Republicans / Conservatives

[AlgyTaylor]

This aimed more at our American friends than anyone, but ya know ... if there's any Irish republicans or Tories then feel free to chip in too


Out of interest - is there anything you don't believe should be free market?

Say the military - healthcare - recreational drugs - highways - fire departments - police departments .... anything else you can think of

And if you don't believe they should be free market .... where do you draw the line between what should be open market and what should be state-run (or heavily regulated by the state)?

[AlgyTaylor]

** state as in nation rather than state as in Alabama

[Night Strike]

The government is in place to secure the safety of its people. With that, the national government should provide the military and defense, while the states provide the national guard. The local governments supply the fire and police protection based on the needs of the local population (more officers for more people). Some projects, like the interstate highway system, were a good use of the commerce clause in the Constitution, but many actions that are justified under that clause are just power grabs, especially many of the recent actions. The federal government was designed to have very limited powers with the states having most of the powers, it was not designed for the monstrous entity we now have.

[Titanic]

This is a very good thread, I'm genuinely interested in the answers.

[Phatscotty]

I'll bite. I don't mind expaining what I think and why. Government, to me, and as my interpretation of the USC, is for the business of the people in..... for setting up courts to uphold the law of the land, for police and fire, for roads and public works. for defense, international trade. you may be able to point out a few more things that I have not listed, and I would probably agree with those as well. But to ME, the constitution is a document that PROTECTS RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES from the Gov't. our gov't has turned into something that only takes rights and liberties now. Simply put....When the people fear the gov't, thats tyranny. When the gov't fears the people, thats liberty. Now I undersatnd the lesson we learned in the war of 1812. We simply can not pretend the rest of the world doesnt affect us or that we can ignore certain things. government is so big and complicated nowadays, it just can not understand or properly execute the will of the people. I understand why foreigners laugh and think we're arrogant, and a lot of us are. But people only care when it's the guy on the top of the hill being arrogant.....everyone below can be arrogant yet never get called on it, and continually criticize the arrogance of the guy on top. However, I believe America is transitioning into a SECOND rate power, and that is where i see health care coming from. It''s a downgrade. But i'm getting off topic. America will get knocked down a notch in all qualities of everyday life. as always, instead of americas leader saying "this is unnaceptable, we need to stay on top" they guide us into lower standards of living, all in the name of "sacrifice" If you listen closely to Obama anbd read between the lines, its all about accepting less. WE have to use less electricity, eat less food, use less gas, drive crappier cars, crappier roads, longer lines, less health care. call it what you wish, I call it a downgrade. way off topic but whatever im in a rush so no time to brush this up

[Simon Viavant]

The government is in place to secure the safety of its people. With that, the national government should provide the military and defense, while the states provide the national guard. The local governments supply the fire and police protection based on the needs of the local population (more officers for more people). Some projects, like the interstate highway system, were a good use of the commerce clause in the Constitution, but many actions that are justified under that clause are just power grabs, especially many of the recent actions. The federal government was designed to have very limited powers with the states having most of the powers, it was not designed for the monstrous entity we now have.

And I believe they should also protect us from harmful diseases.

[Night Strike]

And I believe they should also protect us from harmful diseases.

They already do: regulations on dumping, infectious disease research, provide protections to prevent nuclear waste leaks, etc. It doesn't mean the government should provide for (or force) everybody to visit the doctor.

[Phatscotty]

i agree the governemnt should have a hand, from time to time, as well as have a plan and basic lasting infrastructure to deal with whatever may or may not come in the future. The problem with that is that governement makes everything permanent, and even in times of disease tranquility, the agency still grows and costs more and more. However, if the government forces vaccinations, that is directly in the face of freedom and liberty. WE should have the choice, even if 99% of people still get it, at least it was by their own free will, and the media will also be doing their part, of course. quarantines, while might argue necesary, is a complete violation of liberty and freedom, and since in that scenario you will probably not come out of it alive anyways.

[luns101]

Out of interest - is there anything you don't believe should be free market?

[HapSmo19]

/5

[jonka]

The government is in place to secure the safety of its people. With that, the national government should provide the military and defense, while the states provide the national guard. The local governments supply the fire and police protection based on the needs of the local population (more officers for more people). Some projects, like the interstate highway system, were a good use of the commerce clause in the Constitution, but many actions that are justified under that clause are just power grabs, especially many of the recent actions. The federal government was designed to have very limited powers with the states having most of the powers, it was not designed for the monstrous entity we now have.

Laundry listing.

The state(including its subsidiaries) should be responsible for at least providing a public option, in health care, education, fire departments, transportation(applies to postal service and roads/highways, railways, ect), waste management, parks. I think I've got pretty much everything. I don't think only the state should provide these, if a private entity can out compete the public option in certain areas, then they can do that. I.E. You rich conservatives can pay for your extra special way better health care, but your taxes wouldn't change.

And I'm also in favor of state control of drugs, without private option, same goes to military and police.

[LYR]

And I believe they should also protect us from harmful diseases.

They already do: regulations on dumping, infectious disease research, provide protections to prevent nuclear waste leaks, etc. It doesn't mean the government should provide for (or force) everybody to visit the doctor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13 ... ?th&emc=th

[AlgyTaylor]

I'll bite.

Haha ... not trying to bait/troll/trip anyone up, dude. Just curious as to how free market the republican side of the US is, what with all this healthcare stuff going up.

