Libertarians

[Guest KingOfMen]

Last night I decided to do some research on the Libertarian Party.  I've always been under the impression that libertarians were for limiting government and expanding personal freedom, two things I think we sorely need in this country.  The problem I found though was that libertarians subscribe this sort of fundamentalism.  

 Everything except for police and army should be privitized.  Basically the notion of eminant domain is out the window.  If you own the land which a road is on, you can charge whatever toll you would like.  If you don't like your jerk neighbor, he can't drive on your road.  In the party platform they actually call for the privitization of money.  Isn't that why we wrote the Constitution?  

 Other things that disturbed me.  The abolition of the FDA.  So we should just trust big business not to poison us and if they do, hey, buyer beware.  No social welfare of any kind.  If you're paralyzed from the neck down, too bad. If Stepen J. Hawkin can make something of himself, so can you!  You can see where I'm going here all the way down the line.

 I like alot of libertarian ideas.  The problem is, as I see it, is that libertarians seem to be for this fundamental utopian society, not for what makes sense.  Fundamentalism in government just doesn't work.  

 If you're a libertarian reading this please tell me why I'm wrong.  I don't claim to be some kind of authority, this is just stuff I read on the LP party webpage and links from it.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Yeah, those are my problems with the Libertarian party as well.  It's seems as if their platform is entirely theoretical without paying any attention to the practical effects of things.  But I would distinguish between being a member of the Libertarian party and someone who considers themself a libertarian in the abstract sense(which for the most part I consider myself), meaning someone who favors free markets and as much economic efficiency as would be socially just, as well as someone who places a high value on personal liberty, autonomy, and privacy without government interference.

What I think distinguishes the Libertarian party from libertarians generally is the Libertarian Party's normative conclusion that economic efficiency trumps everything regardless of how people are affected. This basically means very low taxes, no social services, or wealth redistribution whatsoever, and basically the only thing government would do is protect individual property rights with a police force and army.  Frankly, That's a crazier notion than even some of the most conservative Republicans are willing to espouse.  And that's also why the Libertarian party has been unable to gather much support in elections.

[Guest KingOfMen]

That's the way I see it too.  Fundamentalism over practicality just doesn't work, because, well, it's not practical.

[Guest snuffbox]

You aren't wrong. I support the Libertarian party as it is the only part REALLY interested in decreasing government. However the party platform appears to be bordering on anarchy and it is not at all feasible to trust businesses to govern themselves. A Libertarian in high office could however help to decrease govt waste and taxes as well as restore some freedoms to Americans. They do need to realize that there are certain programs that America needs from a government though.

[Guest Brooding Genius]

Regarding individual points

 

Eminent domain: This isn't what you think it is.  This is the government's "right" to claim your property for their own use.  You don't have the right to say "no."

 

Also, according to law, they have to pay you "market value" for the property, but don't go by their appraiser or you'll get robbed blind.  Pay a professional.

 

Basically, the Libertarian party would do away with this, and the government would have to accumulate property the same way that everyone else does.

 

The FDA: This is more over pharmaceuticals than anything else.  The FDA has banned enough prescription medications to write a list a mile long, while ignoring the fact that these medicines could actually HELP people.  They usually justify their blacklisting by claiming the "adverse side effects."

 

Adverse side effects don't affect everyone, and even the simplest cough medicines may cause strange reactions in people.  They should let the doctors and pharmacists do their jobs and decide if a drug is right for a patient.

 

As for the "food" part, in the digital age of rapid-fire news, a company putting out tainted food is going to reap a whirlwind of bad press in no time, and if it doesn't get fixed, they'll be out of business in no time.

 

Welfare: Why should we give people money they didn't earn?  You have a job, right?

 

~Love your country... hate your government~

[Guest KingOfMen]

<<Eminent domain: This isn't what you think it is.  This is the government's "right" to claim your property for their own use.  You don't have the right to say "no."

Also, according to law, they have to pay you "market value" for the property, but don't go by their appraiser or you'll get robbed blind.  Pay a professional.

