View Full Version : A (Mostly) Libertarian Prescription for Action--Agree or Disagree?
WWFStern
08-28-2005, 01:54 PM
1. The government should get out of the marriage business and instead issue only civil union licenses. As an element of that, such licenses should be granted to homosexual couples, polygamous groups and incestuous couples, providing that they are all consenting adults.
2. The government should get out of the censorship business, and revoke the FCC's unconstitutional power to declare certain things "indecent" or "obscene." Indeed, not even state/local governments should have such authority. The standards should be very simple: If a real crime of some sort is depicted on the videotape or in the magazine, one may prosecute the crime committed.
3. Free trade policy should be fully embraced, and global free trade alliances sought. Tariffs and protectionism should be considered "dirty words" and never viewed as a viable solution to any problem.
4. Military spending should be drastically cut. The military should only be used for defense, and never for imperialistic purposes. With such a policy, the US would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo, the current Iraq debacle, or the Mid-East peace process.
5. Drastically cut back foreign aid (perhaps to zero), particularly military/political aid. Slowly begin to withdraw from, or play a lesser role in, organizations such as NATO and other permanent military alliances.
6. Remove religion from the public square. No more "Under God" and no more "In God We Trust." No more swearing on Bibles in the government and no more publicly posted Ten Commandments. Religion, much like pornography, for example, must be isolated to the realm of the private.
7. Finally end the War on Drugs. Period. Legalize all drugs for adult sale/use, including substances such as steroids and ephedra.
8. Formally recognize that personal medical decisions are PERSONAL medical decisions. The government has no right to interfere with such things as abortion or assisted suicide.
9. Outlaw capital punishment. Any government that has the power to kill its citizens is too powerful. And, one must never forget that innocent people have been executed, and many people have been exonerated while on Death Row awaiting execution.
10. Cut back government spending on health coverage, with the goal of making it zero. The government footing one's health bills only gives the government more justification to interject itself into one's personal health choices. If one is responsible for one's own medical bills, one will have full freedom to make whatever healthy/unhealthy choices one wishes.
11. Since an educated populace is any country's greatest strength, renew federal efforts to make education more accessible, more affordable and of better quality. School vouchers will NEVER be a part of the solution; vouchers are part of the problem. After all, apparently, private schools have a right to teach fiction as truth (Intelligent Design).
12. Reduce our use of coal and oil. Work toward creating better means of producing energy. Aim for a time when the US will have no use for oil whatsoever. Then, we can truly free ourselves from Middle Eastern policy.
13. Crack down on illegal immigration. Deport illegals, irrespective of if they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. Do not reward criminal behavior with amnesty or work-toward-legalization programs. Crack down on companies that hire illegals, and file lawsuits against such companies.
14. Secure the right of law-abiding gun owners to own firearms. Punish the crime: not ownership. While background checks are just common sense, making things illegal to all (criminals and non-criminals) is overly intrusive and unacceptable.
15. "Nanny laws" such as seatbelt laws and helmet laws are totally inappropriate with respect to adults. The government shall enact no law that is "for your own good" or "designed to protect you from yourself."
Another brick in the wall
08-28-2005, 02:09 PM
The best way to implement #11 would be to get the government out of education altogether. I say let coporate America run the schools.
As for #13, as long as there is demand for workers, the problem will not go away. I think a better solution would be to streamline the natrualization process. Basically, I think there should be processing stations in the Southwest where the immigrants are photographed, given an ID, and a Spanish-English dictionary. Fight the ocean and you will drown. Most people who come here work their asses off in jobs most Americans wouldn't even consider working in. And if we got rid of these government-funded social services, the argument that illegal aliens are a drain on the economy would cease to be relevant.
Sternwallow
08-28-2005, 03:06 PM
WWFStern: I called Mom right after reading this thread. After tearful questioning, she admitted that I had a brother who was lost long ago. Based on my agreement with each of your points, you might well be my brother Abner. Why did you change your name BTW?
