JonasM

Libertarians recognize that you cannot ever compromise basic principles.

Appealing to a special interest would be compromizing a basic principle, the one that says that the individual is the most important unit of society. Special interests can never take precedence over that. At least our Founders recognized that, even if it's been forgotten for the past hundred years or so.

As to being unworkable, there isn't anything in the platform that is unworkable, given a country that values freedom. In a country where the majority favor handouts and controls, then yes, they're unworkable.

JonasM

jedwards

Forgive me for taking such a contradictory point of view but there is simply no justification for at least a couple of your points, and again forgive me but Chile? Are we pointing to Chile as a model for US emulation?


The government SHOULD be out of all aspects of life that do not involve the protection of rights. There is no possible moral justification for intrusion into any other area.

There needn't be 'moral' justification for involvement (intrusion is so perjorative don't you think?). What about lighthouses? What about the mint? What about highways? The involvement of government since the dark ages has been expected in these areas. Why? Not 'moral' justification but rather that they would not have been built had a governing body or 'squire' or some other regional benefactor been involved.

You are quite right that Government should stay out of issues to do with personal choice. Sexual orientation, abortion rights, stem cell research... but aren't those supposedly 'moral' issues? Hell I hope the Government stays the hell *away* from 'moral justification'.


Besides, the Constitution has no allowance for government intrusion into education, health care, welfare, etc. Libertarians are the only group that respects what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

Do you mean to say that the government can only *involve* itself in an area iff (if and only if) it is mentioned and allowed in the Constitution? This seems a preposterous proposition. It's a 14 page document.

I'm feeling I'm going to get a a fundamentalist style response.


The free market has shown itself to be simply the best system for providing any good you can imagine, including health care.

This is simply incorrect. My career is in healthcare and my academic studies were in part in the economics of healthcare. There are several good alternatives to socialized medicine but the systems with the highest care:cost ratios and the lowest morbidity are *all* socialized. If you think the US system is up there with the best this is completely wrong.

Furthermore ANY for profit healthcare system is at the bottom of the list. The very bottom.

I've genuinely tried to be polite... nonetheless my flame retardant suit is on.

JonasM

1) I only brought up Chile as an example of a social security system that beats ours hands-down. I make no claims in other areas. Due to Jose Pinera's help, even Russia & Poland have better systems.

2) All of the systems you mentioned (lighthouses, etc) have private counterparts that work in real life. The fact that government has usually been involved is by itself, no case for continuing it.

3) Yes - please read the Constitution. It is a document of explicitly enumerated powers. In the Bill of Rights, #10 states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Education and health care, for example, are not listed in the enumerated powers. It's very unambiguous. It's just amazing that people aren't aware of this. FDRs stacking of the Supreme Court has a lot to do with killing the 10th Amendment.

4) Socialized health care has been a failure everywhere it has been tried, to the extent that it has been tried. I've never heard of an exception. The ones that are still only half bad are crumbling - Canada only survives because it can offload patients to the US (not to mention that the folks who can afford it, come here in the first place. England has a very high waiting time for even critical care - many die waiting. My brother in law and sister in law are both in the medical field in Australia (MD and dentist, respectively), and based on their stories - I hope I never get seriously ill while in Australia. I suspect you've been taught incorrectly. Remember, most universities are highly liberal - there's little chance of getting the straight story on social issues. Go ask the people who die in hospital hallways after 3 weeks on a gurney waiting to see a doctor. (My aunt in Canada just spent an entire night in the hallway without painkillers because noone would give her even an aspirin until she had seen the doctor. Now that she's been seen, it will be 3 months until the next appointment to find out what actually is wrong with her.) Socialized medicine kills people.

Our system here (partly socialized as it is, it's still a free market system for those who don't need or want the government system) contradicts your claim of quality and cost. In my case, I pay for all of my insurance. I see a doctor within days. I recently had knee surgery - I scheduled it at my convenience. Every single person who saw me worked for profit, and I was taken care of well and at a pretty reasonable cost.

I recall reading somewhere just why the statistics 'look' like we have a higher motality rate in some areas. Don't recall the reason, but it was a statistical 'anomaly' - I'll need to do a search. Besides, if our care was worse, why does everyone come here who can afford it?

