<< It's funny... I don't know if you'd call this going full circle, but as a Democrat I believe in the same things... But then, I also believe that to accomplish this we need more taxes and bigger more authoritative government... >>
No, it's not going full circle. Libertarianism (and a few other third parties) is not so radical where its party planks are unique. We are accustomed to a two party system, so we might first assume we are either a Democrat or a Republican, though a review of our core ideals may indicate that neither party truly represents us. That's certainly the case for me, even if Libertarianism is not a perfect fit.
So you are saying that you want greater taxation and federal regulation than current levels?
<< I have little faith in the people in general, unlike Libertarians... Overall, I have the greatest faith in the bi-partisan government with its checks and balances, as well as the boundaries declared in the Constitution, not to mistreat the people. And while its not perfect, I don't think that that the solution to America's ills is to minimize the government in favor of privatization. At best, it lends to nepotism, and at worse, it lends to an inability to account for and care for every hardworking American who happens upon unfortunate times... Like I said, its Darwinism. Loosen the reigns so the strong can go unfettered to prey upon the weak... I think that a lot of Libertarians and Conservatives support such philosophies as a smokescreen, so they can do just that - enforce Darwinism... >>
You say you have little faith in people, but what is the federal government? Government cannot exist without people. People are the government, so if you can't trust people, how can you trust the government? By the same token, if libertarians trust people, why don't they trust the government? Ah, so I guess there are differences, then. Democrats mustn't trust people because they are afraid they will make bad choices and be unable to live with the consequences (hence the need for social programs to bail people out from the consequences of their poor choices). Libertarians trust people because they believe each will act rationally to better themselves and consequences are merely a lesson and disincentive against improper (meaning unvalued) behavior.
What I find troubling with the federal government is that with its high concentration of power comes much potential and realized abuse. I was reading John Ashcroft's comments during his "questioning" session yesterday and was quite appalled by his assertions that I, as a civil libertarian, am helping the enemy and am undermining national unity and resolve by questioning his government's tactics. I'm sorry, John, but prefer to be someone of principle instead of rewriting law for the needs of the moment. I've noticed with the Bush Administration that everything comes down to two sides: good vs. evil, us vs. them, etc. I find this objectionable because while I am pleased with the general actions and success in the war in Afghanistan, I refuse to consider everything my government does as acceptable and I certainly don't think it is appropriate to call civil dissenters traitors or roadblockers in the war effort. Where are the checks and balances here?
One of the most basic and yet essential axioms in economics is that demand is infinite while resources are finite. It's impossible to make a utopia out of Earth because we simply can't give everyone everything they desire. Sadly, there is a proverbial pie that must be cut up. The economic Left want to make sure everybody has a piece of at least a certain size. While this sounds compassionate, the problem is that when you cut up the pieces this way, the amount left for the pie bakers (i.e. those who put in labor and capital to create the pie) is inadequate for their efforts. If everyone is guaranteed a certain slice, where is the incentive to bake if Government will provide? One of the reasons why Communism and Marxism fell was for the fact that if people cannot keep their economic outputs and lose the profit incentive, they won't work, or they won't work enough, or they won't care about their work.
I am an advocate of capitalism because it represents the most efficient compromise in the allocation of economic output. I cannot think of a feasible economic system where somebody isn't hurt. I don't think it is possible to make sure everybody does well. I believe that if everybody is granted access to world-class education and we create a culture where work - valuable work - is considered a valiant deed, we might pull ourselves away from the cycle of poverty and wasteful government spending.
