Whats scarier about the modern right? the social policy, or the economics?

So.... which is the most horrible for our nation...their voodoo economics.... or their religious fundamentalisms...think about it.

Would u rather have a libertarian...who would fix the drug laws, and give us civil unions, repeal the patriot act, but who would deregulate everything ...from the media, to healthcare and social security, to the power supply, etc. free free free market theory, NAFTA updated and upgraded, minimum wage dropped, unions busted, taxes done away with, abolish all forms of welfare, etc.

Or would you rather have a religious fundamentalist who would give us a balance budget and a healthcare system, even welfare...but would force Americans back into the 1800s, making an amendment against civil unions, allowing the ten commandments at the foot of the courts, reinstating the anti-sodomy laws, repealing affirmative action, banning violent video games, censoring "rude" musicians and other artists, allowing prayer in schools, and of course, repealing roe v wade. Etc.

Which do you think would be worse, for America in general, and why?

on edit: WHAT IF...the fundi...is an old school conservative who stands by isolationism...and the libertarian is a PNAC to the extreme?

I hate fundies of any kind. Christian or Islam, they're all the same.

if any mods are out there.?!

both are fuckin scary. can't decide.

Social agenda is much worse.

Honestly, I'm kind of a fiscal conservative.

HOWEVER, THIS admin is NO fiscal conservative.

You can argue with the Libertarian about things, but the Fundie has FAITH.

At least libertarians are consistent in regard to their theories on freedom, personal and economic. For conservatives, enron is okay, but you'll be damned if you want to have an abortion, etc. Also, in regard to what you wrote above, Libertarians would not support NAFTA or our entry in the WTO. They do not believe in governments setting trade policies; they would prefer to abolish NAFTA and have the U.S. exit the WTO, and then have the tariffs on foreign goods cut dramatically and removed, if at all possible. Might I add that a Libertarian would also not support Roe V. Wade. Most libertarians are definitely pro-choice, and they respect states' rights. In other words, they believe that if Texas wants to ban abortion, they have that right, and if NY wants it to be legal, they also have that right. They believe that if you do not like a certain state's laws, you can just move to another state. Federalism, federalism, federalism.

the fundi... had a solid economic plan? that would semi-make up for the loses in civil rights.....or at least would be better then the civil rights u would no doubt lose via the libertarian's economics....by this i mean division of wealth...and its effects on race relations.

Being compassionate and pro-society, #1 is clearly out of the question as it is pro-me-me-me and doesn't care if people have to die because they can't get work or don't fit in or don't live to some bullshit standard. We're a society, not an anarchy.

Being gay myself, option #2 is out; partly related to the "don't fit in" reason. That aside, the cost for having #2 is just too much.

at least call it anarcho-capitalism...because "anarchy" is generally used in reference to libertarian socialism.

starve the government to starve the people.

Sorry, just trying to keep this Lounge-like!

But it happens to be true.

ohwell

They're both the most selfish groups of people I've ever encountered. I'd rather have a representative group of lawmakers who care about humanity as a collective instead getting what 'I' want. That doesn't work for most people in the world. A few get what they want, and the others get what's left over, if they're one of the lucky ones. When one person suffers, all of humanity suffers in some way, eventually. It's not some new age bs, it's the way things work.

I'm not into the sheep or hive mentality, but I do believe people can still have their individuality without becoming completely self-serving and apathetic towards the rights of 'the other'. If we were all born with equal opportunities, abilities and ethics, in a world full of infinite resources, then socialist policies wouldn't be necessary.