On #1, I would include some restriction on incestuous relations if offspring could ensue. It would be OK to "bone your sister" if either or both of you were sterile. Similarly, it would only be illegal to have sex with an animal if there was a possibility of offspring, which there isn't (the primitives who made the rules thought there could be human-animal combinations).
#8, I agree but would add that anyone has a right to suicide, by any means that does not physically or financially harm another, for any reason of their choosing. Society has no right to limit suicide to situations so desperate that it can only be accomplished with assistance. Suicide bombing on a train would be a no-no, but suicide bombing in the middle of a desert somewhere far from people would be OK. In fact, for suicide bomber terrorists, I would encourage the latter.
I might modify #10 slightly to ensure the availability of affordable health insurance. I would long since be in the poor house without it.
#12, yes, but can we have a few drams of oil for lubricants, medicines, to light barbecues and for dry-cleaning fluid?
#14 contrary cuss that I am, I am inclined to make firearms mandatory and see how the criminal element and terrorists like it.
$15: I cringe whenever someone justifies taking away some liberty "for the sake of the children". From your post, I suspect you do too. But, in the case of helmets and seatbelts and such, parents are such dorks that I could be convinced to endorse mandating these for kids and prosecuting parents thoroughly if a kid is injured without them. The same way I would take away the parent privileges of anyone who leaves a kid locked in a hot car.
The rest of your items are great and my points above are merely addenda and refinements.
WWFStern
08-28-2005, 04:24 PM
As for #13, as long as there is demand for workers, the problem will not go away. I think a better solution would be to streamline the natrualization process. Basically, I think there should be processing stations in the Southwest where the immigrants are photographed, given an ID, and a Spanish-English dictionary. Fight the ocean and you will drown. Most people who come here work their asses off in jobs most Americans wouldn't even consider working in. And if we got rid of these government-funded social services, the argument that illegal aliens are a drain on the economy would cease to be relevant.
Very good point, in my opinion.
Let me clarify my position: In fact, I support the notion of having open borders. I think we would be better served if immigration laws were all repealed. However, that's not the way things currently are. People who enter into this country illegally are criminals; they are willfully breaking the law. At present, American border policy is a joke, since it allows these criminals to flow into the country by the millions. This willful violation of the law, coupled with a willful refusal to enforce the law, is the absolute worst case scenario. In my view, this situation undermines EVERY law this country has. So, while I support the idea of open borders, I also support deporting every single illegal who criminally entered the country up to now.
Daniel
08-28-2005, 04:33 PM
Someone Please Tell Chicano Activists, "Que se chingan!"--Minuteman protesters
While taking the bus home the other day I saw a group of protesters outside a Beverly Hills shop protesting the Minuteman Project. Most of the signs made accusations of racism. The first thing I think when I hear someone accuse another of racism is, "Their argument must be so weak that they must resort to accusing people of racism in order to get others on their bandwagon." I am generally sceptical of anyone claiming racism. I rarely see it in action and when I do I'm so shocked because it is so rare. (The few times I've actually witnessed racial tensions it was either towards myself because I look white [I'm both white and Mexican] or against my father because he's white. Of course I grew up on the border with Mexico in a predominantly Mexican town so obviously we were the minority.)
I'm sick of these idiotic Hispanic "leaders" pretending they are fighting for their people. Just like Jesse Jackson they are nothing but a bunch of con men who know how easy it is to get votes and/or political power by being a minority and pretending to fight for the rights of the "oppressed." Do you know how ridiculous these clowns are? They seriously (some of them at least) argue for a return of "Aztlan" to Mexico--in other words the entirety of the Southwest which was conquered by the U.S. from Mexico in the 1840s. It's absurd to contend that the U.S. was justified in conquering this part of Mexico, but it is equally absurd to desire a return of this land to Mexico. Mexico is a corrupt, elitist, backward-looking nation with a disastrous economy. I love my Mexican heritage, but there's a good reason most of my family now lives in the United States.
