NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to the Libertarian Party Platform, here is what the Libertarian Party believes.

1. We believe in smaller government and that government should be restricted. What we mean by smaller government is smaller in size and in power. Government two primary function should be defense militatry and police.

2. We also believe in lower taxes. We believe that with a smaller government, we will get lower taxes. We believe that people should get what they earn.

3. We believe in maxium freedom! We believe that government shouldn't have a say in the social aspect of our country. So if you're gay and you want to get married, go ahead!

4. We believe in Live and Lets Live!

5. Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.

6. Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.

7. Local governments should defend local citizens and their property.

8. taxpayers should not be forced to pay defense bills of other Countries.

That's just some of the things that the Libertarian Party stands for, so join us today if you want a better economy and more personal and business freedom!

I support libertarian/minarchist government, but I don't think the LP's specific policies are realistic. Which is why, for the most part, I'm a 'little-l' libertarian.

Well join us anyways! ;)

Welcome to the Libertarian Party Platform, here is what the Libertarian Party believes.

Link please. I don't doubt you, I don't know and I would appreciate the link. Thank you in advance.

Here's the link.

http://www.lp.org/

bump, comon join the Libertarian Party!

Ok.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party Platform, here is what the Libertarian Party believes.

1. We believe in smaller government and that government should be restricted. What we mean by smaller government is smaller in size and in power. Government two primary function should be defense militatry and police.

2. We also believe in lower taxes. We believe that with a smaller government, we will get lower taxes. We believe that people should get what they earn.

3. We believe in maxium freedom! We believe that government shouldn't have a say in the social aspect of our country. So if you're gay and you want to get married, go ahead!

4. We believe in Live and Lets Live!

5. Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.

6. Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.

7. The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.

That's just some of the things that the Libertarian Party stands for, so join us today if you want a better economy and more personal and business freedom!


The Libertarians believe that just about anyone should be able to own a gun, except perhaps mass-murderers. This combined with the Libertarian belief in smaller government, and thus less military and law-enforcement, leads to anarchy. Besides that, they are against background checks at gun shows, so then there's no way to make sure the mass murderers aren't getting their hands on guns.

I campaigned for the Libertarian Party at my school's mock election a few years back, and it led me to the belief that all Libertarians are completely crazy.

But the Democratic Party is great!

The Libertarians believe that just about anyone should be able to own a gun, except perhaps mass-murderers. This combined with the Libertarian belief in smaller government, and thus less military and law-enforcement, leads to anarchy. Besides that, they are against background checks at gun shows, so then there's no way to make sure the mass murderers aren't getting their hands on guns.

I campaigned for the Libertarian Party at my school's mock election a few years back, and it led me to the belief that all Libertarians are completely crazy.

But the Democratic Party is great!

Ahh comon the Democratic party is just one step away from Socialism. They want to make the government bigger, tax the rich (because they can "afford" it) and basically have government be more involved in our personal life. I'm sorry but the only interaction with the government I want is when I go to the post office! Also, just because the rich can afford the higher taxes doesn't mean that they should be taxed more. I believe that people should keep what they earn. That why I am a supporter for the Fair Tax Plan!

Ahh comon the Democratic party is just one step away from Socialism.


The Democrats are far too conservative to be anywhere near socialism. When they actually start talking about nationalizing major industries and abolishing capitalism, one may try the comparison again.

At the moment, "socialism" is just rhetorical nonsensespeak for "not like me." In which case, as far as I can tell, every political party in the United States is ...

**pause for frightening/dramatic effect**

...:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Socialist! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:




:rolleyes:

I'd have to say that the Democratic Party isn't one step away from socialist, it IS a Socialist Party, and is no different from the Republican Party. Both political parties want to spend our money on their pet projects, create more and more intrusive laws and regulations, ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and generally tell American citizens how to live there lives.

Moral State or Nanny State. Some choice.

Libs aren't crazy, we just want to be able to live our lives without some officious government dipshit peering over our shoulder.

As far as I know, not one firearm used in a crime has ever been traced back to a gun show.

WTF are you taking about? Americans wouldn't know socailism if it crawled up your asses and brought the country to orgasm thpough prostate stimulation.

