Gary Johnson Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!

[cdc482]

Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a shitty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating shitty food.
If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.

 

[dbill27]

Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.

If I study the effects of what americans call free markets? What americans? what free markets? Tell china to stop buying our debt if their people are undernourished.

 

[tttppp]

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

 

[dbill27]

mm

Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a shitty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating shitty food.
If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.

BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.

 

[cdc482]

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.

 

[tttppp]

I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.

Then why doesn't she change her website and explain this more effectively? She keeps talking about more laws, she never mentions less laws and more competition.

 

[cdc482]

I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.

 

[cdc482]

mm

BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.

Last time I checked, Mexico was not a socialist country. Am I wrong?
Also, there are LOTS of counter examples to this. The countries with the highest standard of living (a better measure of wealth IMO) in the world are socialist (or as they call it, progressive). Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the list goes on...
The USA may be the richest, but the lower standard of living shows just how corrupt and greedy the people can be.

 

[orenbus]

She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

 

[orenbus]

How does this guy have more rep than me?

He has 800 more posts than you do, it's a numbers game.

 

[cdc482]

Then why doesn't she change her website and explain this more effectively? She keeps talking about more laws, she never mentions less laws and more competition.

In all seriousness, this is a small divide. A hump that could be overcome. It takes some work and foresite, but if enough people put their minds to it, many people could consolidate a lot of the laws. Libertarians did a pretty good job at consolidating a lot of social issues into one law--> do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do whatever they want. This is something the Green Party and Libertarian Party could work together on. I'm sure reasonable people would be willing to compromise on this issue.

 

[cdc482]

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

I think the Republicans are full of shit. The good people in the Republican party, generally support libertarians.
I think the democrats are full of shit. The good people in the democratic party, generally support progressives.

None of the good people are getting anywhere. We need to come together. It's just plain math. If we wiped out all the foreign wars, we'd balance the budget in a matter of YEARS, not decades but years. We could add HUGE social programs onto the budget and still balance the budget in years. We could literally feed all of the hungry people in the world and still balance the budget in a matter of years. Why can't you guys compromise on the social programs? Even Ron Paul did.

And let's not forget the savings from reigning in the Fed-> something the green party was very happy to compromise with Ron Paul on.

 

[tttppp]

Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.

The problem is those regulations designed to help poor people, end up preventing those poor people from starting their own businesses and making more money, and prevents them from providing better higher paying jobs. Essentially those regulations force poor people into those low paying, lower quality jobs working for rich people. It sounds great on paper to those people without a brain but it doesn't work. What will end up happening is that it will make problems worse, then they will add even more regulations to try to fix the problem again.

 

[tttppp]

In all seriousness, this is a small divide. A hump that could be overcome. It takes some work and foresite, but if enough people put their minds to it, many people could consolidate a lot of the laws. Libertarians did a pretty good job at consolidating a lot of social issues into one law--> do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to do whatever they want. This is something the Green Party and Libertarian Party could work together on. I'm sure reasonable people would be willing to compromise on this issue.

It takes a lot of time and work to convince regulation happy people to understand free markets. It really takes an understanding of management and free markets to get it. I used to go with what my teachers said about needing more regulations until I became a manager and realized that shit just doesn't work. The differences can be bridged but it would take much more than a couple conversations.

 

[tttppp]

Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.

Hypothetically if she was elected, she could give us a bad name when she fucks up the economy. People would say the third parties don't work and would go back to democrats and republicans. If we actually get an independent in office, we need someone who will get things done.

 

[kathy88]

WTF?

 

[orenbus]

Hypothetically if she was elected, she could give us a bad name when she fucks up the economy. People would say the third parties don't work and would go back to democrats and republicans. If we actually get an independent in office, we need someone who will get things done.

Hypothetically anything can happen, the world could end tomorrow, lol. What you are saying you could say that about anyone, that's why each person makes the best decision they can based on the information they have when voting, and yea I'm going to vote for someone not Romney/Obama, sorry, the only exception would be if it was like the Devil or something cause that's who I equate those two with.

 

[orenbus]

WTF?

Yea I didn't get what the girl from the olympics picture has anything to do with anything either lol.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.

This is bullcrap. Toilets sizes don't matter at all. The politicians are idiots. And people pay for the water if they get it from the government, so they run up the costs at their own peril. And if they collect water, they should have whatever toilet they want.

I am surprised I haven't noticed your mindset before. It is completely antithetical to this site.

 

[tttppp]

Hypothetically anything can happen, the world could end tomorrow, lol. What you are saying you could say that about anyone, that's why each person makes the best decision they can based on the information they have when voting, and yea I'm going to vote for someone not Romney/Obama, sorry, the only exception would be if it was like the Devil or something cause that's who I equate those two with.

That couldn't happen to anyone, just someone with her idiotic economic policies.