Basically, the Libertarian party would do away with this, and the government would have to accumulate property the same way that everyone else does.>>

 

Eminant domain is what I think it is.  The government can't just decide that they want your property just to have it and horde it.  It must be used in some way for the common good, usually roads.  The roads you and I drive on every day.  If someone is impedeing the construction of a necessary road there needs to be a way that you and I can get to and from work and he can get his fair share.  That is where eminant domain comes in.  This doesn't even touch on the idea of the privitization of roads which is completely ludicrous.

 

<<The FDA: This is more over pharmaceuticals than anything else.  The FDA has banned enough prescription medications to write a list a mile long, while ignoring the fact that these medicines could actually HELP people.  They usually justify their blacklisting by claiming the "adverse side effects."

Adverse side effects don't affect everyone, and even the simplest cough medicines may cause strange reactions in people.  They should let the doctors and pharmacists do their jobs and decide if a drug is right for a patient.

As for the "food" part, in the digital age of rapid-fire news, a company putting out tainted food is going to reap a whirlwind of bad press in no time, and if it doesn't get fixed, they'll be out of business in no time.>>

 

Are you assuming that every doctor and pharmacist is a responsible person?  We should let doctors perscribe whatever drug, no matter how harmful it may be.  We need a government agency to test drugs to determine what drugs are good and what drugs kill people and ban the ones that kill people.  As for food, it's the FDA that investigates when a bunch of people that ate at Jack-In-the-Box start turning up with E. coli.  Without them those connections may never be made.

 

<<Welfare: Why should we give people money they didn't earn?  You have a job, right?>>

 

The point I made wasn't about able bodied people.  Although I believe that some sort of saftey net should be in place, if for nothing else then for the children that didn't have the choice to be born to deadbeats.  I was talking about people who can't work because of physical or mental ailments. You can't possibly believe that these people should be left in the cold or that charaties are going to provide the support they need?

 

~Democrats want to be your mommy.  Repubicans want to be your daddy.  Libertarians want to kill mommy and daddy so they can stay up late and eat ice cream.~

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Regarding individual points

 

Eminent domain: This isn't what you think it is.  This is the government's "right" to claim your property for their own use.  You don't have the right to say "no."

 

Also, according to law, they have to pay you "market value" for the property, but don't go by their appraiser or you'll get robbed blind.  Pay a professional.

 

Basically, the Libertarian party would do away with this, and the government would have to accumulate property the same way that everyone else does.

 

 

 

And I'm all for that. Heck, I'd love to see the GOP gut the Endangered Species Act so that a government agency cannot basically make your property worthless because some obscure insect resides there.

 

No, they didn't "take" your property, per se, but if they find an "endangered species" on your property, it quickly becomes absolutely valueless.

 

 

 

The FDA: This is more over pharmaceuticals than anything else.  The FDA has banned enough prescription medications to write a list a mile long, while ignoring the fact that these medicines could actually HELP people.  They usually justify their blacklisting by claiming the "adverse side effects."

 

Adverse side effects don't affect everyone, and even the simplest cough medicines may cause strange reactions in people.  They should let the doctors and pharmacists do their jobs and decide if a drug is right for a patient.

 

 

 

Thing is, how do we know doctors and pharmacists WOULD do the right thing?

 

Is it unfathomable to imagine a drug company basically buying doctors and/or pharmacists in the right locales to make sure they make money.

 

And who would actually run the tests to determine if the drugs are actually safe and do what the drug companies assume? Do we just assume that the foreign medical establishment is correct?

 

With things like medicine, erring on the side of caution is the best bet.

 

 

As for the "food" part, in the digital age of rapid-fire news, a company putting out tainted food is going to reap a whirlwind of bad press in no time, and if it doesn't get fixed, they'll be out of business in no time.

 

 

 

Says who?

 

A few people complain about a product and who will take notice?

 

Since it's unlikely that a product will hurt such a massive cross-section of the population to make the press take notice (the media is infamously lazy), it wouldn't get too much bad press.

 

 

 

Welfare: Why should we give people money they didn't earn?  You have a job, right?

 

 

 

Agreed fully, there. Besides, it tends to create a cycle where recipients never got off of welfare.

 

 

~Love your country... hate your government~

 

 

Our government has issues---but certain things are best left to the government. Private industry's top priority is maximizing efficiency and profitability---not exactly a cataylst for protecting people.