WTF are you taking about? Americans wouldn't know socailism if it crawled up your asses and brought the country to orgasm thpough prostate stimulation.

Well, no. I suppose we aren't near as socialist as Canada, but entirely to close to it for your average Lib's peace of mind.

Well, no. I suppose we aren't near as socialist as Canada, but entirely to close to it for your average Lib's peace of mind.

Canada is hardly close either.

Well, no. I suppose we aren't near as socialist as Canada...

Which isn't socialist.


As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards. Since World War II, the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban. The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US. Given its great natural resources, skilled labor force, and modern capital plant, Canada enjoys solid economic prospects. Top-notch fiscal management has produced consecutive balanced budgets since 1997, although public debate continues over how to manage the rising cost of the publicly funded healthcare system. Exports account for roughly a third of GDP. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs more than 85% of Canadian exports. Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.


( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Econ )

There is "publicly funded healthcare," but the "welfare state" and "socialism" are two different concepts (at any rate, I cannot think of any real world capitalist market economy that does not provide at least some kind of social welfare from the state). I seem to remember reading somewhere that many socialist consider the "welfare state" nothing more than an effort by the ruling classes to give the lower class(es) just enough to keep them happy, and thus is just another tool of control inherent to capitalism. (Edit: This isn't that somewhere, but I've a feeling that they would agree with the assessment; at the least, they represent a group of socialists who would oppose the welfare state as authoritarian nonsense. Being anarchists, they must: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) )

So, if you don't want NS to be a socialist state and have the Mod baby sit you, then join the Libertarian Party!

I have one major concern with the libertarian party and their isolationsit philosophy in general. And this is how do we stop 3rd world nations from completely exploiting the enviroment. Brazil seems happy enough to destroy their entire rainforest and as most of Africa and other nations continue to industrialize the enviroment is mostly at risk from their uneducated actions. What can they do to protect the world without twisiting their own unpragmatic ideology.

I have one major concern with the libertarian party and their isolationsit philosophy in general. And this is how do we stop 3rd world nations from completely exploiting the enviroment. Brazil seems happy enough to destroy their entire rainforest and as most of Africa and other nations continue to industrialize the enviroment is mostly at risk from their uneducated actions. What can they do to protect the world without twisiting their own unpragmatic ideology.

Eh nothing really. I mean you can't not be a world police force and still try to tell other countries what to do. It's impossible. You can either pick to be the world police force, or not.

But, this is for the NS General Election, so yea lol.

Eh nothing really. I mean you can't not be a world police force and still try to tell other countries what to do. It's impossible. You can either pick to be the world police force, or not.

But, this is for the NS General Election, so yea lol.

Ah I wondered what all those posts were about. Well my issue was how can the libertarians remain isolationist when doing nothing will affect them.. evenetually.

The Libertarian government does not serve the interests of the majority.

The Libertarian government does not serve the interests of the majority.

It sure as hell would if the majority would put them into office.

Ah I wondered what all those posts were about. Well my issue was how can the libertarians remain isolationist when doing nothing will affect them.. evenetually.

I wouldn't call Libertarians isolationist per se, although a very minimal involvement in foreign affairs is a natural result of a small national government. I will say this, the suggestion that libertarians leave 3rd world countries to exploit the environment seems to me a dangerous one. Are we saying that having a large government, as the USA does now, gives us the right to manipulate foreign countries, or interfere with how they govern their people?

If we invaded Brazil militarilty or strongarmed them either politically or economically, is that any better?

Ahh comon the Democratic party is just one step away from Socialism. They want to make the government bigger, tax the rich (because they can "afford" it) and basically have government be more involved in our personal life. I'm sorry but the only interaction with the government I want is when I go to the post office! Also, just because the rich can afford the higher taxes doesn't mean that they should be taxed more. I believe that people should keep what they earn. That why I am a supporter for the Fair Tax Plan!

For the love of all that is unholy, the USA Democratic Party wouldn't touch socialism with a ten foot pole. The Democratic party is just a slightly statist, democratic capitalist party. The Fair Tax Plan will screw you and everyone else over, and let corporations run free. I'm sorry, but i can never support right-wing Libertarians because I really don't want to have the public state replaced by a private one.

The Democratic party is just a slightly statist...

