debts, or stashed it. None of the aforementioned are bad things, but they do not result in economic responses in an economy based 70% on consumer spending. Not one person has ever addressed me on this. Business is a cycle. Recessions are part of that cycle. Let's let the business run it's course.

I saw this video a while ago, and I must say, I'm glad to finally see a conservative viewpoint on youtube that isn't from trolls.

Hello, Please accept my apology for not fully understanding objectivism. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ricky. I am 19 years old, male, gay, former liberal, and libertarian. I am unsure of whether or not libertarianism and objectivism are necessarily similar philosophies, but I joined this forum because, judging by the posts here, it seems to be comprised of intelligent people. Please forgive me that I do not fully understand the distinctions between libertarianism and objectivism. A little background as to how I was turned libertarian. Before this, I was moderately liberal. What caused me to become liberal, I think, was my skepticism for religion, my outrage at the way modern homosexuality was demonized, and my inability to support Bush's foreign policies. It was because of the aforementioned things, combined with the fact that almost every forum I frequent is saturated with liberals, or liberal leaning viewpoints, that I felt at home with the political philosophy of modern liberalism. My liberalism grew stronger during the elections of 2008, and I felt very strongly about Barack Obama becoming the President of the United States. I was taken in.. but I was skeptical as to how it was okay to deliberately admit to being biased against Republicans. I never really understood why I had to be against Bush's fiscal policy just because I was against his foreign policy. So, as an attempt to make sure the war in Iraq would not continue, I voted strongly for Barack and hoped that he would win the presidency. I jumped on the bandwagon and voted for the lesser of two evils. I gave the lesser of two evils a reason to be evil, giving him the dignity of voting for him. I lost a lot of friends for not being fiscally liberal. I lost friends for being for less business regulations. I lose friends for not buying into the myth that tax cuts for the rich meant that rich people were "not paying their fair share", even though they were paying significantly more than those making less money than them, percentage-wise. I lost a lot of friends, because I didn't believe in sacrificing freedom for security. I was falsley accused of being against the poor and in favor of the rich for my lack of vindication towards them. I still have a boyfriend who leans very left, and I still have a lot of liberal friends who can agree to disagree with me, and do not accuse me of beliefs that are patently false. I do, however feel outnumbered by the overwhelming amount of liberalism on the internet. Which I do rather enjoy, I perfer to be in a position where my views will be challenged routinely. It's a more enlightening feeling than when I was surrounded by agreement. It is, however, nice to be in a community in which people share common ground with your economic and fiscal views. Then again, I am perhaps assuming to hastily the lack of distinction between libertarianism and objectivism, but nonetheless, I would love to learn more about the latter. I can't by any means call myself an objectivist, but I took a leap. I took a leap, and decided to join this forum. I have no regrets.