Libertarianism

Nebraska. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature

the Jews were the main people killed in the holocaust. some gypsies were killed but mainly the Jews

A Democrat and a Republican are party members. Currently Democrats believe in a strong central Government that should control all items the society. Republicans were fairly conservative until recently. There new ideas and views seem to fall fairly close to the Democrats.

A liberal believes that all things should be regulated and controlled by the Government. They believe that the Federal Government should have absolute control over the States.

A Conservative believes that we should have fairly limited Government. That the States are often more capable to determining our best interests then the Feds.

A Libertarian is an ultra conservative. They believe that the Feds and State should be VERY limited. Drugs, for example, should be legal. It should be your responsibility to stay away from them and the Government should not be a babysitter. They also believe that the Government should not supply you with money when you retire or if you screw up your life. They are the total freedom people of the list above.

To put the list on a scale you have Liberals that believe you should have zero roights and supplied everything on the far left, Democrats that are almost there, Republicans which are almost there now, and liberatarians at the far right that believe in total freedom and rights. The further left, the more freebies, the furher right the more freedom and less freebies.

do you mean our system? or government in general? In general, government is a necessary evil. And it only derives necessity from the need to protect the inalienable rights of man. Another way to understand its necessity is when anarchy is argued, the only defense someone has for government is that people's liberties and property must be protected. Our founding fathers originally intended our system of government to be based on the principles of equality. Equality - meaning each citizen is recognized as equal by the government and their rights protected equally, without regard to social status or wealth. It also implies that everyone is subject to the law of the land, including citizens in public office. But our government's system of function is based on many principles. The most prominent is the 'trias politica', which is known as the separation of powers. Another prominent principle - which lacks recognition today - is the basis of a 'constitutional republic', rather than a democracy. The founders understood that a government could not be trusted by men (democracy), and in order to protect the rights of the individual, and to keep the power of the government in check, it had to be subject to its own set of rules (constitution).

The difference between a civil server and the police are police of powers on and off duty where as civil servers such as security guards and rent a cops things of that nature have power only when they are on duty.

This is not really correct. I don't think the poster read the question right.

A civil servant is someone who works for government: city, state, township, etc. Not including the military.

So usually police officers are civil servants.

Any new committee, commission, council, authority, or agency that was handed the

job of creating a system and procedure, in place of the FCC, for allocating frequencies

to all the radio services that need and want them, would begin in total chaos. After

years spent inventing some sort of device that could function acceptably as a wheel,

adjusting, modifying, revising, litigating, defending, streamlining, and tweaking its

system, it would eventually arrive at a system identical to the one that's in place today.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong.

-- K2KQU --

The state has no role beyond that of a record keeper.

3 in Joplin,Mo. 102.5 fm..1320am...102.9 fm

1310

Radical Freedom: a kind of freedom that is endless, untouchable...some one with radical freedom character will do anything to benefit themselves no matter what the cost, or who it effects.

This kind of freedom can be used for good and for bad. if they choose to use it for bad the person my seem very uncontentious of others feelings. They will depend on everyone else to carry them through the fire, leading on like they cant walk themselves and they need others to provide for them. They tend to be very brilliant and keen in there asking for there needs. They say "everyone else is responsible for me, because of the decision or decisions that they made to be in or around my life"

Doesn't want his girfriend to go through with a unplaned pregnancy, reguardless of what effects an abortion might have on her. Wont pay more than very minimal child support, wont work more than a few hours a week, because he is in school, expects parents to pay for his school, and apartment until he is 30, a constant surf rat, benefiting only himself. Radical freedom, is a way of getting what you want with out having to do anything but worry about your self.

On the flip side, the person may feel constantly naucious or sick and has to smoke weed or take drugs to ease the feelings of sickness, and are thought not to be related to his or her actions.

or Radical freedom could be used for good...

One could realize he or she has this power and begin to use it to an advantage to succeed in life. With time and maturity radical freedom can be used as a selling tool for a business, with a health product...or anything he or she chooses to believe in.

Michael Savage is not a political party. He is a popular radio entertainer.

yes, they oppose all forms if government.

yes There were NO bombs INSIDE the federal building. There was one truck loaded with home-made explosives parked outside.