                        -=Mike

[Guest DrTom]

I consider myself a philosophical Libertarian: I believe in a small, efficient, less intrusive government, the value of personal liberty, etc.  Having said that, I don't agree with the party stance on everything.

 

"If you own the land which a road is on, you can charge whatever toll you would like.  If you don't like your jerk neighbor, he can't drive on your road."

 

This is just silly.  Besides, aren't most roads owned and maintained by federal or state government.  I guess if you build a private road on your own property, you can bloody well do what you want with it, but this can't apply to 99% of the roads in the country.

 

"In the party platform they actually call for the privitization of money."

 

Well, it's not backed by gold and silver anymore, so it's technically worthless, but that doesn't mean it should be privatized.  Besides, Alan Greenspan doesn't really directly answer to anyone in Washington, so in a respect, money is already privatized.  And yes, I have a problem with that.

 

"The abolition of the FDA.  So we should just trust big business not to poison us and if they do, hey, buyer beware."

 

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but there are areas where it is legitimately necessary.  Pharmaceuticals is one of them.  There HAS to be someone watching the drug companies, testing their products, and making sure what they do is on the up and up.  Remember, the main job of the federal government is to protect its citizens, and that can take a lot of forms besides military force.

 

"No social welfare of any kind."

 

I agree with this to a point.  I don't like the handouts that lead to the breeding of future generations of welfare recipients.  As for the disabled, they're a little different.  Able-bodied people can get off their lazy asses and get a job.  Those who can't basically become wards of the state, and I don't have a problem with it as long as their need is legitimate.

 

"The problem is, as I see it, is that libertarians seem to be for this fundamental utopian society, not for what makes sense."

 

That's a reasonably good way of putting it.  Certainly, not everything the Libertarian Party advocates would work if applied.  I like the basic ideas behind what they're getting at, but the execution is lacking in numerous areas.

[Guest DrTom]

"Basically, the Libertarian party would do away with this, and the government would have to accumulate property the same way that everyone else does."

 

Excellent.  Why shouldn't they acquire land like everyone else.  They can't go around expecting the kind of deals Napoleon gave Jefferson.  They should have to pay fair markey value, as well as half the cost of an independent appraiser.

[Guest DrTom]

"And I'm all for that. Heck, I'd love to see the GOP gut the Endangered Species Act so that a government agency cannot basically make your property worthless because some obscure insect resides there.

 

No, they didn't "take" your property, per se, but if they find an "endangered species" on your property, it quickly becomes absolutely valueless."

 

I couldn't agree more, Mike.  I think the whole idea of "endangered species" is silly and arrogant, anyway.  Species have been dying off for ages; who are we to think we should intrude on the natural order?  I also despise it when the government finds one endangered animal on someone's land, "buys them out" for a meager sum, and acts like nothing's wrong.  The same goes for "protected wetlands."

 

What really pissed me off about the whole endangered species thing was after Hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida in the early 90's.  Rebuilding homes was essential, and there was a forest lined up (I forget where exactly) with plenty of trees to do this.  However, it was discovered that a single spotted owl lived in that forest.  So none of trees could be used, forcing people to wait even longer for their homes to rebuilt and for their lives to get back to normal.  All for a goddamn owl.  Silly and arrogant.

[Guest KingOfMen]

"If you own the land which a road is on, you can charge whatever toll you would like.  If you don't like your jerk neighbor, he can't drive on your road."

This is just silly.  Besides, aren't most roads owned and maintained by federal or state government.  I guess if you build a private road on your own property, you can bloody well do what you want with it, but this can't apply to 99% of the roads in the country.

 

I was being sarcastic.  The privitization of roads is actually in the Libertarian party platform along with the privitization of money.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"And I'm all for that. Heck, I'd love to see the GOP gut the Endangered Species Act so that a government agency cannot basically make your property worthless because some obscure insect resides there.

 

No, they didn't "take" your property, per se, but if they find an "endangered species" on your property, it quickly becomes absolutely valueless."

