If we had a conservative nurses forum - Page 11Register Today!
- Jul 6, '12 by Chico David RNIt seems to me that it's hypocritical for a libertarian to be going into nursing - or medicine - since both are professions in which a government issued license attempts to assure quality of care and the safety of the public - something libertarians believe the government ought not to be involved in. A libertarian who is true to their beliefs wouldn't participate in such a system. Just a little gentle poke here.
Quote from sealfordWell, I'm a libertarian, but my values tend to be more on the conservative side. I did find out that most of my future nursing professors are Republicans,
but a few have already left because of Obamacare.
- Jul 6, '12 by sealfordIf we were 100% true to all that we believed in, mankind would have been wiped out long ago because of all of the disagreements and extremism. All libertarians that I know believe that we should have some form of government...otherwise we would be anarchists. A government-issued license is necessary to ensure that a person can properly care for someone else. I have several libertarian friends who are also nurses and doctors (and they actually care about their patients). Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean that I can't be a nurse. Maybe the best way to fight against something is to be on the inside of it.
- Jul 9, '12 by 33762FLI was against the past decade's wars, against a regressive tax system, strongly in favor the right to family planning, pro-LGBT rights, pro-personal responsibility, anti organized religion in public schools, and pro-union rights. In France that would make me a conservative, in the US it makes me a Democrat.
- Jul 9, '12 by Chico David RNI'm well aware that libertarians favor some form of government, but all the libertarian writings I've read claim the government ought not be in the business of regulating things to ensure public health and safety. They would claim that it's your job, not the government's, to make sure that the person taking care of you is safe and competent and the only safety mechanism you need is the right to sue a practioner if they actually harm you, or a company that sells you a defective product that injures you. All of that is standard libertarian doctrine. According to libertarian principles, a government mechanism to license health care practitioners is just a way for those practioners to keep others out of the field and artificially inflate the value of their work. Again, I don't believe any of this silliness, but it's what libertarians claim to believe taken to its logical conclusion: that anyone who wants to call themselves a doctor or a nurse ought to be able to do so and that it's up to the patient do judge if they are competent or not. In reality of course, like most other people, the libertarian claim to favor personal freedom is highly situational and tends in practice to mean favoring freedom for people you approve of to do things you approve of.
Quote from sealfordIf we were 100% true to all that we believed in, mankind would have been wiped out long ago because of all of the disagreements and extremism. All libertarians that I know believe that we should have some form of government...otherwise we would be anarchists. A government-issued license is necessary to ensure that a person can properly care for someone else. I have several libertarian friends who are also nurses and doctors (and they actually care about their patients). Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean that I can't be a nurse. Maybe the best way to fight against something is to be on the inside of it.
- Aug 15, '12 by Caseylynn87Thank you for starting this forum, FLmomof5! I was beginning to lose hope!
- Aug 20, '12 by uRNmywayQuote from d'cmOk, well then quoting YOUR quote, I interpret that to mean there should be a flat tax, not increments depending on income!what you are talking about is better related to us constitution article 1, section 8:
"the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states;"
i.e. you have every right to expect to be taxed and pay for things you need and a lot you don't, just like every other citizen in this and every country in the world - except maybe somalia.
- Aug 20, '12 by jazmin.n.wallaceI don't think it's a bad idea. As long as it can remain positive and not used as a means TI divide people in our profession. I can value anyone's beliefs/opinions, even if they aren't the same as my own. I'm not a fan of politics. It gets everyone all upset lol
- Aug 21, '12 by d'cmQuote from Jeweles26No, I believe the uniformity means taxes will be the same from state to state, not individual to individual.Ok, well then quoting YOUR quote, I interpret that to mean there should be a flat tax, not increments depending on income!
A truely flat tax, where everybody paid the same rate would actually be highly regressive. A progressive flat tax with no adjustments to income for any reason and all income regardless of source sounds like it could work. However my favorite idea for taxation is referred to as the Robin Hood tax. This is a tax on all financial transactions and thus would be perfectly progressive.
- Aug 21, '12 by ShinyRedGlossI'm more of a liberal, but don't really align with one party. Politicians all have their own agendas. I used to be more conservative but I cannot support a party that denies loving consenting adults from getting married or anyone having a say over their own bodies. Plus, I am not religious/am a bit antireligious and that clashes with the conservative views. Or at least that's what Rachel Maddow tells me. lol