From all the reports I've seen or read the Minutemen are doing nothing illegal. Their stated objective is to spot illegal immigrants crossing the border and informing the Border Patrol so they can be rounded up. I'm sure if our neighboring country to the south were Sweden no one would try to claim racism. It is appalling that our government cares so little and are so easily swayed by big business (agribusiness) lobby groups that people in our country feel the need to help with our illegal immigration problem. Considering how easy it is to cross our southern border it is definitely a concern to our nation post-9/11. Not to mention the economic and labor issues involved.
Whether we need better protection of our borders or a guest-worker program to solve our illegal immigration problem, the point is that right now it is illegral to freely cross our border without the proper paperwork. It's absurd to protest someone doing their job and it is not racist. Someone please tell the Chicano idiots to shut-up. They do not speak for me and I want no part in your "Aztlan." Call me "Tio Taco" all you want (and I have been called that) it doesn't change the fact that you're all a bunch of idiots and I'm not the only Mexican-American who feels that way.
http://sirrealswordsofwisdom.blogspot.com/
Sorry, I'm not just trying to advertise my blog but I thought this post would be pertinent to point #13.
WWFStern
08-28-2005, 04:41 PM
WWFStern: I called Mom right after reading this thread. After tearful questioning, she admitted that I had a brother who was lost long ago. Based on my agreement with each of your points, you might well be my brother Abner. Why did you change your name BTW?
LOL. Good to be agreed with, especially when neither of the major parties even comes close to my views. I support Democrats on most social policies, but hate that party's protectionism, illegal-immigrant pandering, gun-phobia and desire to boost public health spending. I support Republicans on many economic policies, but hate that party's gay-bashing, religion-spewing, choice-hating, censorship-advocating tendencies. I voted for Kerry, but I only agree with him about 60% of the time. He's not making the big steps: Legalize drugs, take away the FCC's censorship powers, eliminate nanny laws, etc.
On #1, I would include some restriction on incestuous relations if offspring could ensue. It would be OK to "bone your sister" if either or both of you were sterile. Similarly, it would only be illegal to have sex with an animal if there was a possibility of offspring, which there isn't (the primitives who made the rules thought there could be human-animal combinations).
With respect to incestuous offspring, I sympathize with your view. I would be more inclined to mandate condom use than require sterility, though I think attempts at such restrictions would probably be ineffectual.
With respect to bestiality, I oppose it on the grounds that an animal cannot consent.
#8, I agree but would add that anyone has a right to suicide, by any means that does not physically or financially harm another, for any reason of their choosing. Society has no right to limit suicide to situations so desperate that it can only be accomplished with assistance. Suicide bombing on a train would be a no-no, but suicide bombing in the middle of a desert somewhere far from people would be OK. In fact, for suicide bomber terrorists, I would encourage the latter.
Totally agree. If I get a painful stubbed toe, and decide I don't want to live anymore, I should not be impeded in my attempts at suicide. My life--My Business--My Choice.
I might modify #10 slightly to ensure the availability of affordable health insurance. I would long since be in the poor house without it.
How about relying on the private sector to deliver that? My concern is this: If the government has even 1 penny invested in my health, it has that much more leverage to restrict my private health/nutrition decisions. I believe the War on Drugs, War on Obesity and Exercise Initiatives can all be directly linked to the fact that the government pays so much money toward healthcare. I think curtailments of freedom such as the ones I just listed would probably disappear if the government didn't pay a single cent toward my healthcare.
#12, yes, but can we have a few drams of oil for lubricants, medicines, to light barbecues and for dry-cleaning fluid?
Sure, if oil is necessary. I'm more concerned about extricating ourselves from the Middle East. If we had a very small need for oil, we could probably fill that need via domestic drilling.