I've got no problem discusing this politely - no flame retardant suit neceaary!

JonasM

DiamondDave2005

As an immigrant to the US, I'm shocked at the state of this country. I think much of my impression of the US was formed based on books I'd read as a teenager before coming over here, and the reality was so different.

Yes, it's still a country where you can make it big, but I can't believe the amount of government intrusion into people's lives and businesses.

The Bill of Rights has been tossed out, and the Constitution is on the way.

Every time you file a tax return, your Fifth Amendment rights are violated. Don't believe me? See an interesting court case here: http://www.joeizen.com/troescher2.htm

Lawyers are not allowed (by law) to inform jurors of their rights under the Constitution. See http://www.fija.org/

We have asset forfeiture, thanks to the "War on Drugs", which is even less successful than Prohibition. See http://www.fear.org/

We have no-knock warrants, which have a compelling case from an officer's point of view, but is it worth it when this happens, all too often? http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/Crimin...fm?ID=8786&c=51

I think most Americans are scared of freedom.

Think about the people who settled this country.
Did they come here expecting a good job when they landed?
If they had nowhere to live, did they expect public housing?
If they didn't feel like working and slept in the sun all summer, did the others feel sorry for them and give them food and shelter when winter came?
If they raped/killed/robbed someone, did everyone else feel sorry for them and put them in a nice warm cell with food and cable tv?

The entitlement mentality that America suffers from is a deadly disease. According to government stats, 95% of people are dead, disabled, or broke at age 65. By broke, they mean not able to make it on Social (In)Security.

We're down to number 10 (!!!) on the index of Economic Freedom. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...nAid/bg1781.cfm

It's not good. And as far as I can see, libertarians are the only ones who care. The Republicrats and Demopublicans aren't helping us in the long term, no matter what short-term carrots they dangle in front of us.

JonasM

Thanks for reminding me that the primary case for libertarianism is a moral one. No person is 'entitled' to another person's life or property, no matter how good-hearted-sounding the cause. End of story.

JonasM

mikegarrison

I've seen enough of these threads come and go that I really hesitate to jump into this one. But in a democracy, you usually get the government you deserve.

A very large number of people in the US are quite happy about the status quo. There is no restriction on leaving the US and going somewhere else to find a better life. And yet, people still come here much more than they leave.

I, for one, while being very sympathetic to many Libertarian ideas, will not believe the the strict Libertarian dogma actually results in a workable society until somebody proves it. And it's not going to happen in the US (or any other country that is secure, stable, and relatively happy with its status). Because people don't want to fix what isn't broken (or not broken enough, anyway).

Calling for an interpretation of the Constitution (or any other law) which completely ignores 200+ years of usage and custom just isn't going to fly very far. FDR didn't kill the 10th amendment -- the Civil War did that just fine.

And actually, this country does have a refreshing tendency to keep moving towards more real liberty -- in fits and starts, anyway. For instance, hopefully in 50 years the outcry over gay marriage will seem as silly as the outcry over racial integration does now.

The depressing Puritan streak which resulted in the Prohibition and the War On Drugs seems to be very well rooted, though. Too bad; it's caused a lot of harm over the years.

JonasM

So, if the government starts to ignore a law, and no one calls them on it, after a number of years, it's OK? That's the kind of thinking that is so commonplace, and that scares me. The result is that there's not a single item in the Bill of Rights that is not routinely violated these days.

JonasM

jedwards

I've got no problem discusing this politely - no flame retardant suit neceaary!

Good. That makes this much more fun.

2) All of the systems you mentioned (lighthouses, etc) have private counterparts that work in real life. The fact that government has usually been involved is by itself, no case for continuing it.

Well excepting of course the Mint which is a federal right/responsibility constitutionally (Art1-Sect 8-clause 5) there certainly *are* private counterparts... and some even work. So to are there socially supported systems.

The fact that the government has usually been involved is not a case for ending it. There is no argument here.

3) Yes - please read the Constitution. (snip). In the Bill of Rights, #10 states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I won't quibble with your point. It's a good one. Whether one agrees that the gov't should be involved or not the Constitution says it is a State's (or the people) perogative.