 

I couldn't agree more, Mike.  I think the whole idea of "endangered species" is silly and arrogant, anyway.  Species have been dying off for ages; who are we to think we should intrude on the natural order?  I also despise it when the government finds one endangered animal on someone's land, "buys them out" for a meager sum, and acts like nothing's wrong.  The same goes for "protected wetlands."

 

What really pissed me off about the whole endangered species thing was after Hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida in the early 90's.  Rebuilding homes was essential, and there was a forest lined up (I forget where exactly) with plenty of trees to do this.  However, it was discovered that a single spotted owl lived in that forest.  So none of trees could be used, forcing people to wait even longer for their homes to rebuilt and for their lives to get back to normal.  All for a goddamn owl.  Silly and arrogant.

 

 

 

 

Heck, just go back to that whole spotted owl nonsense of the early '90's where loggers were forbidden from using "old growth" forests because the owls could only reside there.

 

We later learned that the owls do just fine in "new growth" forests and that the concern was silly.

 

I think the current situation in Oregon in the battle between the farmers and some fish over irrigation is ludicrous and I'm shocked that Bush's administration is not trying to resolve the dispute FOR the farmers.

                     -=Mike

 

...Next topic: The absurdity of government bail-outs for people who happen to live in high-risk areas. Don't people assume SOME risk of flooding when they build their houses near the Mississippi River?

[Guest KingOfMen]

...Next topic: The absurdity of government bail-outs for people who happen to live in high-risk areas. Don't people assume SOME risk of flooding when they build their houses near the Mississippi River?

 

My dad is the editor of the newspaper in the small town I grew up in.  We have a small river that runs through town and would flood out about 50 homes every three years.  The same people every time would sob and ask for FEMA assistance. They acted like it was a tragedy on par with September 11.  If you want to live on a flood plain don't bitch when it floods.  The same with the people in Arizona fighting over water.  Move out of the friggin' desert!  Don't try to compete with mother nature, you'll lose.

[Guest Juvydriver]

"My dad is the editor of the newspaper in the small town I grew up in.  We have a small river that runs through town and would flood out about 50 every three years.  The same people every time would sob and ask for FEMA assistance. They acted like it was a tragedy on par with September 11.  If you want to live on a flood plain don't bitch when it floods."

 

I had a discussion about this with my grandfather.  We were basically of the same opinion.  If you build your house in a flood plain, build it on stilts so you have some protection against something like that.

 

Juvy

[Guest hardyz1]

The same with the people in Arizona fighting over water.  Move out of the friggin' desert!  Don't try to compete with mother nature, you'll lose.

 

This reminds me of something.  There is a small redneck town about 30 miles from me.  A couple years ago they got good running water for the first time in about 20 years.  Before this, their water was pathetic.  The only thing I wondered was, "WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU MOVE?!?!?!"  Damn poor hicks.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

In my unfortunate time living by Penn State University, the only Libertarians were these doped up hippies that marched in the streets demanding free pot. You're not going to win many votes across middle America that way, guys...

[Guest hardyz1]

kkk, do you mean Julian Heicklin?  The pot smoking professor.  What a guy.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"kkk, do you mean Julian Heicklin?  The pot smoking professor.  What a guy."

 

No, but I know who you mean. I'm talking about several political "gatherings" by Libertarian candidates and friends. Was quite a sorry sight, seeing all those hippies that want government health care and 80 percent capital gains tax rates to support a Libertarian politican just because of the pot issue. Shame, really.

[Guest hardyz1]

Last year in high school(my senior year) we had a mock election.  I knew I was going to vote for Harry Browne, but I wanted to convince other people to do so too.  So I just told a bunch of people that he was for legalization of pot.  Got about 10-15 votes that way.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

LOL -- I remember my school's mock '92 election. Our school voted for Perot, which surprised a number of our administrators. On a side note, my one friend told me he voted for Clinton because of his promised middle-class tax cut. A week or so later he was bitching up a storm because Clinton had changed his mind on the matter. Funny stuff.