$15: I cringe whenever someone justifies taking away some liberty "for the sake of the children". From your post, I suspect you do too. But, in the case of helmets and seatbelts and such, parents are such dorks that I could be convinced to endorse mandating these for kids and prosecuting parents thoroughly if a kid is injured without them. The same way I would take away the parent privileges of anyone who leaves a kid locked in a hot car.
For children--fine. I have no objection to that. Just don't start expanding it to adults. If an adult doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, that is certainly that adult's right. And, it is society's right to say such an adult will not get ANY free medical treatment for injuries sustained through such stupidity.
With vast personal freedom comes vast personal responsibility.
Sternwallow
08-28-2005, 05:38 PM
Censorship: I always ask of censoring agencies "What are the qualifications for these censors? Where do they get their authority, credentials, training or talent? And, by the way, just exactly who are these people anyway? I would like to discuss some of their decisions with them face to face. Where do they appear on the ballot so that I can express my small piece of community standards?"
"With respect to bestiality, I oppose it on the grounds that an animal cannot consent."
I don't see a problem with forcing sex on an animal if there is no harm involved. What harm do you see that I don't? If our other moral uses for animals, some of which at least "steal" their effort are OK, why not sex as long as it is less detrimental than those other uses?
On suicide, why need a stubbed toe or even a hangnail? It should be enough to just feel that it is "check out time". The state or the community or the tribe does not own your person so it has no “compelling interest” in your continued existence against your will.
For sure I am talking about private sector health insurance. The government can't spell and can't tell the difference between tying shoelaces and taxing shoelaces.
"...adult will not get ANY free medical treatment..." What would you say to leaving the Nanny laws on the books, but enable the risk takers to sign a waiver of liability like people do to bungee jump off a bridge? They then wouldn't be a burden on society's health care system. I'm not advocating this, just would like to see your take on it.
"...stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." RAH
Sternwallow
08-28-2005, 05:47 PM
"With vast personal freedom comes vast personal responsibility."
You are very right and I will be responsible for my actions, but when they go wrong, so very very wrong, I plan to bitch bitterly about my bad luck the whole time.
whoneedscience
08-28-2005, 07:36 PM
Just some idle criticism. I'm no social scientist, but I'm skeptical:
1. The government should get out of the marriage business and instead issue only civil union licenses. As an element of that, such licenses should be granted to homosexual couples, polygamous groups and incestuous couples, providing that they are all consenting adults.
Fine if you're 100%, dogmatically libertarian (as well as extraordinarily mature), but I don't see the practicality of allowing polygamy, not to mention incest. Homosexual mairrage should definitely be allowed, I agree, but what kind of effects do you predict for allowing polygamy. What good would come of it? If anything it would just promote a higher fertility rate, putting pressure on the economy and the environment, as well as society in general. Plus, it opens the door for de facto legal prostitution, which would have to be regulated to prevent sea lion style harem wars. Even if this could be done, it would require more laws, not less.
3. Free trade policy should be fully embraced, and global free trade alliances sought. Tariffs and protectionism should be considered "dirty words" and never viewed as a viable solution to any problem.
I wouldn't go quite as far as "any problem". In an ideal world, yes, free trade is much more efficient and, in the long run, better for everyone, but I would still reserve the right to embargo and to place other trade bariers as an alternative to military action.
4. Military spending should be drastically cut. The military should only be used for defense, and never for imperialistic purposes. With such a policy, the US would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo, the current Iraq debacle, or the Mid-East peace process.
I agree that the US has gone too far in Iraq and Vietnam, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with Rwanda. The Western World could have fairly easily prevented what happened there, had they had the military impetus, not to mention the economic impetus to prevent the rise of the conditions that led to it.
5. Drastically cut back foreign aid (perhaps to zero), particularly military/political aid. Slowly begin to withdraw from, or play a lesser role in, organizations such as NATO and other permanent military alliances.
Military, yes, to an extent (although I still see a need for action when politics get thrown out the window, like in Rwanda), but again the world would be a much safer and more prosperous place if the richer nations of the world would take the initiative to give the right kind of economic and social aid in the right places. I don't understand how you can be pro free trade, and against the foreign aid required to improve that trade.