A slight understatement.

A slight understatement.

They're fucking anarchist compared to half of the Republican party or the Constitution party.

They're fucking anarchist compared to half of the Republican party or the Constitution party.

But they're authoritarians compared to libertarians and anarchists.

(Sorry, I don't buy this "lesser evil" nonsense, if that is a factor here.)

I've never met a poor Libertarian.

It sure as hell would if the majority would put them into office.
No, that's what I mean. Even if in office the interests of the majority wouldn't be served by libertarians. Which is why libertarians don't get elected much.

Most people don't want to just vote in people who will openly use their power to help the rich even more.

But they're authoritarians compared to libertarians and anarchists.

(Sorry, I don't buy this "lesser evil" nonsense, if that is a factor here.)

Its not. I was offended when Wilgrove called the Democratic Party "one step away from socialism."

Its not. I was offended when Wilgrove called the Democratic Party "one step away from socialism."
His idea and your idea of what socialism is are probably very different.

I've never met a poor Libertarian.

Hello, my name is Dissonant Cognition, and I'm a libertarian.


There...now, where the hell is all the money I'm supposed to have?

**looks around for little bags with '$' signs on them**

well?

:D ( but mostly :rolleyes: )

I support your LP, even though I am not American.

And I am not rich - perhaps just upper-middle class. Most capitalists I have met are not rich either, usually middle class. Usually it is spoilt rich brats I know who are socialist/communist.

Anyway, I'd definitely support an NS LP.

I support your LP, even though I am not American.

And I am not rich - perhaps just upper-middle class. Most capitalists I have met are not rich either, usually middle class.
That is rich.

Usually it is spoilt rich brats I know who are socialist/communist.
I have met socialists from every economic class.

I've never met a working class person who was an economic liberal. Most of them vote for centre left parties with a smaller number voting for hard left perties.

Among the middle class there's a mix of votes for the centre left and centre right.

That is rich.
No, it isn't. Wealthy perhaps, but rich is the class immediately after it, the true upper class.


I have met socialists from every economic class.
I've noticed a tendency of them coming from the upper classes.

I've noticed a tendency of them coming from the upper classes.
I've gleaned some info about your lifestyle from your posting. Maybe it's because you don't talk politics with many working class people?

I've gleaned some info about your lifestyle from your posting. Maybe it's because you don't talk politics with many working class people?
What info have you gleaned about it?

Anyway, I may be an elitist, but I am no snob. I have discussed politics with working class individuals (those who are sufficiently educated to express opinions on the matter), and I've noticed they tend to be centre-right. Few are socialist, besides the occasional voicing of protectionist views. By contrast, many of my richer friends are socialist, perhaps due to a sense of teenage rebellion, perhaps due to some weird sense of guilt.

What info have you gleaned about it?

Anyway, I may be an elitist, but I am no snob. I have discussed politics with working class individuals (those who are sufficiently educated to express opinions on the matter), and I've noticed they tend to be centre-right. Few are socialist, besides the occasional voicing of protectionist views. By contrast, many of my richer friends are socialist, perhaps due to a sense of teenage rebellion, perhaps due to some weird sense of guilt.

You obviously haven't been talking to the working class people I have. Being a working class teenger myself, I have plenty of opportunity to do so. Many of the kids my age, even here in backwater Townsend, MT, hold socialistic views, even though they don't connect them as being so.

Perhaps you don't really know what constitutes for socialist thought. Protectionism isn't anywhere a tenet of socialism.

You obviously haven't been talking to the working class people I have. Being a working class teenger myself, I have plenty of opportunity to do so. Many of the kids my age, even here in backwater Townsend, MT, hold socialistic views, even though they don't connect them as being so.
Do not forget I am not American. Also, I usually talk to adult workers in their early 20's/30's, not kids. Teens change their minds at great frequency. Adults tend to be more steady.

Perhaps you don't really know what constitutes for socialist thought. Protectionism isn't anywhere a tenet of socialism.
I know what constitutes socialist thought. Protectionism belongs to it, although not directly so. To protect domestic workers' wages and such protectionist measures are necessary. Certain branches of socialism adopt it more than other, more internationalist versions. Protectionism can by no means be classified as a capitalist doctrine - it usually belongs to nationalist forms of communism or socialism.

