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.
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.
Absolute "Pie In The Sky"
If it might work it would have already been tried.
And how do people seek out better protection of their "natural rights"? I think that people do, in fact, tend to move to countries where they may have more freedoms.
Seeking out better healthcare, on the other hand, is simply a matter of going to a different doctor.
Not necessarily. Seeking health care itself is a lot more than just finding a doctor. But your response doesn't address the point I raised. Your argument now introduces a premise where you believe that not the individual but the government has the bigger stake in one's natural rights but for health care, it is the individual?
Now you may be trying to establish that access to health care is not a right, just a privilege and we can surely debate that too. But regardless, do you believe that people shouldn't believe in a government to protect a right much less a privilege? Then what do you think the purpose of having a government is?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-19-2011 at 02:58 PM..
First of all, I agree that people should take responsibility for their own health, and by that I mean make the effort to be healthy. That much I think most people can agree on.
The healthcare issue basically comes down to one simple question: do you think healthcare is a right or a privilege?
I think that healthcare is a scarce resource. The amount of healthcare that you receive is dictated by the amount of savings that you're willing to trade for treatment. You make smart choices based on your own limited savings. When you don't pay for your own care, prices go berserk. You'll always opt for the better (more scarce) care no matter what the cost if someone else is paying the bill. The fact of the matter is, there are only so many doctors, nurses, healthcare facilities, and medical equipment out there. They all cost money to hire or produce. Obviously, everyone cannot go to the best doctor in the best healthcare facility in the country, even though it would be their preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad08
I don't think anyone is advocating a total government takeover of the healthcare system. Ultimately, I think the best situation would be for the government to extend Medicare to all Americans. That would get rid of for-profit insurance companies, which are basically expensive middle-men. The real substance of the healthcare system - hospitals, doctor's offices, pharma - would stay the way they are. The only difference would be how the services are paid for.
If that happens, who determines the price? Do the best doctors get paid a premium? If so, who determines who the best doctors are? What is the incentive for doctors to innovate and find better, more cost effective cures?
I'm pretty sure that there are criminal laws against blinding people with mercury.
It depends on what you imply by this framed statement of yours. The original point was based on pollutants from a factory that was allowed to do as it pleased (as in no regulations). Now you're suggesting that such regulations are needed?
How would it be more abused? I believe that the biggest abuses in our system come from people abusing the power of government (ex. paying off government officials to pass laws which benefit the payee). I believe that centralized power is easily corrupted and that decentralized power is much more difficult to corrupt.
How would it be abused? Ever here of the phrase "give them an inch and they take a mile"? People are just like that more or less. Look at all the people on this forum. Most of them are at work using work resources to come here to this forum to "contribute intelligent thoughts". Do you know how many people do little things to abuse the system? And these are the law abiding citizens. There are huge abuses in our system right now, hence the reason people pass laws and regulations. If people knew how to govern themselves then no laws or government would have ever been required. No form of government has ever succeeded. They have all failed spectacularly. Just read a history book. Right now, our current government is the best we can muster and look how messed up it is. And our society is a combination of a little bit of everything. You can actually point aspects everywhere/
Not necessarily. Seeking health care itself is a lot more than just finding a doctor. But your response doesn't address the point I raised. Your argument now introduces a premise where you believe that not the individual but the government has the bigger stake in one's natural rights but for health care, it is the individual?
The only way I know of protecting the rights of individuals is by visiting violence on those who would infringe upon them. I believe that elected governments are the best tools for maintaining those rights. Unfortunately, the power to visit violence or to confiscate their property can be very profitable and invites corruption. Hence, I believe that governments, even elected ones, should be as small as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Now you may be trying to establish that access to health care is not a right, just a privilege and we can surely debate that too. But regardless, do you believe that people shouldn't believe in a government to protect a right much less a privilege? Then what do you think the purpose of having a government is?
I don't believe in any inherent "right" to goods or services. I believe that I have the right to defend my life, my liberty, and my property.
It depends on what you imply by this framed statement of yours. The original point was based on pollutants from a factory that was allowed to do as it pleased (as in no regulations). Now you're suggesting that such regulations are needed?
Perhaps I haven't been clear. Laws against causing harm to individuals are perfectly valid. Laws protecting property are perfectly valid. As far as I'm aware, criminal laws are generally not so specific as to the method of causing the harm. It's illegal to kill someone whether you bludgeon them to death or you shoot them to death.
But DUI laws are already on the books. Most libertarians that I know understand that DUI laws should remain on the books.
A few extreme cases, like myself, think that DUI's should be banned also, and only those who harm others should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If I have three beers at a bar before driving home, am I drunk? Not in the least, but a breathalyzer could determine that I am. This is not fair, did I hurt anyone? Was my potential to hurt others so great that it warranted the loss of my job, home, family, everything?
Libertarian here...count me in as an extreme case.
There are many conditions/actions/situations that can cause an accident. It's the CAUSING of the accident that should be penalized...not the conditions/actions/situations.
Also...if an accident does occur...blame should NOT immediately be placed with the person who's had a few beers. It could very well have been the other driver who CAUSED the accident.
Drinking and driving should not be a crime. No harm has been done.
Say somebody who's blabbing with other people in the car and not paying attention to the road, runs over a pedestrian.
Compared to somebody who's had a few drinks running over a pedestrian.
Why should the punishment be greater for the person who had a few drinks? Isn't the result the same?
Libertarian here...count me in as an extreme case.
There are many conditions/actions/situations that can cause an accident. It's the CAUSING of the accident that should be penalized...not the conditions/actions/situations.
Also...if an accident does occur...blame should NOT immediately be placed with the person who's had a few beers. It could very well have been the other driver who CAUSED the accident.
Drinking and driving should not be a crime. No harm has been done.
Say somebody who's blabbing with other people in the car and not paying attention to the road, runs over a pedestrian.
Compared to somebody who's had a few drinks running over a pedestrian.
Why should the punishment be greater for the person who had a few drinks? Isn't the result the same?
I'm an old man but I've told my wife that is some ignorant person talking on a cell phone causes me to wreck my car they had better be able to whip my arse. I'll go for them if I'm still able to get out of my car.
I taught all of my kids how to drive and I told them it took all their attention and both hands on the wheel to get it done. I still believe that.
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.