6. Remove religion from the public square. No more "Under God" and no more "In God We Trust." No more swearing on Bibles in the government and no more publicly posted Ten Commandments. Religion, much like pornography, for example, must be isolated to the realm of the private.
Absolutely.
7. Finally end the War on Drugs. Period. Legalize all drugs for adult sale/use, including substances such as steroids and ephedra.
This would require a hell of a lot of regulation, to the point of it being unreasonable. Even if you had immediate corporate infrastructure to support such a new industry, you'd have to have a government regulation program on steroids to handle things like copyrights or else you'd have a massive influx of counterfeit drugs from those that already produce them. Plus, the current problem of DWI would increase massively once things like speed and shrooms were made legal. Not saying it's impossible, but as it is we have no idea how to effectively cut down on incidents caused by the drugs that are legal (namely alcahol).
8. Formally recognize that personal medical decisions are PERSONAL medical decisions. The government has no right to interfere with such things as abortion or assisted suicide.
I agree philosophically, but then how do you distinguish between assisted suicide and murder. I may say I don't want to live anymore today, and then tomorrow feel high on life. This opens up an extremely complex issue of free will. Again, not a problem if you're a dogmatic libertarian, but once you start to question the infallibility of the human will, and start to see how fickle and confused we really are, it becomes a problem.
Furthermore, I simply don't trust anyone to decide how people can be allowed to die, no matter how much legal intervention there is in making those decisions. It leaves open too many Orwellian possibilities to be practical on a large scale.
9. Outlaw capital punishment. Any government that has the power to kill its citizens is too powerful. And, one must never forget that innocent people have been executed, and many people have been exonerated while on Death Row awaiting execution.
Absolutely, see argument above.
10. Cut back government spending on health coverage, with the goal of making it zero. The government footing one's health bills only gives the government more justification to interject itself into one's personal health choices. If one is responsible for one's own medical bills, one will have full freedom to make whatever healthy/unhealthy choices one wishes.
Not practical. The American People don't know enough about their own bodies to understand that they were formed by billions of years of evolution and not one second's creation. I know you don't like the government telling you what's best for you, but someone has to do it, especially when it affects people around you. For instance, I have car insurance. I pay a lot for it, even though I've never gotten so much as a ticket. Why? because there are so many dumb fucks out there flying down the highway at 95 mph. In evolutionary thinking, this concept is not stable. Any individual has too much to gain by breaking out of the conspiracy.
11. Since an educated populace is any country's greatest strength, renew federal efforts to make education more accessible, more affordable and of better quality. School vouchers will NEVER be a part of the solution; vouchers are part of the problem. After all, apparently, private schools have a right to teach fiction as truth (Intelligent Design).
Absolutely.
12. Reduce our use of coal and oil. Work toward creating better means of producing energy. Aim for a time when the US will have no use for oil whatsoever. Then, we can truly free ourselves from Middle Eastern policy.
We will always have a use for oil and coal. Energy is only one small part. Plastics, asphalt, and many artificial chemicals like sacharin, dyes and flavors all come from petroleum distillates. Even if we find the nirvana of renewable energy, we'd probably still have to produce petroleum artificially in order to survive. They key is in managing the resources we have and finding ways to reduce the impact we've already made.
13. Crack down on illegal immigration. Deport illegals, irrespective of if they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. Do not reward criminal behavior with amnesty or work-toward-legalization programs. Crack down on companies that hire illegals, and file lawsuits against such companies.
This just doesn't make any sense. I see no objective reason to crack down on any group unless every single one of them is walking around shooting people in the streets. This sounds too much like a right-wing religious extremist's view of homosexuals.
14. Secure the right of law-abiding gun owners to own firearms. Punish the crime: not ownership. While background checks are just common sense, making things illegal to all (criminals and non-criminals) is overly intrusive and unacceptable.
