>>2
O_o Yes. They support network nuetrality, advocate for greater privacy online, oppose any kind of censorship, are big freedom of speech supporters, they are against anti-competetive patents and such.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-01 15:42
the pirate party is cool, they have a couple seats in the swedish/german/eurpean parliament and do cool stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-01 15:57
Starfleet Party.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-01 16:15
>>6
Those fuckers told me they would clean up crime and aren't doing a goddamn thing about it.
Being awesome. They're all pretty much the same thing. You are now aware that taxes used efficiently in new deal type construction of infrastructure is the fastest way to build up a nation. There's always room for more infrastructure. Always.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-29 9:26
I find it nearly impossible to advocate for any type of government that isn't me ruling everyone. However, long ago I picked the democrats because I could tolerate their extremist elements more than the rightists. The middle of both parties is almost identical, so one must choose based on the extremes unfortunately. There isn't a party for a socially liberal / fiscally conservative guy.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-29 11:31
a socially liberal / fiscally conservative
Because, as it stands, those goals are mutually exclusive. To accomplish the socialist part you have to be fiscally liberal and ignore huge losses for an indefinite amount of time until, like an over-long joke, things start getting better for any particular reason. To be fiscally conservative, likewise, you can't just go around doing and funding everything you want, expanding systems that remove business and finance outlets from the pool of commerce (that helsp gives people money to pay taxes to fund said systems ...).
when I say socially liberal, I mean more socially libertarian. I do endorse HUGE education investments and even single payer healthcare, however I personally believe that the long term benefits of such investments outweigh their initial investments and upkeep. At the same time, I don't really think we need THREE services ready to cause a nuclear holocaust at any moment. Maybe if we choose either the missiles, the ssbns, or SAC. Do we really need all fucking three? I believe in ratcheting down the police the state as well. I think we'd save money if we weren't throwing people into jail for drug possession. We would eliminate the illegal activity surrounding drugs (gang violence, narco terrorism) if we legalized the drugs and put their distribution in teh hands of companies. THEN tax the shit out of the drugs to pay for treatment programs =). I have other ideas like this if these sound reasonable to you. That's what I consider fiscally responsible.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-29 20:48
>>23
The only virtue of such infrastructure projects was the centralised bureaucracy of the state, socialist libertarianism is not suited for this. Also technically there isn't more room for infrastructure, even if the state conducts the management it's still the market that decided if it is actually economically productive or not in the first place, if we paid unemployed people to polish rocks the economy would collapse.
Of course the market is directed by the spending power of consumers and of course there will be evil capitalist bourgeois pig dogs warping the market etc etc.. This however doesn't mean the mathematical models and the price mechanism are invalid. You should be beginning to see a pattern here, the socialist element throws all the good parts of libertarian into the "evil capitalist" trash heap. We need evil corporations and states to get shit done and we need to punch hippies like Chomsky in the balls so we don't prance our way into cuckoo crazy town, it's why we can have nice things.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-29 21:17
>>26
No, I believe the method of making narcotics a legal company-driven product just would not work. There are many reasons, I think, why this idea could fail in ways that are just as consuming as our current anti-drug measures do. Though not all desired drugs are easy to produce, can I assume a simple example for argument? Cannabis.
To protect their own profit interest, companies would have to ensure that individuals could not grow their own cannabis, for example. Without this insurance, even the taxation money is vulnerable. This would require either legislation or such a widespread proliferation of a genetically modified product that does not produce its own seeds. The destruction of global bio-diversity of rice suggests that supplanting such modified plant could be feasible, but the modification might be seen as negative (whereas the rice was bred to increase its heartiness). That still leaves the prospect of producing the hypothetical mod-cannabis and then the enforced removal of naturally occurring cannabis. The latter being THE PROBLEM WE ALREADY FACE.
Let's start over, sans the modded cannabis which may be seen as a fantastic element to the question. We're only trading real cannabis and its seeds. Here's a nice one: someone buys a plant from a company and grows it for its seeds and, after some iterations of growing self-gathered seeds, begins distributing seeds free of charge or scatters them so that they grow wildly (for this whole argument I have been ignoring the fact that cannabis is already considered a "weed" in that it can and does grow freely in many climates without outside help). What can the companies do? what can the funds for the recovery programs do?
