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.
Every war we don't have to fight because we took action disarm and disable our enemies is a bargain. It's difficult to sell that concept because the peaceniks can always produce real numbers to substantiate their claim that an active policy of deterrence is expensive and also costs us friends whenever we engage a potential foe. This is made far worse when the policy of proactive defense is successful since the absence of an attack is perceived by slow learners to indicate the absence of an enemy. This is the most important factor in Bush's political downfall. It doesn't mean he was wrong to take the fight to the enemy or potential enemy, but without another attack, he is perceived as being wrong nonetheless.
I believe that first and foremost, people care about local issues. If we put military bases in other countries, it not only challenges their sovereignty, but it makes attacking the US a local issue for them. Sure, there will always be looney toons out there who want to blow up the world. I think that we're better off dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. If the country is attacked or threatened, I don't think anyone would argue with taking action, however I think that you can count the attacks on the US within the past 100 years on one hand. I believe that we're actually made weaker by spreading our forces around the world in entangling alliances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Really depends on the specific case. Pollution on my property can easily become pollution on your property and my ability to cover your losses may be far exceeded by the damage I've done.
Ok, I'll concede power to the government to resolve environmental issues that bankrupt the person who's caused the damage. Perhaps the government could front the money and the violator would have to pay it back over time (or would be thrown in the clink). I'd wajor that the vast majority of environmental issues could be resolved by the parties involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Most Americans still favor civil unions for gay couples seeking equal legal standing with married couples. Not everyone believes a single standard of normal should exist, but I believe we are lost without it. Accommodations can be made for the exception, but destroying every standard of commonality is the wrong approach.
A civil union is fine if you need to deal with the legal issues involved; you could create a partnership with the person. Are you saying that the tradition of marriage would be lost without what amounts to a government permission slip? Marriage has existed for thousands of years: Why couldn't it be handled by churches the churches themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
For a lot of "sick people" who have been "put in the clink", it was the one thing that came between the drugs that were certain to take their lives and destroy those around them and an opportunity to start fresh. Some people are so wealthy and powerful that they are effectively above the laws prohibiting the use of street drugs and the abuse of prescription medication already. If you wonder what life would be like in America without someone saying no to other people's drug use, take the example of John Belushi, John Bonham, Kieth Moon, Kurt Cobain, Chris Farley, Anna Nichole Smith, Micheal Jackson and Brittany Murphy. No one told them no.
Addicts are addicts, whether they're rich or poor. If you think that addicts don't use illegal drugs because they're illegal, I suggest that you do a quick google search. Jails aren't intended to rehabilitate people; do you really think that people end up being better off after being thrown in the big house? It's difficult for people to find work after being in prison (ask Kevin Mitnick) and you might imagine networking with other inmates could provide some less-than-above-board employment options.
I don't think that many people would run out and start using crack cocaine or heroin tomorrow if it became legal. I know I wouldn't; would you?. Even if they did, what gives you or I or anyone else the authority to tell them what they are allowed to put in their own body. Do you really need the government to tell you what to do?
Complain all you want, but the country adopting libertarian economic principles is a foregone conclusion. The fact that libertarians are even under attack is proof that they are now seen as a threat to the two major partys sharing of power.
I'm a bit tired of this failed logic to put down ideas that people disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
This isn't going to work with private industry. Private industry won't do anything unless its cost effective and they see a profit in it. Pollution rarely causes them problems to their bottom line, or being green doesn't show an added benefit to the business. Unfortunately, its one of the things we need a federal government to regulate.
Too true.
The federal government has no business regulating any substance that isn't harmful to anyone outside of the one individual who has made the purchase.
That would include quite a few substances that libertarians would like to deregulate, alcohol for a big one. You can get drunk and then drive and kill a whole bunch of other people. You can get drunk and beat your spouse and kids. You can be so overwhelmed with the urge to drink that you commit some other crime to get money to buy alcohol. I'm sure libertarians don't believe in giving it out for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Addicts are addicts, whether they're rich or poor. If you think that addicts don't use illegal drugs because they're illegal, I suggest that you do a quick google search. Jails aren't intended to rehabilitate people; do you really think that people end up being better off after being thrown in the big house? It's difficult for people to find work after being in prison (ask Kevin Mitnick) and you might imagine networking with other inmates could provide some less-than-above-board employment options.
I don't think that many people would run out and start using crack cocaine or heroin tomorrow if it became legal. I know I wouldn't; would you?. Even if they did, what gives you or I or anyone else the authority to tell them what they are allowed to put in their own body. Do you really need the government to tell you what to do?
I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying addicts wouldn't use drugs if they're legal? If so, I'd say you're wrong. Alcohol is legal (though regulated) and plenty of people use it. Tobacco is legal, ditto. In fact, one frequently hears that the most heavily used drugs are alcohol and tobacco.
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.
The Constitution is not followed and used only when government looks to find new found power to control another branch. Judges are creating laws, Presidents are using exective orders to create laws and congress doesn't do its job and follow the constitution. When large amounts of money and power find themselves in the hands of campaigns, and government few individual liberty and free markets are lost. The constitution was written to restict the government and what role they have which is limited.
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.
The role of government should to protect individual liberty first, not groups, income status and or race.
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.
The federal income tax should be removed but before you can do that you have to limit the government's power and define what the role of government should be. Is it the craddle to grave government and policeman of the world or is it to be limited, let people run their own economic and social lives and let states and local governments deal with issues of their states. BUT all rights and liberties are set in the constitution and should be followed.