Okay, but I see no reason why weapons like the .50 cal sniper rife should be publicly available, nor does anyone have a need for an automatic weapon of any kind. Protect the Constitution, yes, but also the people.
15. "Nanny laws" such as seatbelt laws and helmet laws are totally inappropriate with respect to adults. The government shall enact no law that is "for your own good" or "designed to protect you from yourself."
Okay, but when you don't wear your seatbelt, you're abusing the system. I wouldn't want to hit someone who wasn't, just because I don't want to kill anyone needlessly. Plus, if you get into an accident you're taking valuable time away from medical personel. I wouldn't want to be waiting to get a table in an emergency room because some idiot didn't take two seconds to put on his seatbelt.
It's all fine in an ideal world, but I don't have such a favourable view of the general population anywhere.
Sternwallow
08-28-2005, 09:56 PM
whoneedscience: "I agree philosophically, but then how do you distinguish between assisted suicide and murder. I may say I don't want to live anymore today, and then tomorrow feel high on life. whoneedscience:"This opens up an extremely complex issue of free will. Again, not a problem if you're a dogmatic libertarian, but once you start to question the infallibility of the human will, and start to see how fickle and confused we really are, it becomes a problem."
"Furthermore, I simply don't trust anyone to decide how people can be allowed to die, no matter how much legal intervention there is in making those decisions. It leaves open too many Orwellian possibilities to be practical on a large scale."
I don't see your problem with letting each person decide his or her own time to die using whatever reason he or she deems fit.
What's it to you if the day following his suicide that person might have chosen to live after all?
Exactly not Orwellian, the individual, not Big Brother would be making this most personal decision. I am not talking about making new laws but taking some laws off the books and rewording some others to guarantee the sanctity of a citizen's ownership of his or her own person.
Atheist@Umich
08-28-2005, 10:21 PM
Hey WWFStern, glad to see a new face, welcome.
I'll admit I'm a registered libertarian, but there are some differences I have with the basic platform.
For example, with #3, I don't like the idea of some companies being freely able to sell rocket launchers to hostile nations. It's simply not in our best interests. As long as potentially harmful materials such as arms are regulated, I'm with you.
#7 On the one hand I think people should have the right to decide what's going into their own body. I also believe that if I person seems perfectly sain, they should be allowed to have humane, painless suicide. What I don't approve of is people that want to mutilate their bodies. Some people are simply not sane. Doing some drugs is essentially equivilent to mutilating themselves, and I think this has to be pointed out. I'm not really disagreeing entirely though: In my view, heavy drug use is a HEALTH PROBLEM, not a crime. I think that if it can be shown that a person is heavily dependant on drugs and that it is seriously endagering their immediate health, that person should get mandatory rehabilitation. However, no criminal record should be made which would prevent future employment (among other things). If a person is addicted, its really not their fault they keep using drugs, they have to. We should help these people.
#14 I wholeheartedly agree. Infact, I would argue that institutions which have gun education courses should get a tax break. However, most individuals have no need for powerful, military weapons. Why would anyone need a bazooka?? (No, not for duck hunting. Maybe elephant hunting. THAT would be cool. Of course, in America, this makes no sense, or else peoploe would be blowing up elephants at the zoo.)
And when it comes to automatic weapons... in the privacy of your own home, please. Theres no need to bring an assault rifle onto the streets. But if theres a guy in your house with a handgun, an assault rifle would come in handy.
#15 Again I agree. But insurance companies still have the right to withold personal injury claims if it can be shown that you did not properly protect yourself. I know that's how it is with my car insurance.