Also, legalizing a thing does not innately mean that makes it easier to regulate or reduces the burden of regulation. For example, making guns completely illegal as opposed to making them completely legal. In either case, the concerns and enforcement, and the risk of inflaming unrelated issues, still exist.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-29 23:24
>>28
okay, I believe the effect of people growing their own weed vs. just buying a pack at the store is quite minimal. We have prescription weed here in california, with a lot of stores that sell growing equipment, and yet the dispenseries do a brisk business. It's just easier for most people to go to the store and buy a high quality product at low prices than to struggle with trying to do it themselves. I see this effect on the industry as more of how local vegetable gardens impact the agriculture industry.
Secondly, if we simply remove the enforcement aspect from the equation, and take the gangs out of the distribution picture, we've already done an AMAZING service for the community and its budget.
Name:
Anonymous2010-03-31 17:52
Hey. Parties are SHIT. You listen to what a party says ("Lets go beat the shit out of that guy") and you are a fucking ignorant cunt.
Make up your own views. It's called free thought.
Parties are why the world is fucking dying. We take sides (America has just two) and vote for whichever asshole says they follow the same views. Look at what the politicians actually say and do. If you are a republican and vote for Palin becouse she is on your party's side you better have a really fucking good reason becouse I can give you several reasons why you don't want a gun toting fool parading around with America's nukes armed and ready.
Pick your own side and if you vote for a single party or diss one party or another you need to broden your ideas. Don't be a one sided fool. Every argument has two sides and both have good reasons to be on that side.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 0:57
>>29
I don't think gangs are just going to dump their drug-distributing ways, let alone their spats of violence, because their goods are available over the counter. If anything, there's a risk of more active gangs to retaliate against businesses to protect their "supply chain" and "profit margins" or the gang will just switch to a less reputable drug to push, one that's not legal. It's difficult to say in those regards as California, borrowing your locale, only just recently passed its legalization; it'd be better to check back in a few months and evaluate the situation then.
I'm very much wary to these "taking everything on itself to make things cheaper" arguments because I've yet to see anyone actually explain how they'd do this. They give a vague answer about "cutting waste and fraud," as if the amount of waste and fraud in the system must be so great that it dwarfs the output of the system by many times. Or that optimizing these factors will lead to (in the case of health care) more survival stories as opposed to "the ones that got away." Additionally, do you realize how many business jobs can be killed through optimization without actually affecting productivity?
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 1:50
>>31
the thing is, when it's legal, gangs can't make any money on dealing drugs. Companies can do it far cheaper and better than a couple of idiots with pipe dreams.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 2:06
>>31
when prohibition was enacted in the US, gangs and organized crime stepped in to fill black market demand. When prohibition was repealed, the gangs no longer served a purpose and faded away until they found how much money they could make dealing drugs.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 13:04
>>32-33
Your argument has its appeal. I concede.
However, I will still insist if it should ever come up on my ballot that it is treated as you would normal smoking as when in restaurants.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 15:40
i'm too young to be in a party
career politicians are all old fucks with avg. age being somewhere in the 50s
30yrd olds are like the "kids" there and anything below ends up in the "toddler" organizations like young niggercrats of amerikkka and shit
and i'm only 23, so no way i'm gonna play along with that crap
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 18:38
>>34
if we don't resist the metal mother, then we don't deserve to survive my friend.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-01 18:40
>>34
wrong reply lol meant that for another thread =) There are some bad consequences to legalization and such, but I think we're suffering those consequences already through the war on drugs. At least this way we aren't throwing away our money on a problem that has only become worse since we started "fighting" it. Also, no illegal drugs means the CIA might need to hold a bake sale or something.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-02 12:42
Bull Moose Party was here. Other parties are faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-02 15:31
Whig party here. Sorry, BMP started existing again while we weren't looking. It won't happen again.
Since there's not a libertarain-socialist party I'll go with the Socialist Party USA or the Green Party is I have to. I only vote democrat if the local candidate is half-decent.