Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Issues like gay marriage "go away?" What, exactly, do you mean by that?
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue...the only way it will "go away" is when gay Americans have the full rights they deserve.
The only reason why gay marriage is an issue is because the government refuses to give marriage licenses to gay couples. If there were no marriage licenses, this wouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of venues for gay couples to exchange marriage vows.
I'm ok with a civil union or a partnership replacing marriage certificates, but I don't really think that a special document is necessary to say your married to begin with in my ideal world. Nonetheless, tax laws force us into a situation where the death of a spouse would result in severe taxation, so I recognize that some sort of partnership is necessary to prevent the government from leaving you broke.
I can't speak for all Libertarians, but I think these views are pretty mainstream in the libertarian community. I wonder what people think of them.
The Constitution: The US Government should exist within the limits of its Constitution. Powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government should fall upon the states or upon the people themselves. Using the commerce clause to regulate things that aren't explicitly interstate commerce issues is generally done merely to give the government an excuse to claim power outside of its original charter without the hassle of amending the Constitution. This is unethical and improper.
Individual Liberty: Freedom comes first. Libertarians would rather be a free pauper than a rich slave. That's not saying that we want to be poor, but rather that we put a high value on individual liberties. Actually, Libertarians believe that more freedom results in more prosperity for everyone. There are a few Nobel prize winning economists that seem to agree.
Taxes/Government Spending: Taxes and government spending are far too high and far too localized in Washington. Government should be as small as possible and as local as possible. There's no need for people thousands of miles away to dictate how you live.
Recessions/Depressions: Recessions/depressions are generally caused by mismanagement of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Prior to the Federal Reserve, financial crises were generally shorter and less severe. See mises.org for a lot of great information about the economics of the boom/bust cycle.
National Defense: National defense is necessary. However, maintaining permanent bases in foreign countries doesn't seem defensive, but sure costs a mint. Sending troops to fight wars in foreign lands doesn't make you many friends, either.
Foreign Aide: Foreign aide amounts to taking money from Americans and giving it to dictators.
Environmental Issues: The US Government is the single biggest polluter in the country. Most environmental issues can be dealt with through property rights since property owners have the biggest stake in preventing pollution on their property. Even most air pollution could be dealt with through property rights: If someone pollutes the air and they do you or your property harm, they are liable for the damages. The government should not be immune from pollution liability.
Gay Marriage: The government shouldn't require a license to be married in the first place. If the government didn't issue marriage certificates, this would be a non-issue. Any church (or Vegas wedding venue) who would be willing to marry gay couples would do so.
The Drug War: State and Federal Governments have spent billions if not trillions of dollars enforcing bans on certain substances in the United States. They've made sick people criminals and made criminals millionaires. There are plenty of substances much more dangerous than illegal drugs that are perfectly legal; we'd all be better off if the government didn't take our money from us and use it to put sick people in the clink.
as in everything else, some good, some bad....it all depends on you and how you think and feel....
I have found that most people who expound on the Constitution don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Most Constitutional issues have been fleshed out in over 200 years of case law, which most people haven't scratched the surface of.
Cse Law is a Progressive creation as a vehicle to get AROUND the Constitution. Case Law does NOT equal Constitutional law.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue...the only way it will "go away" is when gay Americans have the full rights they deserve.
No its not. The issue of gay rights does more to complicate & contort politics & reality than anything else. Gay people have all the rights anyone else has & have had them for decades, marriage isn't a right anyway, its a licensed activity. You have a right to sleep or share your life with whoever you want.
I agree with almost everything in the OP's post. The one that I wonder about is about military bases. It's impossible to say what would have happened if we didn't have bases all over the world. Would a reunited and emboldened Germany have started causing trouble again? It's impossible to say.
So are you talking about the just the original Constitution or are you including the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments?
I can't say that I agree with all of the Amendments to the Constitution, but my real beef is when the government simply ignores the established limitations in the Constitution.
I don't blindly believe that the Constitution is perfect, but rather I recognize that it establishes limits for the government must be respected to maintain freedom. There is a process for changing the Constitution if it becomes necessary. I believe that the 16th and 17th Amendments should be repealed, but that's a different issue.
Why do you feel like a downstream landowner couldn't sue the factory for dumping sewage into the river and damaging their property? People do this; have you seen Erin Brockovich? One would assume that dumping sewage into a river would cause undo harm to a large number of property owners downstream, resulting in hundreds or thousands of lawsuits to repair the damages. This is not a deterrent? If the courts do not address the matter expeditiously, then perhaps there is a problem with the courts that should be addressed.
I guess I was just speculating that in a Libertarian society, there probably wouldn't be any laws on the books regulating pollution. If that's the case, what basis would other property owners have for suing the factory? Tort law and/or property damage claims, I guess?
My point regarding the environment was it goes beyond property rights. For instance, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for every house in a city to have "airspace," but I don't see how else air pollution could be a property rights issue.
I like some of the ideas of Libertarianism, but I think they go too far sometimies and forget that we are an interdependent society, not a confederation of individuals. Sure, individualism, personal property rights, personal liberties, etc. are all important, and I definitely have a Libertarian streak on social issues, but society falls when everyone acts only in their own self interest.
And yeah, I've seen Erin Brockovich. Awesome movie.
No its not. The issue of gay rights does more to complicate & contort politics & reality than anything else. Gay people have all the rights anyone else has & have had them for decades, marriage isn't a right anyway, its a licensed activity. You have a right to sleep or share your life with whoever you want.
Yes, it is. Marriage is a basic part of life and gay people are being denied the opportunity to engage in it. It doesn't matter if it is a "right" or not; drinking out of a water fountain isn't a "right" either, but when you tell black people they can't do it while white people are welcome, it becomes a civil rights issue.
Like I said before; I understand religious zealots can't handle the idea of gay people being "married," so the easy solution would be for the government to stop issuing "marriage" certificates and start issuing "civil union" certificates to all couples. What they call the relationship, whether they have a religious ceremony, etc. would all be up to the individuals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