Do not forget I am not American.

Ordinary working class people tend to be very similar, where ever you go. The experience for working class people is very similar, regardless of what country they live in. That is why socialists reject nationalism.

I know what constitutes socialist thought. It is, although not directly so. To protect domestic workers' wages and such protectionist measures are necessary. Certain branches of socialism adopt it more than other, more internationalist versions. Protectionism can by no means be classified as a capitalist doctrine - it usually belongs to nationalist forms of communism or socialism.

Protectionism is a mercantilist doctrine. It's only raison d'etre is to protect the profits of local capitalists from foreign competition. Most socialist ideologies seek to end wage labor, so the comparison is not valid. If you remove profit motive and wage labor, there is no reason for protectionism to exist.

Ordinary working class people tend to be very similar, where ever you go. The experience for working class people is very similar, regardless of what country they live in. That is why socialists reject nationalism.
Read the changes I made. Also, don't make such senseless generalisations.

Protectionism is a mercantilist doctrine. It's only raison d'etre is to protect the profits of local capitalists from foreign competition. Most socialist ideologies seek to end wage labor, so the comparison is not valid. If you remove profit motive and wage labor, there is no reason for protectionism to exist.
Yes, in theoretical socialism of course, all works just this way. I am referring to party political affiliations and such though, as many left-wing parties in Europe often have protectionist elements to them. In reality, the type of ideological socialist you speak of is a rare minority, by no means common amongst the working classes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that nowadays, especially in the West, the middle class is the majority. The so-called working class is dying out. Poorer middle class people by no means have a higher propensity to accept socialist ideas than wealthier ones. As such, the majority of capitalists I know is not rich, but from the lower to upper middle classes. Libertarians again can come from any class, but they tend to be better read than the average capitalist.

I know what constitutes socialist thought. Protectionism belongs to it, although not directly so. To protect domestic workers' wages and such protectionist measures are necessary. Certain branches of socialism adopt it more than other, more internationalist versions. Protectionism can by no means be classified as a capitalist doctrine - it usually belongs to nationalist forms of communism or socialism.

Protectionism is simply economic nationalism, and has at varying times been adopted by both sides of the political spectrum.

Protectionism is simply economic nationalism, and has at varying times been adopted by both sides of the political spectrum.
The question was in terms of political views though, which usually are directly influenced by political parties. In Europe it is not unusual to find protectionist left-wing parties. Their members' views are consequently shaped. Keep in mind, the average socialist is not the pure ideologue, much like the average capitalist is by no means well versed in capitalist/libertarian ideology.

In ideological terms though, I agree with you. It is indeed more related to nationalism than economics of either pole.

Yes, in theoretical socialism of course, all works just this way. I am referring to party political affiliations and such though, as many left-wing parties in Europe often have protectionist elements to them. In reality, the type of ideological socialist you speak of is a rare minority, by no means common amongst the working classes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that nowadays, especially in the West, the middle class is the majority. The so-called working class is dying out. Poorer middle class people by no means have a higher propensity to accept socialist ideas than wealthier ones. As such, the majority of capitalists I know is not rich, but from the lower to upper middle classes. Libertarians again can come from any class, but they tend to be better read than the average capitalist.

Most left wing parties in Europe are social democrats. They take the basic premises of evolutionary socialism and apply to make capitalist society more "humane." They are not socialist parties, so to speak.

The working class is not dying out. Inequality, well, at least in the US, is rising and will continue to rise for the forseeable future. Real wages for the bottom 90% of American society are creeping downwards. Things may be different in Europe, but I expect the same things should be happening due to the rise of neo-liberal economic philosphies.

Most left wing parties in Europe are social democrats. They take the basic premises of evolutionary socialism and apply to make capitalist society more "humane." They are not socialist parties, so to speak.
Fair enough.

The working class is not dying out. Inequality, well, at least in the US, is rising and will continue to rise for the forseeable future. Real wages for the bottom 90% of American society are creeping downwards. Things may be different in Europe, but I expect the same things should be happening due to the rise of neo-liberal economic philosphies.
Europe is moving from industries to the service sector. Hence, it has and is moving from a majority proletarian society to a majority bourgeois society. In Europe, the working class proper is declining vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie.