See, I'd regard myself as fairly left wing, so believe a fair few things - things that are as a service to 'the people' as opposed to something with which they express individuality - should be state-run, or something approximating that.

I accept that not everybody shares my view, so just was curious as to what Republicans thought was OK to be private sector. I mean, if a state could privately hire in a fire department for less than the state-run one operates, should they? Is that something you'd open up? What about the military? Do you agree with the prohibition of recreational drugs or maybe prostitution?

Just something I wonder

[Orwell]

This aimed more at our American friends than anyone, but ya know ... if there's any Irish republicans or Tories then feel free to chip in too

For the record, Irish Republicanism is not synonymous with conservatism, but instead seeks a united Irish republic.

[jonesthecurl]

Irish Publicans are more to my liking.

[thegreekdog]

In an ideal world, everything should be free market.

In the real world: Fire, police, military, schools. That's pretty much it for me.

[Phatscotty]

CORRUPTION! CORRUPTION! IT DOESNT MATTER WHO THET ARE OR WHAT SIDE THEY ARE ON, THEY ARE CORRUPT, YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH FIRE, POLICE, TAXES. CORRUPT I TELL YA. UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS. THERE ARE 1 OR 2 GOOD GUYS AND GALS, AND THEY ARE CASTIGATED ON A REGULAR BASIS. AS CORRUPT AS THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH MILITARY. YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH MAIL AS CORRUPT AS THEY ARE. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT CORRUPTION IN YOUR HEALTH CARE. I DONT TRUST ANYTHING TO CUT 900 BILLION IN WASTE THAT IS THE SAME THING THAT ALLOWS 900 BILLION IN WASTE. CORRUPT! CORRUPT!

[Frigidus]

CORRUPTION! CORRUPTION! IT DOESNT MATTER WHO THET ARE OR WHAT SIDE THEY ARE ON, THEY ARE CORRUPT, YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH FIRE, POLICE, TAXES. CORRUPT I TELL YA. UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS. THERE ARE 1 OR 2 GOOD GUYS AND GALS, AND THEY ARE CASTIGATED ON A REGULAR BASIS. AS CORRUPT AS THESE PEOPLE ARE, YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH MILITARY. YOU CANT TRUST THEM WITH MAIL AS CORRUPT AS THEY ARE. YOU DO NOT WANT THAT CORRUPTION IN YOUR HEALTH CARE. I DONT TRUST ANYTHING TO CUT 900 BILLION IN WASTE THAT IS THE SAME THING THAT ALLOWS 900 BILLION IN WASTE. CORRUPT! CORRUPT!

[AlgyTaylor]

In an ideal world, everything should be free market.

In the real world: Fire, police, military, schools. That's pretty much it for me.

Now, I'm not trying to start a healthcare debate here - definitely not - but why do you have fire and not healthcare? Surely you could buy fire insurance and have the fire department work privately for the insurance companies ... less waste, free market etc etc.

EDIT: just to reiterate - I don't want to start an argument, I'm just curious as to where the line's drawn and why. I get the other 3, but I don't see the reasoning behind fire & healthcare being separate ....

[GabonX]

Health care is too complex and expensive.

Fighting fires is relatively simple in comparison.

[thegreekdog]

In an ideal world, everything should be free market.

In the real world: Fire, police, military, schools. That's pretty much it for me.

Now, I'm not trying to start a healthcare debate here - definitely not - but why do you have fire and not healthcare? Surely you could buy fire insurance and have the fire department work privately for the insurance companies ... less waste, free market etc etc.

EDIT: just to reiterate - I don't want to start an argument, I'm just curious as to where the line's drawn and why. I get the other 3, but I don't see the reasoning behind fire & healthcare being separate ....

Actually, good point about fire companies. I would take them out. I would also say that I included them because that's how it has been historically.

[MeDeFe]

In an ideal world, everything should be free market.

In the real world: Fire, police, military, schools. That's pretty much it for me.

Now, I'm not trying to start a healthcare debate here - definitely not - but why do you have fire and not healthcare? Surely you could buy fire insurance and have the fire department work privately for the insurance companies ... less waste, free market etc etc.

EDIT: just to reiterate - I don't want to start an argument, I'm just curious as to where the line's drawn and why. I get the other 3, but I don't see the reasoning behind fire & healthcare being separate ....

Actually, good point about fire companies. I would take them out. I would also say that I included them because that's how it has been historically.

And I suppose you would pay them based on the number of fires they extinguish?

Think before you answer that one.

[GabonX]

They could get a lump salary plus a bonus for risking their lives if they have to go inside of a burning building.

Fireman who would commit acts of arson in such a system should be put to death.

[thegreekdog]

And I suppose you would pay them based on the number of fires they extinguish?

Think before you answer that one.

C'mon man, I don't think before I answer anything...

I would not pay them based on number of fires they extinguish. Fire Company X would form to serve District/City/Block Y. The citizens of District/City/Block Y would contribute money to a fund, the proceeds of which would go into the coffers of Fire Company X. Any citizens that did not contribute money to the fund would not get fire extinguishing services from Company X.

I'm trying to figure out how to stop fires from spreading. I suppose I could also support a charity-type fire service. Not sure yet.

[Snorri1234]

"Well this house sure looks like it could easily burn. Probably only needs a match to set this here roof on fire and then it will all go up in flames, sure wouldn't want to have no insurance. fires can start really easy."