(Sidebar: What do I mean by "valuable work"? Work in and of itself is not necessarily valuable. For instance, I don't believe somebody who works behind the counter in a video store has provided the economic inputs necessary to sustain themselves...which is why I am opposed to a federal "living" wage. Simply having a job is not enough. Having a job that is instrumental in producing products and services that the economy values IS valuable work. Why do surgeons get paid what they do? Because their work saves lives. Scanning somebody's rental card and working a register seems quite insignificant by comparison. Of course, I don't want to breed the notion that low-level positions are disposable. Absolutely not. We will always have a need for unskilled/low-skilled labor and lessons learned on the job will give these people the ability to step up and continually improve their skills and earning potential. But when the Left wants to make career jobs out of these positions, they are doing a disservice to everyone.)
<< A lot of what you bring up is controvertial, and whether people ought to have the right to do those things can be debated for hours... Then again, some of those freedoms you question or demand are just natural obligations that define what it means to live in this country - namely pay taxes...
President Bush wrote off checks in 40 billion dollar increments right after 9-11... For the military, helping to offer relief to victims, etc... That money doesn't come from nowhere... I for one, would have gladly given up my tax refund if I hadn't spent it already, if it means the entire pool goes to those people, and I think most of you would agree... Taxes are a necessary evil, and I'm proud to pay it. >>
Indeed, society considered much of what I bring up as controversial, but I didn't use a dart board to determine these positions (something I think the two big parties must use). The essential question is whether a rational adult should be allowed to make their own choices that go without harming other people. As a libertarian, I feel we all have an natural right to exercise free will minus those actions which would cause lasting/unrepairable harm against others (murder, assault, theft, etc). Anarchy is not part of the equation because libertarians don't believe in the exclusion of government, but rather the restraint of government's control on individuals. And I'm not a true libertarian because there are various political planks I don't agree with: selling off national parks, complete privatization of aviation, the Postal Service, significant reduction in national defense, etc. But that's OK with me because I don't want to be funneled into one sole region of politcal thought.
And no, I don't think it is possible to create a society free from taxation. Being taxed doesn't anger me. There are certain expenses borne by government that could not be realistically borne by private enterprise (justice system, for example). But economic liberals go out of their way to devise new "essential" recurring government expenses. Last year when the government was running large balance sheet surpluses (not true surpluses, just cash flow surpluses), new entitlements like Prescription Drugs For Seniors (tm) saw more than just the light of day...the Left construed it so that if you were opposed to their proposed entitlement, you were an enemy of the elderly. Fiscal responsibility be damned, government coffers are bursting, so let's start spending.
But it is objectionable to spend for spending's sake. I do not believe shovelling money at a problem necessarily solves it. The War on Poverty has proven costly over the last 3 decades, but has the poverty rate dropped more than just a hair? The War on Drugs has not only blown precious tax dollars out the window, but trampled on natural and property rights of individuals caught within the Fed's web. The drug problem hasn't gone away and it isn't going away and no amount of spending will change the result. What about our K-12 educational system? I think it's pretty repulsive that the US doesn't have world-class schools, but government spending on education has exceeded the rate of inflation for years and the problem of underperforming schools doesn't go away.
Money in and of itself cannot solve problems. It's a tool, but you have to have a will before you find a way. I believe one of the failings of modern liberalism is the destruction of personal responsibility. You can train people, give them subsidized housing, food assistance, transportation, child care, etc. but if they don't want to work or if they don't want to improve, then they cannot escape poverty. Government can only do so much and I think it is currently trying to do too much. Why is this a problem? Because a unsuccessful government that does too much is taxing and spending the income of productive citizens. People who find success through their own efforts are not the problem, contrary to what modern liberals seem to think.
Indeed, I have spilt more words than I originally planned, but it just flowed and since I wasn't writing in anger, I didn't stop.
One question, though: are you a student? I just know, from experience, that college students tend to embrace modern liberalism and active government either from idealism or naivete. A few of my friends now tell me that they've given up their old hard-line Democratic positions after they graduated, got a job, married, had kids and bought a house. They didn't realize how expensive big government is and concede that economic conservatism isn't the big bad nasty after all.
If all Libertarians were like you, and don't vote stricting to party lines, I would seriously consider it...
Facebook
Twitter