He is now on WJJG-Am 1530 from 10am to noon.

because he was aware and had realised the corrupt, yet sophisticated and complex strategies of the Italian government to maintain power and leverage in social democracy

This is how you change slope-intercept to standard form.

y=ax+b

subtract (ax) from both sides

-ax+y=b

Make sure the coefficient of x is positive by multiplying through by -1.

If "a" is a fraction then multiply through by the denominator.

Example:

y=1/2 x +5

-1/2 x + y=5

1/2 x - y=-5

x-2y=-10

In official policy positions, he's more "moderate" a libertarian. This may be simply because he's working to be more broadly "electable". Bear in mind that in 1974 Ronald Reagan described libertarianism as being the heart of Conservatism. Rand's policies are strongly similar to Reagan's advocated positions before he ran for office.

While the courts have made various rulings in a variety of ways, a student actually has no more or less rights than an adult.

An adult who walks into the store does not have the right to dress as he likes, smoke as he likes, yell (or argue) at clerks as he likes, fight with customers as he likes, or demonstrate for a cause as he likes.

Similarly, a student who walks into a school has no right to dress as he likes, smoke as he likes, yell (or argue) with teachers as he likes, fight with students as he likes, or demonstrate for a cause as he likes.

A student is there to learn. He does not "own" the locker where he hides things. He has no right of free speech to sass the teacher or gun rights to settle disputes. And he will hardly have such "rights" when he's an adult, bosses search employee lockers, too, nor may they be "sassed" at work, nor are guns allowed.

Rights in this nation boil down (after all the exceptions and case laws are factored in) to the fact that you may be relatively free in your own home. Step outside your home, and you are subject to restrictions. Most you won't agree with. And that's what adults deal with every day.

With kids it worse because they cannot - or will not if 18 - have a home to be free in. They are in another's home, and so have no respite. This is sad. But a trade off, for the livelihood is provided.

In the end, it all depends on what rights the teacher is taking away from the student. If the teacher is taking away the right to bear arms, it is completely fine (since students should not have guns, anyway). If the teacher is taking away the student's right to not speak as to not incriminate his/herself, then the teacher cannot do that.

There is no such thing as office furniture mordern. On the other hand, modern office furniture, is office furniture that is considered modern by todays standards. For examples go to allmodern.com

Basically the same ideas based from laissez-faire (the idea of little or no government interference in economic activities) coming from Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith. The term itself comes from what was on the minds of these Enlightenment thinkers and economists of the eighteenth century who were open to new economic ideas and thought.

Liberalization is a political trend in which classical liberal policies are adopted, such policies are privatization of public industries. Conservatives and American Libertarians tend to support Economic Liberalization, while Modern Liberals tend to support the opposite: Nationalization of industries.

Rand Paul, son of libertarian Conservative Ron Paul, who more or less came in second in the Republican nomination race in 2012.

Unlike his father, though, Rand tried to be "moderate", when libertarianism is what's really popular, so he didn't do nearly as well as his dad.

86 means to throw overboard.

44 means Obama because he is pres. #44.

8644 means "Throw overboard pres. Obama.

"Freedom of Want" does not mean anything.

If you are refering to the Four Freedoms mentioned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, what he said was "Freedom from Want". Freedom from Want means that a person is not worried about basic neccesities, like if they will be able to eat enough food, drink enough water, be unable to find shelter in a storm. It is basically the freedom to live without fearing death at every corner.

The word you are probably thinking of is "majoritarianism"

It is the implied assumption in many political arguments that the majority has the right to control the entirety of society in some way or another. It is a slight problem for democracies, and there are usually some laws which prevent majoritarianism becoming a problem. For instance, more radical changes often involve a 75% vote as a necessity, and some countries do not allow certain laws to be passed regardless of the vote.

The best example of this would be the US, which has a constitution (along with amendments) preventing congress from making certain laws. For instance, congress cannot pass any law which would hinder freedom of religion. This counters majoritarianism because even if 99% of Americans wanted to outlaw a certain religion, they would be unable to do so.