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.
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.
Reactionary (prior to the Federal Reserve, LOL) and ignores the globalization that has happened since then.
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.
Socially they are looney tunes and they LOVE their recreational drugs.
I argued with one about why it wasn't right to give drugs to their young children.
I think the movie "Escape From New York" would be the Libertarian Utopia.
Reactionary (prior to the Federal Reserve, LOL) and ignores the globalization that has happened since then.
You imply that global trade is a new thing. Why laugh out loud? The longest recessions/depressions in history have been under the watchful eye of the Creature from Jekyll Island. If their charter is to ease economic downturns, they're doing a crappy job of it (the Great Depression happened under their watch and lasted a decade). However, if their intention is to make Americans beholden to the banking system, they're doing a wonderful job.
Please elaborate. Calling me stupid doesn't add any value to the conversation. Why is the court system inadequate for handling damages due to pollution? Why does the government have a bigger stake in preventing pollution on my property than I do?
Socially they are looney tunes and they LOVE their recreational drugs.
I argued with one about why it wasn't right to give drugs to their young children.
I think the movie "Escape From New York" would be the Libertarian Utopia.
Always the drug thing. Who do these laws protect? Look, I don't do drugs and I never have. However, I do pay taxes. How much money would you pay every day to put junkies in jail? The fact of the matter is, they're hurting themselves first and foremost. They're sick. If anything, they should be given treatment.
I think that giving drugs to children would probably land you in jail for child abuse.
You imply that global trade is a new thing. Why laugh out loud? The longest recessions/depressions in history have been under the watchful eye of the Creature from Jekyll Island. If their charter is to ease economic downturns, they're doing a crappy job of it (the Great Depression happened under their watch and lasted a decade). However, if their intention is to make Americans beholden to the banking system, they're doing a wonderful job.
The economy has changed greatly since 1913, when the fed was created. Back then, "the sun never set on the British Empire". It's reactionary to think we could go back to that world.
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.
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.
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.
235 years of case law now, I suppose. I think that there are quite a few controversial court decisions even at the highest levels that have greatly affected our lives and not all of them are good decisions. The Dred Scott v Sandford case comes to mind as a terrible court decision. However, precedent was set and it contributed to splitting the country in two.
I would hope that a judge would go back to the original documents first and foremost, rather than extrapolating based on court cases throughout history. It's good to be mindful of previous court decisions, but making defacto-laws by setting court precedent was hardly the intended purpose of the judicial branch.
The point is, the Constitution is a straightforward document. If a power isn't clearly given to the Federal Government in that document, it's somewhat dubious of them to assume that power. I don't deny that they've won court decisions, but in many cases I think that those decisions poor ones. The arguments are usually made based on the commerce clause. The intention of the commerce clause was to give the Federal Government the power to regulate trade of goods between states. That original intention has morphed into all kinds of things that affect our lives, from 55mph speed limits to Federal Regulation of food and medicine (even within states).
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.