Europe is suffering high unemployment in some regions, but not due to any such philosophies - mainly due to a lack in entrepreneurial innovation and initiative, as well as severe protectionism.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party Platform, here is what the Libertarian Party believes.
That's just some of the things that the Libertarian Party stands for, so join us today if you want a better economy and more personal and business freedom!


I don't mind the Lib-Dems in the UK. I personally thing that the lib party is a little too extreme in it's randian fanaticism. It is almost to the point of being the same as communists belief in Marx. I personally would love to see a moderate (Economic=0.0, Social=0 to -3) Too bad the Reform Party can't get its act together.

Most of the Libs i've met have been poor which is kinda weird. Libertarianism seems to be communism for capitialists.
POST 666!!!! Raising Hell!!!!!

Europe is moving from industries to the service sector. Hence, it has and is moving from a majority proletarian society to a majority bourgeois society. In Europe, the working class proper is declining vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie.

The working class need not be employed in industry, nor are service sector workers "bourgeois." The distinction is a matter of relationship to the means of production; the capitalists/bourgeoisie are the class of owners, and the proletariat/workers are the class that sells its labor to the class of owners.

I don't mind the Lib-Dems in the UK. I personally thing that the lib party is a little too extreme in it's Randian fanaticism. It is almost to the point of being the same as communists belief in Marx. I personally would love to see a moderate (Economic=0.0, Social=0 to -3)

Most of the Libs i've met have been poor which is kinda weird. Libertarianism seems to be communism for capitialists.
POST 666!!!! Raising Hell!!!!!
I don't think the Lib-Dems are Libertarian, are they? They seem to simply be centre-right to me.

The working class need not be employed in industry, nor are service sector workers "bourgeois." The distinction is a matter of relationship to the means of production; the capitalists/bourgeoisie are the class of owners, and the proletariat/workers are the class that sells its labor to the class of owners.
I find such classifications pointless nowadays. Now what is spoken of is usually lower classes, middle classes and upper classes. Amongst the "working" classes, the lower and lower-middle class are by no means a majority. A "capitalist/bourgeois" can fall in any of these categories, much like a "worker". Perhaps the lower (and lower-middle) classes present a greater propensity toward accepting socialist ideologies, but I've noticed no such disposition amongst the majority of "workers", the middle class. Centre-right ideologies still seem dominant.

Basically, I encounter more socialists amongst the richer individuals I know than amongst poorer ones. Libertarians I know tend to be from the middle class. The rest are centre-right. The only tendency I found equally amongst all groups is a hatred of taxation and a desire for less government...

if anything, republicans are more libertarian as tehy want smaller federal government (very Libertarian) in exchange for more rights to state government (which they also want to be smaller, but don't always understand that the spreadsheet has to balance somewhere).
After talking with a lot of 'rednecks' and other working class individuals, in the Texas/deep south area of the sort you would normally think of as Republicans (and in fact,t hey think of themselves that way) I found a lot of libertarian ideals in what they wanted from the government.
it seems to me that the only thing really seperating Republicans from Libertarians, is that republicans ascribe to a set and mostly unwavering set of social and moral standards that they feel like pushing on everyone around them, whereas Libertarains will take their standards and you can shove yours wherever you want them, just not on me.

Anyway, Scorched Earth FTW (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/index.html), Be the loud angry minority with lead pipes!

I find such classifications pointless nowadays. Now what is spoken of is usually lower classes, middle classes and upper classes. Amongst the "working" classes, the lower and lower-middle class are by no means a majority. A "capitalist/bourgeois" can fall in any of these categories, much like a "worker". Perhaps the lower (and lower-middle) classes present a greater propensity toward accepting socialist ideologies, but I've noticed no such disposition amongst the majority of "workers", the middle class.

Bourgeois means that a person makes their income off the labor of others via property rights. Most of the bourgeoisie fall into the upper income category or higher. A proletarian is anyone whose primary source of income is labor, not the ownership of property. The majority of any society fall under the category of the proletariat. Granted, not all are lower class in income, but most are.

Bourgeois means that a person makes their income off the labor of others via property rights.
Soheran clarified that already.