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.
Competting currencies of gold and or other options would end the FED as people would find other options for payment and debt. No reason to end the fed just destory them with free markets. We should decentralize the power of the FED devalue of the currancy should be considered the wrong policy.
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.
Leave a few bases in europe ONLY with countries of democratic governments but we are not their defense. Common goals of threats can be used as symbol of united strength. Close down all the bases in the middle east. BUILD SDI and or any other defensive options hear at home and I don't mean extra security cameras. Control the borders and have strict entry on VISA's and working permits.
Foreign Aide: Foreign aide amounts to taking money from Americans and giving it to dictators.
No foreign aid period. It's not in the constitution and can be used to arm our future enemy. Trade with people, talk to people, free markets are the best option to lasting peace and done between businesses not the support of the US tax payer.
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.
Air pollution with government or not will be diffcult to claim property rights on. Other pollution of water and land is easy to enforce. On Air pollution with civil and state governments some regulation might be best.
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.
State and local licenses is what is best. If some states wants to legalize gay marriage then that is fine but generally marriage is not considered a right and should have no legal benefit, social and or economic in the eyes of government. If individuals wish to have a legal document on medical and or other rights they should have one created.
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.
That would include quite a few substances that libertarians would like to deregulate, alcohol for a big one. You can get drunk and then drive and kill a whole bunch of other people. You can get drunk and beat your spouse and kids. You can be so overwhelmed with the urge to drink that you commit some other crime to get money to buy alcohol. I'm sure libertarians don't believe in giving it out for free.
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?
No, its not.
But still, leaving DUI laws on the books, you could deregulate alcohol. Right now you can't distill your own liquor, you have to buy it through a government approved distributor. Things like that are wrong. Same with "no alcohol on Sunday" statues.
I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying addicts wouldn't use drugs if they're legal? If so, I'd say you're wrong. Alcohol is legal (though regulated) and plenty of people use it. Tobacco is legal, ditto. In fact, one frequently hears that the most heavily used drugs are alcohol and tobacco.
I'm sorry, I could have stated my point more clearly. My point is: Addicts use drugs whether they're legal or not. Of the addicts that I've met, I've noted a common disregard for other people and for society. They are sick, and prisons are a poor treatment for that sickness. I never said that addicts wouldn't use drugs if they were made legal. I simply said that it's a waste of money to send police to arrest people with a mental illness. It's a waste of money to build and maintain huge prisons to enforce the drug laws.
There are plenty of substances that are freely available that are more dangerous than illegal drugs. I believe that the reason that most people support drug laws is because (a) they're afraid of the choices that free people make or (b) they find drugs morally reprehensible.
Of the former, I believe that fear is often used to stifle freedom (i.e. if we allowed it, people would make poor choices). I instead ask what the repercussions of a central authority making choices for you are. In this case, I believe that the drug war has given rise to criminal syndicates (the mafia, drug gangs, etc). The same thing happened with prohibition in the 1920s.
Of the latter, I don't think it's appropriate to project ones morals onto another free person as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
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?
It's not that they have a bigger stake, it's that the quality of the air and water affects society at large, not you alone. Imagine that you live near a major river. You might take very good care of your riverfront property and not dump anything in the water, but the factory upstream from you doesn't feel the same responsibility and dumps toxic industrial waste into the river. Since you're downstream, their waste affects your property. Now what? Do you expend your precious resources to continuously clean up your swath of river? That doesn't jibe with libertarian ideology at all. Why should YOU clean up after THEM? And you can't really do much about it since you are one person, but the factory is owned by a million-dollar corporation. See what happens if you go there and ask them to stop...
That leaves two options, that both involve government. You can sue, but you probably won't get very far because the libertarian government doesn't have any environmental regulations on the books. Or, you can petition the government to implement some regulations to prevent the factory from dumping sewage into the river.
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.
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.
These belong in the same category, if you ask me. I don't see why it's anyone's business what I'm doing as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.
The marriage certificate exists for record-keeping purposes, like a birth or death certificate. That said, I think a quick and easy way out of the gay marriage debate is for the government to just issue civil union certificates to all couples, regardless of their orientation. That way, what to call the relationship, whether to have a religious ceremony, and all the other personal considerations would just be left up to the individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
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.
I agree completely. The drug war has been a massive failure and a waste of money. I'd much rather see my tax dollars go to providing treatment to addicts than to locking them up. I favor legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing everything else, and then implementing a treatment program for addicts.
It's not that they have a bigger stake, it's that the quality of the air and water affects society at large, not you alone. Imagine that you live near a major river. You might take very good care of your riverfront property and not dump anything in the water, but the factory upstream from you doesn't feel the same responsibility and dumps toxic industrial waste into the river. Since you're downstream, their waste affects your property. Now what? Do you expend your precious resources to continuously clean up your swath of river? That doesn't jibe with libertarian ideology at all. Why should YOU clean up after THEM? And you can't really do much about it since you are one person, but the factory is owned by a million-dollar corporation. See what happens if you go there and ask them to stop...
That leaves two options, that both involve government. You can sue, but you probably won't get very far because the libertarian government doesn't have any environmental regulations on the books. Or, you can petition the government to implement some regulations to prevent the factory from dumping sewage into the river.
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.
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.