Sternwallow
08-28-2005, 10:25 PM
whoneedscience: "I know you don't like the government telling you what's best for you, but someone has to do it,"
I understand that you think someone has to tell you what is best for you. I disagree. I think someone, in fact many someones, should make the information available to anyone who wants it then let them take their own path. When they ask, tell them all about the pain and suffering they will go through in a DWI collision. Tell them the numeric probability of being injured by fireworks, smoking, lightening strikes, swine flu, landslides, hurricanes and so-on. Advise them on the availability of various kinds of insurance and preventative measures and risk-management techniques. Remind them of the grief they can cause friends and relatives by their actions. Give people access to the tools that can help them manage their own lives. Don't make hamburgers illegal just because you or some government nutrition expert thinks it is unhealthy. Don't diminish their just freedoms just because one of their choices (perhaps assisted suicide) might make Granny sad.
If a sovereign citizen can not be trusted to act in a responsible manner, that is to say you, then society must not let you out on the street without a keeper I guess. [sarcasm]
whoneedscience
08-29-2005, 07:55 AM
I don't see your problem with letting each person decide his or her own time to die using whatever reason he or she deems fit... the individual, not Big Brother would be making this most personal decision. I am not talking about making new laws but taking some laws off the books and rewording some others to guarantee the sanctity of a citizen's ownership of his or her own person.
I'm not entirely saying it couldn't work, but I see some potential problems. The biggest of these would be legal. Let's say you're a nurse, and you walk into room to find an old man dead on his bed with his IV pulled out. Even if you heard this guy saying he was going to kill himself, even if he told you exactly how and when, you still have to call the police and have a full investigation, because otherwise you can't really be sure if this guy did indeed kill himself, or was murdered. Now you're taking time away from the police, not to mention feeding the ravenous lawyers, and in order to avoid the kind of situation where a serial killer could walk through a hospital killing people, you'd have to monitor every patient at every moment. If that were the case, I wouldn't want anything to do with hospitals, and that's only one specific example. The same kind of rules would apply everywhere. In order to protect the innocent, you'd have to give the government the power to monitor everyone, everywhere. It's just not worth it, especially for something I don't ever intend to benefit from.
whoneedscience
08-29-2005, 08:12 AM
Tell them the numeric probability of being injured by fireworks, smoking, lightening strikes, swine flu, landslides, hurricanes and so-on. Advise them on the availability of various kinds of insurance and preventative measures and risk-management techniques. Remind them of the grief they can cause friends and relatives by their actions. Give people access to the tools that can help them manage their own lives. Don't make hamburgers illegal just because you or some government nutrition expert thinks it is unhealthy. Don't diminish their just freedoms just because one of their choices (perhaps assisted suicide) might make Granny sad.
Yeah, just like with cigarettes. Everyone has, indeed, been educated as to their danger, yet people still smoke, and I have to put up with their stupidity by paying more for health insurance and risking the dangers of second hand smoke. Sure, it would be great if everyone could be reasonable and intelligent about it, but people are not reasonable and they are certainly not intelligent. Plus, there's a huge difference between smoking and outright killing people (which, as I believe I've demonstrated, is at least very similar to allowing them to die). Cigarrettes can be legal, sure, but the fact that there is a demand for them speaks volumes about the general public. It's not even that smoking is ostensibly bad, but it is selfish in that you are affecting other people with your decision. In a society, no one can do absolutely anything they want. It doesn't work that way.
Cigarattes, burgers, salt: whatever, okay. Suicide: a bit too much. Even though I do somewhat support it in an individual case, I don't think it's practical on a large scale. Maybe once society has developed a bit more.
Cap'n Awesome
08-29-2005, 09:08 AM
1. The government should get out of the marriage business and instead issue only civil union licenses. As an element of that, such licenses should be granted to homosexual couples, polygamous groups and incestuous couples, providing that they are all consenting adults.
Since when is it the governments bussiness to be endorsing any type of relationship. And how come all your examples have sex as a requirement? Why do you have to be sleeping with someone to recieve government endorsement. No marriage licences, no civil union licences, nothing. This isn't governments bussiness.
2. The government should get out of the censorship business, and revoke the FCC's unconstitutional power to declare certain things "indecent" or "obscene." Indeed, not even state/local governments should have such authority. The standards should be very simple: If a real crime of some sort is depicted on the videotape or in the magazine, one may prosecute the crime committed.