Most of the bourgeoisie fall into the upper income category or higher. A proletarian is anyone whose primary source of income is labor, not the ownership of property. The majority of any society fall under the category of the proletariat. Granted, not all are lower class in income, but most are.
Most are lower class in income? Care to prove this? Because, to my knowledge the majority of the population fits within the term middle class. Unless you are using some specialised sort of definition. Middle class usually indicates the majority population of any nation, and is not lower class in income, but moves around average - it is only low compared to the rich.

I don't think the Lib-Dems are Libertarian, are they? They seem to simply be centre-right to me.


Yes their more center which is ok with me as long as it's not this so called fake moderatism that repubs/dems(right-wing) keep trying to say they are. Like I was saying I would rather have something more center than this neoliberal B.S. If the Libertarians would go more between +1 to +3 on the economic scale with a -1 to -3 on the social I would maybe consider. I was also saying about the Libertarians idolization of Ayn Rand who was kind of a nut-job.

Yes their more center which is ok with me as long as it's not this so called fake moderatism that repubs/dems(right-wing) keep trying to say they are. Like I was saying I would rather have something more center than this neoliberal B.S. If the Libertarians would go more between +1 to +3 on the economic scale with a -1 to -3 on the social I would maybe consider. I was also saying about the Libertarians idolization of Ayn Rand who was kind of a nut-job.
Then they wouldn't be libertarians, but moderates with a centre-right bias in economics and a preference for social freedoms. Pretty much American democrats.

Most are lower class in income? Care to prove this? Because, to my knowledge the majority of the population fits within the term middle class. Unless you are using some specialised sort of definition. Middle class usually indicates the majority population of any nation, and is not lower class in income, but moves around average - it is only low compared to the rich.

"Middle class" would imply that you are sharing in the fruits of society. I don't think that most so-called "middle class people" are. Besides, I don't care about the whole "are you lower or middle class" issue. What matter is that the majority of people in any given country live from paycheck to paycheck, or worse. The dichotomy of lower class-middle class-upper class ignores how people make their income, which ultimately determines how they identify themselves in society. Recent polls in the US show that most American people define themselves as "working class."

"Middle class" would imply that you are sharing in the fruits of society. I don't think that most so-called "middle class people" are. Besides, I don't care about the whole "are you lower or middle class" issue. What matter is that the majority of people in any given country live from paycheck to paycheck, or worse. The dichotomy of lower class-middle class-upper class ignores how people make their income, which ultimately determines how they identify themselves in society. Recent polls in the US show that most American people define themselves as "working class."
Unless you can prove they are poor to the point that they cannot spend on their basic needs, I am not convinced. The fact that most Americans own more than one car, TV sets etc. convinces me otherwise in fact.

That they are salaried workers and not owners of the means of production means absolutely nothing to me.

Unless you can prove they are poor to the point that they cannot spend on their basic needs, I am not convinced. The fact that most Americans own more than one car, TV sets etc. convinces me otherwise in fact.

That they are salaried workers and not owners of the means of production means absolutely nothing to me.

Working class doesn't automatically mean one is in poverty! It means that one is on precipice about to slip into poverty. Just because most Americans own more than one car doesn't mean they're not getting shafted. I know a lot of people who own more than one car. The cars they own are all over ten years old, and most of them are on the verge of breaking down for good.

Then they wouldn't be libertarians, but moderates with a centre-right bias in economics and a preference for social freedoms. Pretty much American democrats.


Meh, I'm okay with centerism. Democrats are no longer (real)centerists. If you look at most of what they say they are pretty much only 2/3 points from most Republicans except the hard-core right. Link (http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/uselection)

Working class doesn't automatically mean one is in poverty! It means that one is on precipice about to slip into poverty. Just because most Americans own more than one car doesn't mean they're not getting shafted. I know a lot of people who own more than one car. The cars they own are all over ten years old, and most of them are on the verge of breaking down for good.
Working class means nothing when it comes to income - it simply means, as you highlighted, that one does not own the means of production. So, prove that the majority is on this "precipice" then. Because I am highly dubious of what you are saying. It contradicts most economic data, and it most certainly is of no relevance in Europe.