I don't concern myself whether it (education perhaps) is a federal or state responsibility. It is a benefit to me that those around me are better educated. It is for this reason I am happy that the state (or the State or the County) take on this responsibility with my tax dollars.

Indeed I have read the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.


4) Socialized health care has been a failure everywhere it has been tried, to the extent that it has been tried. I've never heard of an exception. The ones that are still only half bad are crumbling - Canada only survives because it can offload patients to the US (not to mention that the folks who can afford it, come here in the first place. England has a very high waiting time for even critical care - many die waiting. My brother in law and sister in law are both in the medical field in Australia (MD and dentist, respectively), and based on their stories - I hope I never get seriously ill while in Australia. I suspect you've been taught incorrectly. Remember, most universities are highly liberal - there's little chance of getting the straight story on social issues. Go ask the people who die in hospital hallways after 3 weeks on a gurney waiting to see a doctor. (My aunt in Canada just spent an entire night in the hallway without painkillers because noone would give her even an aspirin until she had seen the doctor. Now that she's been seen, it will be 3 months until the next appointment to find out what actually is wrong with her.)

You talk about having 'heard' and 'stories'. You even relate some wonderful stories. You then make statement with confidence.

You 'suspect (I've) been taught incorrectly'? I'm astounded. So if I research the heathcare systems of Sweded, the UK, Canada and the US, this doesn't hold up when confronted with stories? I have a greater respect for data and less for anecdotes.

I'm not at all surprised that a Dr and an Dentist are unhappy with socialized medicine. Ball players don't like salary caps. I'm far more concerned with the patient. Doctors are crybabies. BTW... even in socialized systems their incomes are enviable and I'm not hoping to fill the banks of the Doctors... just make it worth their while. Your in laws seem to feel it's worth their while to stay in the system.

I hope you never get seriously sick anywhere. The US is no treat for the seriously sick. Tell me about the costs?... no need. My wife is in the patient accounting department of a US hospital.

Socialized medicine kills people.

Medicine kills people. Private medicine kills people.

The numbers BTW don't look good for private medicine. Not good at all. I'll look them up. (Sorry I don't have them handy.)

Our system here (partly socialized as it is, it's still a free market system for those who don't need or want the government system) contradicts your claim of quality and cost. In my case, I pay for all of my insurance. I see a doctor within days. I recently had knee surgery - I scheduled it at my convenience. Every single person who saw me worked for profit, and I was taken care of well and at a pretty reasonable cost.

I'm very happy about that. I like to be part of a system that works. The private system in the US is *not* shoddy. It just isn't the best.

Your statement about cost is a fine subjective one, but what if it could be done cheaper by socialized medicine. AND at your convenience. This is both the data AND 40 years of my personal experience (I throw that in so you won't think I was taught wrong.)

I don't suggest socialized medicine for the US... I simply am not afraid of it as most Americans are. You have been reading this stuff in the paper. Now I'm comfortable saying that *newspapers and television* have taught the public incorrectly.

Canada only survives because it can offload patients to the US

Another perspective is that it is because of the US system at its doorstep, the Canadian system never had a chance. The system in Canada of the 60's-80's has deteriorated. It is my *view* (I didn't learn this... I simply formed this opinion) that a move toward increasingly conservative gov'ts has eroded the system in favour of cheaper, faster, leaner. This is a failing of the leadership of politicians and business leaders in general (Good book on leadership by values is "Authentic Leadership")

Legal Bill

Oh, sure. Now lets pretend that Liberians and Librarians are two different groups. Com'mon, they're all involved in registration and filing. The Liberians took ships and tankers, the librarians took books and periodicals. In the end its all the same thing; the assignment of a numerical managment system, collection of fees, issuance of cards. Librarians assign books to shelf space and Liberians assign ships to dock space. Hell, I can't tell one from the other and I have a boat and a book.

The Liberians are another example of a special interest group that are needlessly dividing what used to be a United States.

Smokee

Cause I trust the sensibilities of the government more than I do many of my neighbors.

Ya, ya I know. But for day to day living, there are a million, yes a million, instances in which I am glad we have government regulations.