|
Libertarian Party (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
My question is, what would a libertarian do with already existing government programs like social security, medicare and medicaid, food stamps, financial aid etc? Would they privatize it? Would that really make them better? What would a "weak" national government under a Libertarian president do? Would it give more control to just local and state and let them do what they want? Would their be government regulations on things like the food industry, oil industry, contractors etc? What about taxes, how would they go about revenue being brought in for services? Would those all be privatized? I have a lot of questions, and that platform helped me some, it didn't give me specifics, esp what Ron Paul would do. He rails against "big" government, but IMO the government needs to be in control of certain areas like the economy (not just the "free market") and taxes should be fair (not too high, but not too low either). So would they support a flat-tax? What would they do in a situation like Katrina? What about a terrorist attack? |
In a nutshell:
Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid...privatized
food stamps, financial aid...for the most part still under direct government control
Even a weak national government would still leave plenty for the president and other branches to do. Military, diplomacy with other countries, maintaining harmony between the states, some very important economic tasks such as preventing monopolies, etc. The Supreme Court would still continue to be the ultimate say-so in political affairs. Really, the most "power" to be lost would be from the Senate/House of Reps, as the focus of law making would shift from the national to local and state level.
I believe that Paul believes in abolishing the income tax in favor of a sales tax for all tax revenue. Also, although many of the industries you've talked about would be privatized, even a Libertarian government has rules and regulations for how they should operate. A Libertarian realizes that as long as there is greed, there will be a need for corporate oversight. Just as even though a Libertarian believes in individual rights, he also knows that law enforcement will always be necessary because some individuals will choose to violate other's freedom (commit crimes against others). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Really, the most "power" to be lost would be from the Senate/House of Reps, as the focus of law making would shift from the national to local and state level. |
which would be a catastrophe for any country. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
which would be a catastrophe for any country. |
And why would that be? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
And why would that be? |
because countries need centralised governance if they're ever going to be capable of effecting widespread reform in various areas, especially the environment. state government's are inherently micro-orientated, and trying to organise several state governments into doing anything together is a task in impossibility. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Would it be fair to say the Roman Empire declined as a result of centralized government? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
because countries need centralised governance if they're ever going to be capable of effecting widespread reform in various areas, especially the environment. state government's are inherently micro-orientated, and trying to organise several state governments into doing anything together is a task in impossibility. |
I completely disagree. The idea of shifting power to the local and state level is so that they can do what a central government cannot do; make laws and decisions based on the individual and the circumstance. The US currently has a system in which expensive, inefficient laws are blanketed over an entire nation regardless of the individual or the circumstance.
Take the environment for example. The federal government (EPA) writes a law against a specific industry, saying it must follow rules A-Z. A small factory in Ohio must follow rules A-Z even though half of them don't apply, costing them and their customers money, and they still pollute because of practices rules A-Z overlook. So, you have broad laws that are efficient to comply with and many times allow loopholes for business and individuals. Or, you allow the local and state government to monitor pollution by looking at individual factories and deciding how best to continue.
The federal government can still say "we'd like to cut pollution," but the "teeth" behind the actual enforcement and law making would lay with the state and local government where it is much more efficient and far less invasive.
Also...if we're going to discuss the fall or the Roman empire, we could list a lot of reasons, but I'd go with apathy, disease and Barbarian invasion. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
PKC, that's just it though. I believe there are some, very few, things that need to be addressed on national level. But promoting social change really isn't the right of the American gov't at that level. What you are saying is that the centralized gov't knows what's best for the whole country and should tell the states what they should do. I completely disagree. The end goal is not to get all the states to do the same thing, but for the states and local governments to adapt to what their people want.
Sunsnail, I would be really interested to see that, of course it would be high speculative to say local gov'ts would've done better, but it would be interesting nonetheless. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I completely disagree. The idea of shifting power to the local and state level is so that they can do what a central government cannot do; make laws and decisions based on the individual and the circumstance. The US currently has a system in which expensive, inefficient laws are blanketed over an entire nation regardless of the individual or the circumstance.
Take the environment for example. The federal government (EPA) writes a law against a specific industry, saying it must follow rules A-Z. A small factory in Ohio must follow rules A-Z even though half of them don't apply, costing them and their customers money, and they still pollute because of practices rules A-Z overlook. So, you have broad laws that are efficient to comply with and many times allow loopholes for business and individuals. Or, you allow the local and state government to monitor pollution by looking at individual factories and deciding how best to continue.
The federal government can still say "we'd like to cut pollution," but the "teeth" behind the actual enforcement and law making would lay with the state and local government where it is much more efficient and far less evasive. |
hehe, i never said federal governments were perfect. what you have mentioned is merely an anti-government position, state governments are not any better at "making laws for individuals and circumstances" than their federal brothers are. state governments that go about their business in their own way create and cause the most red-tape, and cross-jurisdictional breakdowns. of course, im talking from an australian perspective, perhaps it is different in the US.
but, since we're on the environment- it just wouldn't be possible (or perhaps likely) for states to get together and plan for effective management of environmental issues. it adds a whole other layer of political posturing or wrangling that is time-consuming and largely unnecessary. if you cant have an effective plan negotiated with a federal government and taken internationally, what hope do we have of engaging in global discussion without any means for ensuring state compliance? too many cooks...
sorry, as a member of the state service, i have no faith. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
From what I've seen, Libertarianism is particularly popular on the West coast of the US. Something about that culture, I guess.
Here in the Northeast I don't think you'll encounter a lot of people who are libertarian. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Uh, California is libertarian? News to me. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Uh, California is libertarian? News to me. |
You mean...they're not all long haired surfer hippies? :eek: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
You mean...they're not all long haired surfer hippies? :eek: |
You generalize too much. |
|
|
|
|