Working class means nothing when it comes to income - it simply means, as you highlighted, that one does not own the means of production. So, prove that they are on this "precipice" then. Because I am highly dubious of what you are saying. It contradicts most economic data, and it most certainly is of no relevance in Europe.

It may not have any relevance in Europe, but economic data is usually misleading in favor of the status quo. Income and wealth inequality are rising in the US at unprecedented rates.

Ahh, its amazing how everything Wilgrove posts stirs up controversy.

It may not have any relevance in Europe, but economic data is usually misleading in favor of the status quo. Income and wealth inequality are rising in the US at unprecedented rates.
I will look into this myself. It won't be difficult since I'll be studying Economics as of this year, giving me access to a variety of data. I am not convinced at all though.

Anyway, since we're done debating this, let's end the hijack and let Wilgrove's thread get back on track. :)

What info have you gleaned about it?

Anyway, I may be an elitist, but I am no snob. I have discussed politics with working class individuals (those who are sufficiently educated to express opinions on the matter), and I've noticed they tend to be centre-right. Few are socialist, besides the occasional voicing of protectionist views. By contrast, many of my richer friends are socialist, perhaps due to a sense of teenage rebellion, perhaps due to some weird sense of guilt.
Maybe it's just the country you live in. Ireland is generally to the left of England.

However I would say that there it's more logical for a worker to be socialist than a rich man. Not that I'm against wealth socialists, but I mean, socialist laws tend to be more in the interests of the have-nots than the haves.

I'm lower-middle class but I'm not a real socialist... more of a pragmatic centre-left moderate.


The working class is not dying out.

Yes it is. The Manufacturing sector is shrinking fast and the class system is now global.

Unless you can prove they are poor to the point that they cannot spend on their basic needs, I am not convinced.
This isn't really criteria for being workin class.

From what I've heard most Americans want to pretend there is no class system in their country so most think they are middle class. 19% of them think that they're in the richest 2%!

Yes it is. The Manufacturing sector is shrinking fast and the class system is now global.

You can be a member of the working class and work in the service sector. Manufacturing is not the only place that working class people work. Service sector work is more debilitating because it is harder to unionize.

Maybe it's just the country you live in. Ireland is generally to the left of England.

However I would say that there it's more logical for a worker to be socialist than a rich man. Not that I'm against wealth socialists, but I mean, socialist laws tend to be more in the interests of the have-nots than the haves.
It's just my experience so far. I live in England right now by the way. Most workers I know fit into the middle class profile, and most tend to be centre-right. Even amongst poorer people I know, few have genuine socialist affections.

Yes it is. The Manufacturing sector is shrinking fast and the class system is now global.
The manufacturing working class is dying out, yes. The working class, using the definition Soheran and he provided though, is still here. Basically it means working for a wage, as opposed to owning the means of production.

This isn't really criteria for being workin class.
It is for being poor though. ;) Like I said, the working class can vary from poor to rich. It'll take convincing, hard evidence to convince me that the average American working class member is, or is on the verge of being, poor.

From what I've heard most Americans want to pretend there is no class system in their country so most think they are middle class. 19% of them think that they're in the richest 2%!
That definitely does not help in dispelling the rumours that Americans are less-than-average in terms of intelligence...

4. We believe in Live and Lets Live!!I like that.

Count me in. (of course.. I reserve the rigth to leave when the beer runs out^^ )

Yes, the party is gathering steam, I am working on getting us on the ballot though, apparently they don't want us on there because our ideology is not a global one. I say we met every one of their requirement, so we should be put on the NS General election ballot!

I say..

lets expand..
Lets go global baby..

we cant win if we cant run.
we need to ammend our constitution like this:

_________________________________________________________
7. Local governments should defend local citizens and their property.
8. taxpayers should not be forced to pay defense bills of other Countries.
___________________________________________________________

this ammendement will allow US to run.. trust me.

I say..

lets expand..
Lets go global baby..

we cant win if we cant run.
we need to ammend our constitution like this:

_________________________________________________________
7. Local governments should defend local citizens and their property.
8. taxpayers should not be forced to pay defense bills of other Countries.
___________________________________________________________

this ammendement will allow US to run.. trust me.


Great suggestion! We will add this to our platform.

I'll join!

I live for liberals.