In fact the FCC is a redunant unneccesary institute. The market (Sponsers) already self censor entertainment, it seems a huge waste to have a whole expensive government industry that does the same thing that's already being done for free.
4. Military spending should be drastically cut. The military should only be used for defense, and never for imperialistic purposes. With such a policy, the US would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo, the current Iraq debacle, or the Mid-East peace process.
Sorry, dispite being a Libertarian, I just don't agree with this. We also would have never gotten involved in Europe in WWII and with the cut back military my libertarian brothers propose, would have lost to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and it would limit our ability to deal with similar threats in the future. We need a smarter foriegn policy, not less of it.
7. Finally end the War on Drugs. Period. Legalize all drugs for adult sale/use, including substances such as steroids and ephedra.
Yeah, but make sure that people know how harmful drugs are. Keep clear the diffrence between allowing a substance and endorsing it.
11. Since an educated populace is any country's greatest strength, renew federal efforts to make education more accessible, more affordable and of better quality. School vouchers will NEVER be a part of the solution; vouchers are part of the problem. After all, apparently, private schools have a right to teach fiction as truth (Intelligent Design).
More affordable meaning less tax dollars going towards education, or lower tutions and more grants? Remember, grants aren't free, government subsidised education isn't free, it's payed for by taxes.
13. Crack down on illegal immigration. Deport illegals, irrespective of if they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. Do not reward criminal behavior with amnesty or work-toward-legalization programs. Crack down on companies that hire illegals, and file lawsuits against such companies.
This is a very very bad idea that would be as expensive as the war on drugs and more damaging, considering our agricultural industry is pretty much dependant on illegal immigrants. We need to make it easier for these people, many of whom are excaping oppressive governments and trying to make better lives for themselves and thier families to come here, not harder. I have great respect for most immgrants, as they are some of the most productive citizens we have. The solution to the immgrants who come here just to leach off of our social services is to get rid of the social services, not the immigrants.
TheSnake
08-29-2005, 09:46 AM
3. Free trade policy should be fully embraced, and global free trade alliances sought. Tariffs and protectionism should be considered "dirty words" and never viewed as a viable solution to any problem.
12. Reduce our use of coal and oil. Work toward creating better means of producing energy. Aim for a time when the US will have no use for oil whatsoever. Then, we can truly free ourselves from Middle Eastern policy.
These two seem contradictory to me. How do you suppose to reduce use of fossil fuels without imposing heavier taxing on them or subsidizing alternatives?
5. Drastically cut back foreign aid (perhaps to zero), particularly military/political aid. Slowly begin to withdraw from, or play a lesser role in, organizations such as NATO and other permanent military alliances.
This is probably not a smart move. Overpopulation is behind many problems in the world, including increase of illegal immigration. The best and the cheapest way in my uneducated opinion is to deal with poverty in third world countries as quickly as possible, in order to achieve sufficient level of education among their population, that the people understand the problem and have less children. There's a strong negative correlation between level of education of women and the number of children per a woman.
Evil_Mage_Ra
08-29-2005, 03:07 PM
I chose "mostly agree". A few comments:
1 ) I'm no economics expert, but completely free trade seems like too radical of a change for me. Plus, wouldn't a free-trade policy contradict #11 and #12 on your list (federal funding for schools and alternate energy sources)?
2 ) Though I agree that our military should be exclusively used for defense, I wouldn't support "drastic" cuts. I want our military good and strong, with top-notch soldiers and cutting-edge technology.
3 ) In part because I want a strong defense, I also support our involvement in organizations such as NATO.
4 ) "Nanny" laws have their uses. Emergency care for people who hurt themsevles doing stupid things (such as not wearing safety equipment) use up resources better used elsewhere. Is wearing a seatbelt really that much to ask? I support a ban on certain drugs for the same reason.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.