to further illustrate my point about how science class is not the place for non-science: what if a muslim child in science class asks how many virgins the muslim terrorists recives in heaven for a suicide bombing? this is not an issue for discussion in science class. the teacher should not answer respectfully "well, i think many people believe it is 74 virgins" or whatever, because the question has no place in the discussion. of course in life these children will grow up and see the results of the beliefs of these loony terrorists. and understanding the religious motivation of the terrorists is definitely something they should understand. but not in science class! in science class there is no purpose to discussing faith-based theories.
Couldn't agree more. Very well-stated Gimp. As for the Libertarian bashing, that's fine and that's to be expected. As much as the two big parties have failed their country in their increasingly convergent politics, they have succeeded in nurturing unique loyalty founded on nothing.
And while libertarians may have good intentions by promoting individual freedoms, this individualism is the very reason I feel they won't be able to come together in large enough numbers to gain significant power. Put enough of them together, they'll splinter in various directions. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think their primary uderlying belief is what will prevent them from becoming significant. I give them credit because I don't think they will politically prostitute themselves and trade off some individual freedoms they desire to gain power, as the republicans and democrats have. I am not loyal to either party; I don't belong to either one and don't particularly care for either. That doesn't prevent me from believing libertarianism will never gain the significant power it takes to bring about change.
What you're overlooking is that they appeal to the beliefs that many Americans currently subscribe to. Most Americans don't want higher taxes and favor less government spending. Most Americans also aren't interested in governing peoples social or personal lives. Most Americans aren't aware that a party exists that hold both of those values fundamentally. Many conservatives vote that way because they think that Liberals will raise taxes and throw more money away on the poor. The moral governing/superiority is a byproduct of neo-conservatism and generally accompanies that vote, despite the fact that it had previously been a non-issue among the constituents. Many Liberals vote that way because they think that Conservatives are morphing into Big Brother and will eventually erode all personal freedoms on the grounds that they are objectionable to society. The tax and spend trend is a byproduct of 'compassion' (where have we heard that before?) and generally accompanies that vote, despite the fact that it had previously been a non-issue among the consituents. In both cases, voters become coerced into aligning their stances with issues that they generally were not all that concernced with until the politicians used it as a platform. On top of that, the 2 main parties have begun mimmicking one another so closely that the party line has become indelibly blurred. They have abandoned their fundamental beliefs in order to pander and cater to special interest groups that will help them gain or remain in power.
And if libertarians can stick to the two main issues you address, they can continue to grow. But, the greater their numbers become, the more other issues will creep in and erode the party's unity. You need the numbers to gain power, however when those numbers get to a cerain point, human nature takes over, and I think you will see them going off in different directions. Like I said, just an opinion. And sadly, that's what American politics has become. And as I side note, I've got no problem with libertarians, just an attempt to get a rise out of you.
I disagree. I firmly believe that those issues will become the dominant force if they/we gain power. Maybe call it strategy, but the LP will being shaving off the extremist/anarchist/militia image to appeal to a more reasonable and sensible cause.
I would like to emphatically second that. I wish he posted more. He is one of the most reasonable and unbiased guys around here, despite the fact that we often have very different views.