[Guest DrTom]

Shamefully, my school voted for Clinton in our '92 mock election, though his margin of victory was pretty narrow.  Perot wasn't on the ballot, which ended up selling him short, since he basically cost Bush the election.  The cool thing about our election is that it was preceded by a mock debate, where a leading state Democrat (who later went on to be Lt Governor) and Republican (later a twice-defeated gubernatorial candidate) engaged in a mock debate beforehand.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

What state are from Tom, and what were the pols names? I probably won't know them, but you never know. Our mock debate consisted of some political science group that did a three-way debate in front of the school. You could tell they didn't want to do the event. One guy I knew who was for Mr. Bush said at the end of his uninspired closing argument that Bush won the Gulf War and thus deserved your vote. Christ, he nearly got booed off the stage...

[Guest DrTom]

I'm from Maryland.  The politicians were Kathleen Townsend for the Democrats (who always uses her middle name when it's politically convenient, thus becoming Kathleen *Kennedy* Townsend), who is the current Lt Governor of the state, and Ellen Sauerbrey for the Republicans, a twice-defeated candidate for governor.  She launched a lawsuit over election fraud after this first one, and might have had a legitimate gripe, but the "Sour Grapes" moniker the press tagged her with stuck thru the next election.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"The politicians were Kathleen Townsend for the Democrats (who always uses her middle name when it's politically convenient, thus becoming Kathleen *Kennedy* Townsend), who is the current Lt Governor of the state, and Ellen Sauerbrey for the Republicans, a twice-defeated candidate for governor. "

 

Woah, I remember that whole situation. You're right about Townsend's choice of name.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

I honestly have to ask one particular question.  What about people that do need welfare aid that are able-bodied?  People that work up to four jobs between two parents and still can't make ends meet just to get by?  There's more to social services than welfare fraud and quite frankly, I've seen that this board isn't thinking beyond it.

 

As for privitization of so many government agencies, well, to put it bluntly, bullshit.  Of all the grants that the government runs, they all have certain guidelines such as time spans to complete projects or certain parameters to meet in order to satisfy the qualifications of the grant.  There's a reason that private contractors are motivated to get whatever job it is done.  The construction workers on the highways either building, expanding or maintaining?  They're all privatized employees, not government workers.  And, if they don't finish the job in the set amount of time, the government slaps a lawsuit on their collective ass (breach of contract, which the company isn't going to win.  You sign here to do this and don't do it?  You're screwed)  If you privatize so much of the government, there isn't going to be the motivation to get things done, much less the funding, which is part of Congress's job: to hand out the $$$ for agencies and projects.  Simply put, there is no concievable way that you can tell me that privatizing so much of the government is a good idea.  If you privatize the IRS, what makes you think they'll turn to the money over to the government to be distributed?

[Guest DrTom]

"What about people that do need welfare aid that are able-bodied?  People that work up to four jobs between two parents and still can't make ends meet just to get by."

 

I don't have a problem with anyone who has a clear need for aid receiving it.  Two conditions apply, though: 1. They can't be worthless, lazy bums who just want to bilk the taxpayers out of their money while doing nothing in return, and 2. They can't receive it indefinitely.  In the situation you describe above, the people should also be provided with skills training, so they can have the marketable skills needed to get a better job.  And thus, get off of the government teat sooner rather than later.

[Guest Ghast]

What is the Endangered Species Act? How can that make your property worthless? I glossed over what you guys said but it didn't make sense as to how that works.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Last year in high school(my senior year) we had a mock election.  I knew I was going to vote for Harry Browne, but I wanted to convince other people to do so too.  So I just told a bunch of people that he was for legalization of pot.  Got about 10-15 votes that way.

I live In British Columbia, and We have a Marijuana party, so when it was time for the mock elections for our school, it was mysteriously left off the ballot, but even the commnist party was on it. So long story short I was one of the people that counted the votes, and there was at least 300 write ins for the marijuana party, which won the election! So the school vetoed all the votes for the Marijuana party and said the liberals won!

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Did you call up Jesse Jackson and complain that your school was disenfranchising voters?

[Guest DrTom]

"What is the Endangered Species Act? How can that make your property worthless?"

 

If one of those "endangered" critters turns up on your land, you have a bunch of problems.  You can't really do anything to your property, and the government basically has carte blanche to ensure that the animal(s) are not being harmed.  No potential for improvement and the constant risk of government folks prowling around tend to devalue a property rather quickly.

 

Just another reason why the whole "endangered species" movement is a big, festering crock of poo.